Edward Snowden

[Jake]

What do you all think of Edward Snowden?

1. Did he do the right or wrong thing by leaking information about the NSA surveillance program?

2. Did he do the right or wrong thing by fleeing the country?

3. Is the establishment justified in condemning him as a traitor and a coward?

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I want your unbiased opinions before I share my thoughts.

[Goat]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

Yes, I am. I am pointing out just because the government has it.. doesn't mean the corporations don't.. and they HAVE been known to share it between themselves.

If we are going to have a privacy laws enforced, we have to include restrictions on corporations too.

In other words, you want your "privacy rights" to prevent you from participating in the economy? If I were a "corporation" and you wanted to borrow money from me for a business loan, a mortgage, or even a credit card, I would damsure want some personal information from you about your personal financial history. If yor came to me applying for a job, I would damsure want some personal information about your education, your employment history, your criminal history, etc. You would have a perfect right to withhold that information, of course, and I would have an equal right to tell you to get out of my office.

Do you always twist and misunderstand things, particularly when it comes to politics?

I am just saying a lot of the 'privacy policies' should not be a matter of whim, but a matter of law. AND, when you collect that information, it should be kept WITHIN the country. If a company has information about me, it should not be accessible to some outsourced offshore person.

[Darias]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

Yes, I am. I am pointing out just because the government has it.. doesn't mean the corporations don't.. and they HAVE been known to share it between themselves.

I think it's important to clarify that surrendering data is not "sharing." My point was that the intentional, coerced theft of data from multiple sources is far worse than the voluntary disclosure of private information to individual companies one chooses to do business with.

If we are going to have a privacy laws enforced, we have to include restrictions on corporations too.

I know you are offering this as a solution because you believe that corporations and politicians are both to blame, but the way you framed it makes no sense at all.

What makes you think that laws, constitutional or otherwise, have the ability to restrain the state? Clearly, evidence shows that those in government will violate basic rights whenever they can.

What makes you think that the US in particular, as secretive as it has been with these policies, would suddenly change and be open when the state operates best in secrecy?

Why are you for enforcing privacy laws on corporations via a state that violates privacy? How can the state hold corporations accountable when no person or law can do the same for the state? Why would those in the government who support the NSA or other intelligence gathering organizations ever contemplate laws restricting the ability of a corporation to collect data, when government programs rely on corporations to do the intelligence gathering for them (after you factor in state theft of that data of course)?

What everyone in this thread seems to not realize is that there is nothing that can be done to stop this. The US isn't just going to stop spying on everyone, American or otherwise. They are not going to pass laws that hurt the ability for corporations to collect data on their behalf. They are not going to just suddenly have a strict interpretation of the Patriot Act or a steadfast respect for the 4th amendment.

The reality is grim. The idea that you can petition, vote, beg or fight against the government to change is absurd. Obama's election, if nothing else, should teach us that. The idea that you have to have a Restore the 4th Rally just to get the government to respect plan language rights is a joke. This is what all of us are stuck with. And there is nothing we can do about it but inform people about it. If we are not allowed to have freedom, let's at least acknowledge the reality and stop trying to pretend that the state protects our rights or gives us rights. Let's abandon Orwellian Double Speak like "Patriot Act," etc. and just wake up and know that we are subjects with "temporary privileges" that can be revoked at any time. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm just tired of the religious-like belief that we are free. Thanks to the state, we are not.

[Goat]

In the mean time, even more intrusive and personal information is leaking to international corporation, including personal finance stuff, and people don't give a good gahoot.

Are you also accounting for private information that corporations are forced to surrender to the federal government?

Yes, I am. I am pointing out just because the government has it.. doesn't mean the corporations don't.. and they HAVE been known to share it between themselves.

I think it's important to clarify that surrendering data is not "sharing." My point was that the intentional, coerced theft of data from multiple sources is far worse than the voluntary disclosure of private information to individual companies one chooses to do business with.

If we are going to have a privacy laws enforced, we have to include restrictions on corporations too.

I know you are offering this as a solution because you believe that corporations and politicians are both to blame, but the way you framed it makes no sense at all.

What makes you think that laws, constitutional or otherwise, have the ability to restrain the state? Clearly, evidence shows that those in government will violate basic rights whenever they can.

What makes you think that the US in particular, as secretive as it has been with these policies, would suddenly change and be open when the state operates best in secrecy?

