On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/14/2015 7:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2015 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:14 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/10/2015 12:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/10/2015 2:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/9/2015 3:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* meekerdb <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
