On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/14/2015 7:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2015 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:14 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 1/10/2015 12:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/10/2015 2:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/9/2015 3:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 2:45 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: Democracy >>>>> >>>>> On 1/9/2015 1:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 12:25 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: Democracy >>>>> >>>>> On 1/9/2015 4:55 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Money becomes coercive under statism, because it becomes illegal to >>>>> use alternative currencies, operate outside of the banking and taxation >>>>> system and so on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>Banks used to issue their own script and in principle anyone could >>>>> do it. The trouble with anarcho-capitalism is that there's nothing to >>>>> prevent a group from organizing, forming a "government", raising an army a >>>>> conquering people around them. In fact that's exactly the arc of history. >>>>> If you want anarchy you can go to Syria or Somalia right now. >>>>> >>>>> What you describe is not the political philosophy of anarchy; what >>>>> you describe is life under warlords, and the susceptibility of anarchy to >>>>> such organized groups of thugs. >>>>> >>>>> Functioning anarchy would require a level of individual ethics that >>>>> does not yet exist (or at least is not widespread). Anarchy is vulnerable >>>>> to being destroyed by thuggery and mayhem; no doubt about that; however it >>>>> should not be confused with that heartless outcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>Every form of government will work well with perfect people. >>>>> >>>>> That is side-stepping the point that some forms of social >>>>> organization require a much higher degree of civic involvement than others >>>>> do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, and anarchy that functions as well as constitutionally >>>>> limited democracy would require angels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This overestimates the importance of things written in a piece of >>>> paper and underestimates the importance of social norms, culture and >>>> education. >>>> >>>> The reason why I don't go and loot my neighbours is not because a >>>> piece of paper says I can't, or even because I am afraid of the police. >>>> Remove this too things and I still wouldn't do it. I suspect everyone >>>> participating in this discussion is the same. Why? >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the Weimar constitution was powerless to stop the >>>> nazis, and the American constitution appears powerless to stop the NSA. >>>> >>>> >>>> And I think you underestimate it. It is something any citizen can >>>> point to as a norm. Notice that everyone who complains about the NSA's >>>> invasion of privacy cites the Constitution as evidence their complaint is >>>> justified. >>>> >>> >>> That is true, but it's far from the only argument. Now my question is: >>> do you figure that people think that invasion of privacy without a warrant >>> is wrong think that because of what the constitution says, or do you figure >>> invasion of privacy offends their sense of morality and then they look for >>> arguments to justify their position and find the constitution? >>> >>> >>> That's a good question, and the answer supports my point. When you >>> poll people and ask if they think it's right to wiretap people suspected of >>> plotting crimes the majority say yes. So in a way the Constitution informs >>> and bolsters people's understanding of the importance of freedom from >>> government surveillance. If they were just morally offended by >>> surveillance then they would be equally exercised about AT&T, Google, >>> Time-Warner, Verizon, and a dozen other corporate organizations that spy on >>> them. But because they know the Constitution forbids the government from >>> doing it they are much MORE offended when the government does it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Without it they would have to give a long argument based the prior >>>> abuses that the founding fathers used to to support the right to privacy. >>>> >>> >>> This would be a good argument had the Constitution actually succeeded >>> in preventing total surveillance from the government on its own people. But >>> it didn't. >>> >>> >>> But it did. The NSA is only allowed to track who-calls-who, not what >>> is said. >>> >> >> Unfortunately, after Snowden we know better. >> >> >> No, we don't. First, while I approve of Snowden I don't think he >> *knows* everything attributed to him. >> >> >> One of the important tricks here is how they interpret the word >> "track". A secret court(!!!) decided that storing data is not tracking if >> no human is looking at it. So they can record your phone calls and the >> content of your internet communications and then, if they get a court >> order, they can go look at it. >> >> >> And that is wrong how? >> > > The attitude of governments can change in unpredictable ways in the > future. It's acknowledged that laws can have a "chilling effect" on free > speech, but how strong would that chilling effect be if it's based on the > unknown future of what future laws may come? If my conversations now are > stored indefinitely, how can I be sure I won't be persecuted for my speech > 30 - 40 years from now? > > > NSA is only authorized to keep domestic communication data 5yr. > Well that's a relief! > But this is mostly just metadata. It is obviously appropriate to keep > data for some period. Discussions of an airline flight that seem innocent > may become important evidence weeks later when that flight is bombed. > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" > Not to mention, if you watch someone for long enough, or have enough > data concerning someone's life to pour over, you're almost certain to find > something you can charge them with. See > http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx > > How many unknown felonies have you committed just today? (Don't answer > that!) > > > I guess that would the ones I don't know about, so I can readily answer, > "I don't know." > > > > >> >> But they don't really need to bother about these warrants. The neat >> "five eyes" system allows the participants to spy on behalf of each other, >> circumventing these privacy protections. >> >> The NSA sent divers to place physical optical splitters on submarine >> cables. It stores all the data in gigantic datacenters and has algorithms >> comb through it. >> >> >> A slightly paranoid idea. It's much easier for them to get data other >> ways. >> > > Not paranoid at all. I've heard from many sources, including submariners > that this exact thing is done. Also, are you aware of Bluffdale? > > http://www.wired.com/tag/bluffdale/ > > > >> >> It infiltrated American companies, like Google, to install spying >> software on its servers. It also infiltrated technical committees >> responsible for cryptography standards to introduce backdoors in the >> implementation of cryptographic algorithms. These actions make us all less >> safe. Even open source cryptography projects like TrueCrypt decided to give >> up, because they were infiltrated by the NSA and realised they could do >> nothing against it. >> >> >> What makes you think it makes us less safe. I'd say part of the problem >> is it makes us more safe and people think being safe is more important than >> privacy - and they are right at least in the short run. The problem is the >> long run. >> >> > What leads people to think it's less safe is that governments have > killed far more of their own people (estimates are around 100,000,000 in > the last century) than terrorists ever have (or likely ever will). > > > We're not talking about governments in general. We're talking about the > U.S. government. > That's right, it can't happen here. > So I'm not clear on the relevance of Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural > Revolution, or Stalin's purges. > The people in those countries 20 years before the purges should have seen it coming. > On the other hand I agree that terrorists are only a tiny threat. The > reason that people feel threatened by terrorism is the play that media give > incidents - something pointed out years ago by Scott Atran. He also > pointed out that this coverage serves to recruit more terrorists. > They use made up threats to expand their power and sustain trillions of dollars to be made by those in the MIC. > > > > >> >> These are not the actions of an organisation that respects privacy. >> >> >> Any intelligence agency worth it's salt is going to push to the limit of >> the law. Would you expect, or want anything less? Would you be happy to >> hear, "Yeah, we could have found he was conspiring to blow up that >> building, but we thought we should respect his privacy when talking to Al >> Queda in Syria" Here's a good analysis of the technical aspects of the >> situation: >> >> http://bit-player.org/2006/room-641a >> >> > If our laws, rights, and constitutional protections mean nothing, then > we might as well be living in Syria already. > > > But the NSA is obeying the law - it's just not a law to your (or my) > liking. > Nor to the liking of those who wrote the bill of rights. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