Why are you for enforcing privacy laws on corporations via a state that violates privacy? How can the state hold corporations accountable when no person or law can do the same for the state? Why would those in the government who support the NSA or other intelligence gathering organizations ever contemplate laws restricting the ability of a corporation to collect data, when government programs rely on corporations to do the intelligence gathering for them (after you factor in state theft of that data of course)?

What everyone in this thread seems to not realize is that there is nothing that can be done to stop this. The US isn't just going to stop spying on everyone, American or otherwise. They are not going to pass laws that hurt the ability for corporations to collect data on their behalf. They are not going to just suddenly have a strict interpretation of the Patriot Act or a steadfast respect for the 4th amendment.

The reality is grim. The idea that you can petition, vote, beg or fight against the government to change is absurd. Obama's election, if nothing else, should teach us that. The idea that you have to have a Restore the 4th Rally just to get the government to respect plan language rights is a joke. This is what all of us are stuck with. And there is nothing we can do about it but inform people about it. If we are not allowed to have freedom, let's at least acknowledge the reality and stop trying to pretend that the state protects our rights or gives us rights. Let's abandon Orwellian Double Speak like "Patriot Act," etc. and just wake up and know that we are subjects with "temporary privileges" that can be revoked at any time. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm just tired of the religious-like belief that we are free. Thanks to the state, we are not.

twisting words again. Yes, the government gets data it shouldn't.

Does that mean the corporations are ready, willing and able to abuse the data they have?

You always seem to be willing to give businesses a free pass.

[Darias]

twisting words again. Yes, the government gets data it shouldn't.

I am not twisting words. I am simply trying to stress the fact that words have meaning, and I don't mean to be anal. "Shares" implies voluntary consent; "gets" seems quite passive. The data that state collects is demanded and taken without warrant. I know you know this, but for the sake of avoiding confusion this is important.

Does that mean the corporations are ready, willing and able to abuse the data they have?

You always seem to be willing to give businesses a free pass.

I think the thing that leaves me speechless is the misplaced frustration. You come to a thread discussing a troubling state program, and then talk about a clueless foreign customer service representative, as if this is ample evidence to justify an equal amount of outrage and mistrust for both PRISM and companies. 100%atheist shares your sentiments and takes them even further, placing all his faith in PRISM yet expressing outrage with Facebook's data storage methods -- as if the NSA and Facebook had the same capabilities and legal power of comparable scale.

I do not like Facebook, yet I am a Facebook user probably because of social pressures. I have not left Facebook because I don't want to come across as a jerk to friends and family. If I had to use a social networking site, I'd probably go with Tumblr, despite its large population of neo-feminists, because I have heard it is more private than Facebook anyway. I have many alternatives; and I can always choose to unplug myself altogether. It is probably a mistake on my part to assume I can have any semblance of internet privacy at all, because even if a company is ethical, the state can always take its users' information. But I digress. My point is, any loss of security I have had on the account of Facebook's corporate practices is my own fault, given that I created the account. I signed up. I hit "I Accept."

• As an aside, companies always have the profit incentive to keep their user's data secure. They can get sued if another party steals them (who aren't a part of the government). But given the power of the NSA, no company, big or small is safe.

So, when it comes down to it, even if all corporations and companies acted as unethically and unlawfully as the state, their combined efforts couldn't compare to what the NSA is doing. You can opt out of doing business with businesses -- but if you are a citizen of earth you cannot escape from the watchful eye of PRISM. You didn't sign up for that. You didn't even know about it until Snowden came along.

What you and others have brought to this debate amount to stoning the man with the speck in his eye with the help of the man with the log in his. This is why it's hard for me to take what you guys have offered seriously.

What we have is evidence legitimizing a mistrust of PRISM vs. a weak argument aimed at the market that is rooted in anti-capitalistic paranoia--to the point where that unevidenced fear is greater or equal to the reasonable concerns over PRISM.

Facebook and Twitter cannot do the things to me that the state can. They cannot blackmail me on issues concerning my private life. They cannot arrest me for expressing my political views. They can't even have a single bit of insight into my life unless I disclose that information. They cannot force me to pay for their existence and growth. The state could do all of these things. The state has done those things to people in the past.

You know that I am not a proponent of the current economic system that we have. But I just fail to understand how anyone can focus their outrage on the actions of the player, yet be an apologist for the game at the same time.



