On the other hand, after Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. After PRISM, Obama does not give a sh*t. :/ Not that it would change anything, but it would be a nice gesture.
On 28.7.2013 16:56, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Just as a counterpoint to this article, > > We also know about the NSA spying because of the global freedom of the > Internet. > > For the first time I can remember people are not buying what the > establishment press is saying in protecting the national security state. The > amount of people who are against NSA surveillance has increased dramatically > and this has happened in a couple of months. > > For the first time I can remember the establishment press has not been able > to demonize a person they desperately wanted to demonize. The majority of > people in the United State see Snowden as a whistle-blower and not as a > traitor. > > After decades in which the U.S. population has swallowed the national > security state and neo-liberal experiments whole - where J. Edgar Hoover was > able to keep secret files on people - where we conducted secret wars all over > the world - these are really good things. I think it would have been much > harder to take the U.S. to war in Iraq today because of the Internet. > > Maybe that should be the story. > > We are entering a new era where there is much more information - the > established governments will try and control it while individuals will have > incredible new tools in disseminating it. For God sakes Julian Assange is > going to run for the Senate in Australia from the embassy he is staying in. > Maybe Snowden with run for the House of representatives. > > Instead of renting our clothes and gnashing our teeth about the dangers of > the Internet - and I am not saying we should not acknowledge it and integrate > it into who we become as our societies change very rapidly - maybe we should > be trying to figure out how to use this extraordinary new freedom to know and > understand to the advantage of democracy. > > Michael > > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] on behalf of Eugen Leitl > [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:35 AM > To: Liberation Technologies; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [liberationtech] <nettime> John Naughton: Edward Snowden's not the > story. The fate of the > > ----- Forwarded message from Patrice Riemens <[email protected]> ----- > > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:47:11 +0200 > From: Patrice Riemens <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: <nettime> John Naughton: Edward Snowden's not the story. The fate of > the > Reply-To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <[email protected]> > > original to: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet > > > Edward Snowden's not the story. The fate of the internet is > John Naughton > The Observer, Sunday 28 July 2013 > > The press has lost the plot over the Snowden revelations. The fact is that > the net is finished as a global network and that US firms' cloud services > cannot be trusted > > > Repeat after me: Edward Snowden is not the story. The story is what he has > revealed about the hidden wiring of our networked world. This insight > seems to have escaped most of the world's mainstream media, for reasons > that escape me but would not have surprised Evelyn Waugh, whose contempt > for journalists was one of his few endearing characteristics. The obvious > explanations are: incorrigible ignorance; the imperative to personalise > stories; or gullibility in swallowing US government spin, which brands > Snowden as a spy rather than a whistleblower. > > In a way, it doesn't matter why the media lost the scent. What matters is > that they did. So as a public service, let us summarise what Snowden has > achieved thus far. > > Without him, we would not know how the National Security Agency (NSA) had > been able to access the emails, Facebook accounts and videos of citizens > across the world; or how it had secretly acquired the phone records of > millions of Americans; or how, through a secret court, it has been able to > bend nine US internet companies to its demands for access to their users' > data. > > Similarly, without Snowden, we would not be debating whether the US > government should have turned surveillance into a huge, privatised > business, offering data-mining contracts to private contractors such as > Booz Allen Hamilton and, in the process, high-level security clearance to > thousands of people who shouldn't have it. Nor would there be -- finally -- > a serious debate between Europe (excluding the UK, which in these matters > is just an overseas franchise of the US) and the United States about where > the proper balance between freedom and security lies. > > These are pretty significant outcomes and they're just the first-order > consequences of Snowden's activities. As far as most of our mass media are > concerned, though, they have gone largely unremarked. Instead, we have > been fed a constant stream of journalistic pap -- speculation about > Snowden's travel plans, asylum requests, state of mind, physical > appearance, etc. The "human interest" angle has trumped the real story, > which is what the NSA revelations tell us about how our networked world > actually works and the direction in which it is heading. > > As an antidote, here are some of the things we should be thinking about as > a result of what we have learned so far. > > The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are > numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be > Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or > jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran > and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their > citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty. > > Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become _very_ > contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have > been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the > idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has > become untenable. > > Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration's > "internet freedom agenda" has been exposed as patronising cant. "Today," > he writes, "the rhetoric of the 'internet freedom agenda' looks as > trustworthy as George Bush's 'freedom agenda' after Abu Ghraib." > > That's all at nation-state level. But the Snowden revelations also have > implications for you and me. > > They tell us, for example, that no US-based internet company can be > trusted to protect our privacy or data. The fact is that Google, Facebook, > Yahoo, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are all integral components of the US > cyber-surveillance system. Nothing, but nothing, that is stored in their > "cloud" services can be guaranteed to be safe from surveillance or from > illicit downloading by employees of the consultancies employed by the NSA. > That means that if you're thinking of outsourcing your troublesome IT > operations to, say, Google or Microsoft, then think again. > > And if you think that that sounds like the paranoid fantasising of a > newspaper columnist, then consider what Neelie Kroes, vice-president of > the European Commission, had to say on the matter recently. "If businesses > or governments think they might be spied on," she said, "they will have > less reason to trust the cloud, and it will be cloud providers who > ultimately miss out. Why would you pay someone else to hold your > commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared > against your wishes? Front or back door -- it doesn't matter -- any smart > person doesn't want the information shared at all. Customers will act > rationally and providers will miss out on a great opportunity." > > Spot on. So when your chief information officer proposes to use the Amazon > or Google cloud as a data-store for your company's confidential documents, > tell him where to file the proposal. In the shredder. > > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org > AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5 > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