[center][/center]

[Goat]

twisting words again. Yes, the government gets data it shouldn't.

I am not twisting words. I am simply trying to stress the fact that words have meaning, and I don't mean to be anal. "Shares" implies voluntary consent; "gets" seems quite passive. The data that state collects is demanded and taken without warrant. I know you know this, but for the sake of avoiding confusion this is important.

Does that mean the corporations are ready, willing and able to abuse the data they have?

You always seem to be willing to give businesses a free pass.

I think the thing that leaves me speechless is the misplaced frustration. You come to a thread discussing a troubling state program, and then talk about a clueless foreign customer service representative, as if this is ample evidence to justify an equal amount of outrage and mistrust for both PRISM and companies. 100%atheist shares your sentiments and takes them even further, placing all his faith in PRISM yet expressing outrage with Facebook's data storage methods -- as if the NSA and Facebook had the same capabilities and legal power of comparable scale.

I do not like Facebook, yet I am a Facebook user probably because of social pressures. I have not left Facebook because I don't want to come across as a jerk to friends and family. If I had to use a social networking site, I'd probably go with Tumblr, despite its large population of neo-feminists, because I have heard it is more private than Facebook anyway. I have many alternatives; and I can always choose to unplug myself altogether. It is probably a mistake on my part to assume I can have any semblance of internet privacy at all, because even if a company is ethical, the state can always take its users' information. But I digress. My point is, any loss of security I have had on the account of Facebook's corporate practices is my own fault, given that I created the account. I signed up. I hit "I Accept."

• As an aside, companies always have the profit incentive to keep their user's data secure. They can get sued if another party steals them (who aren't a part of the government). But given the power of the NSA, no company, big or small is safe.

So, when it comes down to it, even if all corporations and companies acted as unethically and unlawfully as the state, their combined efforts couldn't compare to what the NSA is doing. You can opt out of doing business with businesses -- but if you are a citizen of earth you cannot escape from the watchful eye of PRISM. You didn't sign up for that. You didn't even know about it until Snowden came along.

What you and others have brought to this debate amount to stoning the man with the speck in his eye with the help of the man with the log in his. This is why it's hard for me to take what you guys have offered seriously.

What we have is evidence legitimizing a mistrust of PRISM vs. a weak argument aimed at the market that is rooted in anti-capitalistic paranoia--to the point where that unevidenced fear is greater or equal to the reasonable concerns over PRISM.

Facebook and Twitter cannot do the things to me that the state can. They cannot blackmail me on issues concerning my private life. They cannot arrest me for expressing my political views. They can't even have a single bit of insight into my life unless I disclose that information. They cannot force me to pay for their existence and growth. The state could do all of these things. The state has done those things to people in the past.

You know that I am not a proponent of the current economic system that we have. But I just fail to understand how anyone can focus their outrage on the actions of the player, yet be an apologist for the game at the same time.



[center][/center]

Shrug.. you do push the free market economy, not realizing you are letting the whole 'free market' devolve into Corporatism

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

[mitty]

A military combatant from a foreign country should not be given a civilian trial in the first place.

Then they should be treated as POWs and the matter come under the Geneva Convention and international courts, assuming the Yanks still believe in that, although the cases of recent torture etc by the Yanks plus the crimes-against-humanity committed in Vietnam under the Phoenix program suggests otherwise.

[Darias]

Shrug.. you do push the free market economy, not realizing you are letting the whole 'free market' devolve into Corporatism

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

I agree that corporatism is fascistic. You seem to fail to understand what a corporation is, that it is a product of the state, and not the free market. A corporation can only exist where the state exists and the state has a vested interest in subsidizing corporations that it can benefit from. This is the reality.

Your support of the state is why we have corporations in the first place. Your support of the state accounts for the enormous wealth disparities that result from corporatism. If the state were non-existent, the corporations wouldn't exist either. The protection CEOs have would not exist, and if they brought harm to someone else, they would be forced to pay out of pocket, rather than give themselves raises.

[100%atheist]

The protection CEOs have would not exist, and if they brought harm to someone else, they would be forced to pay out of pocket, rather than give themselves raises.

Darias,

You are more a communist than I thought.

[Darias]

The protection CEOs have would not exist, and if they brought harm to someone else, they would be forced to pay out of pocket, rather than give themselves raises.

Darias,

You are more a communist than I thought.

I'm a voluntaryist, which naturally leads me to anarcho-capitalism. I am not a communist because the typical communist or socialist justifies violence and theft as a means to obtaining a classless society. Your average communist/socialist sees revolution, or the state and socialism as a means to achieving that goal.

As a voluntaryist, I see the initiation of force as immoral. The state is one of the greatest examples of this sort of violence and force. Statism creates poverty and death on a massive scale, comparable to religious belief. As a voluntaryist, I see the reduction of the initiation of force in whatever form it may take as the goal. Classlessness and the elimination of monetary incentive are not my goals, and I believe that both are unrealistic and have stagnating effects on the society that attempts those things. Market anarchy minimizes the income inequality that must always come from corporatism. Market anarchy provides the services that the state currently monopolizes. And anarchy of course allows for socialist groups to voluntarily experiment and fail.

When I say that business owners would forced to pay out of pocket lest their business goes under and they be imprisoned, sued, or become outcast -- I do not mean to imply the state would be doing those things. If my neighbor dumps oil into his yard and it affects the quality of my drinking water, I, along with the rest of the community, can sue him for damages. The same principles would apply in a stateless society.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

I just believe that you don't need theft (taxation) and slavery (government solutions) to get things done. And if society accepted that you don't require coercion, but simply voluntary action, you would see the state become largely obsolete.

[100%atheist]

The protection CEOs have would not exist, and if they brought harm to someone else, they would be forced to pay out of pocket, rather than give themselves raises.

Darias,

You are more a communist than I thought.

I'm a voluntaryist, which naturally leads me to anarcho-capitalism. I am not a communist because the typical communist or socialist justifies violence and theft as a means to obtaining a classless society. Your average communist/socialist sees revolution, or the state and socialism as a means to achieving that goal.

As a voluntaryist, I see the initiation of force as immoral. The state is one of the greatest examples of this sort of violence and force.

Darias,

Even if you know "1984", you, perhaps, misunderstand what totalitarian dictatorship or communism is.

"Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

This love is the one TRUE love. The true love can't be enforced. People in Russia truly love Putin. People in North Korea Truly love Kin Jon-un.

Statism creates poverty and death on a massive scale, comparable to religious belief.

Statism? You don't understand history then. Have you ever heard of Lev Gumelev's theory of ethnogenesis? I understand that you just want to pretend to be smart. It is okay. You are smart. Enjoy it. [just saying cause it is against the rules of this forum to say anyone is not so smart, ... right?]

As a voluntaryist, I see the reduction of the initiation of force in whatever form it may take as the goal. Classlessness and the elimination of monetary incentive are not my goals, and I believe that both are unrealistic and have stagnating effects on the society that attempts those things.

But you believe that corporations are bad, don't you? Would you try to paint a picture of the world without corporations and without GOVERNMENT?

Market anarchy minimizes the income inequality that must always come from corporatism. Market anarchy provides the services that the state currently monopolizes.

The first service that anarchy provides will be krysha (cover), aka racket.

And anarchy of course allows for socialist groups to voluntarily experiment and fail.

Anarchy does not provide a field for voluntarism. The only field it provides is that for the field of opportunism. You need a social contract (AKA GOVERNMENT) in order to have voluntarism.

I haven't heard of voluntarism existing in societies with a weak governments. Would you provide examples?

When I say that business owners would forced to pay out of pocket lest their business goes under and they be imprisoned, sued, or become outcast -- I do not mean to imply the state would be doing those things. If my neighbor dumps oil into his yard and it affects the quality of my drinking water, I, along with the rest of the community, can sue him for damages. The same principles would apply in a stateless society.

There is NO common principle by which you can sue in a stateless society. You seem to be a typical delusional American boy. For a simple case study, how about all your neighbors put dirt in your backyard? Who would you make a party with to sue them?

I just believe that you don't need theft (taxation)

taxation is not theft, and your personal opinion does not really count here, sorry.

and slavery (government solutions)

slavery? are you okay? You don't seem to have a clue of what slavery is. In the US, what you say should be a racially offensive statement, but in the rest of the world it is just a typical [white] american unintelligent pseudo-political gibberish.

to get things done. And if society accepted that you don't require coercion, but simply voluntary action, you would see the state become largely obsolete.

.... uh?

Darias, I see you write here a lot. Is it because your writings are not accepted anywhere else but at this forum? If so, what does it tell us about you? About this forum? Otseng?