Philosophical Vegan Forum

Given that this is an old topic, over the holidays I took a 2 day trip back to New York. While I was there I decided to see a move called Citizenfour basically a documentary on the whole Edward Snowden incident. While it being a very spectacular movie it does raise some barring questions.

Are we really ok with the US and other allied governments spying on us?

It's already been shown that these programs do not work and haven't stopped a single terrorist attack. If this is the case, and the three branches of the government recognize this then why allow this programs to continue going on?

The recent terror attacks in France and more importantly 9/11 have/are subsequently being used to justify these programs. Since it's been over a year since Edward Snowden leaked this information when are the American people and others going to fight against this tyranny?

People shouldn't have to give up their privacy in order to have security. And for those people who say "Well, I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't really care." this is a more pressing matter than you think it is. The government has already admitted to collecting metadata, which, can basically be explained as, knowing who you've called, when you've called them, and where you've done so. This information was know before the Snowden leaks.

However with these recent leaks we also know that the government is now intercepting our internet usage and collecting this information from major companies such as Google and Yahoo. This now means that the government now knows, what websites you've searched and when you've searched them. This is a major invasion of privacy. Putting the dots together, your whole life can be planned out with this data, essentially the government most likely knows what you're going to do on the internet before you do it, which is a bit scary.

While, like I've said before, this is old information, most people don't realize the seriousness of this. I encourage you to read more about this, and search for this leaked documents as more and more new documents are being released periodically.

However with these recent leaks we also know that the government is now intercepting our internet usage and collecting this information from major companies such as Google and Yahoo. This now means that the government now knows, what websites you've searched and when you've searched them. This is a major invasion of privacy. Putting the dots together, your whole life can be planned out with this data, essentially the government most likely knows what you're going to do on the internet before you do it, which is a bit scary.

This too? I thought CISPA didn't pass?
But the government just decided to go along as if it were law anyway? How lovely.

No more 4chan for me!
Just kidding. I'll still be using 4chan regardless.
Just kidding, again.

The situation is really bad, I agree. I don't think anything is going to be done about it though, at least not until Obama is out of office.

Have you seen this sh*t?
2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQvKQGzcoc
After leak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9KocT_6yE

EquALLity wrote: This too? I thought CISPA didn't pass?
But the government just decided to go along as if it were law anyway? How lovely.

No more 4chan for me!
Just kidding. I'll still be using 4chan regardless.
Just kidding, again.

The situation is really bad, I agree. I don't think anything is going to be done about it though, at least not until Obama is out of office.

Have you seen this sh*t?
2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQvKQGzcoc
After leak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9KocT_6yE

Yes, this still goes on. Read more about PRISM here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28 ... program%29

I'm definitely in the 'Snowden is a hero'-camp. The way in which governments are collecting data is absolutely disgusting. Nobody is against tracking suspects, but now every citizen is treated like a potential criminal. I don't have to give up my privacy for sake of catching criminals—they should not have the right to do so. Governments are misusing the system they've build, and (most?) methods of doing things have not yet been demonstrated to be effective.

It's sad that the internet is not as free as we thought it was. Governments see it as a great device for gathering information about citizens, just because it's possible to do so. Nobody wants this to happen to the letters (or phone calls) they receive, but somehow people have been manipulated to think that it's okay on the internet.

After the attack on Charlie Hebdo, lots of people suddenly seem to have no trouble giving away their freedoms. Radical Islam wants to take away our freedom and we are protesting on a pretty huge scale about it, and in the next instant we are giving away our freedoms ourselves...

Despite the conflicts between him and Sam Harris, I think Glenn Greenwald is absolutely right on the subject of mass surveillance and privacy concerns. And he's great at expressing his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

Volenta wrote: Despite the conflicts between him and Sam Harris, I think Glenn Greenwald is absolutely right on the subject of mass surveillance and privacy concerns. And he's great at expressing his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

I agree.

On a some what unrelated note the NSA says "Happy Data Privacy Day"
http://www.ibtimes.com/happy-data-priva ... es-1797724

Volenta wrote:Glenn Greenwald is absolutely right on the subject of mass surveillance and privacy concerns. And he's great at expressing his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

I watched the video.

Glen Greenwald is making a false equivocation.

Would you let Glen stick a couple of his fingers in your ass if he asked? Probably not. And yet, you might let a doctor you met two minutes ago do that.

The NSA is not my next door neighbor, and they're not the sum total of assholes on 4chan either. Our value of privacy is contextual, and it's based on how something might come back to us -- we become embarrassed most when we think somebody who knows us might find out something about us. We also understand that when we keep and even share certain secrets; for example, we might be much more open about our personal and romantic lives with somebody we met on the airplane and will never see again than with a colleague.

I wouldn't give Glen my e-mail passwords first because I have confidential correspondents (whose privacy I am obligated to protect) and other things he would need to sign an NDA to see, but secondly (if I didn't and was free to share that information) for the same reason I wouldn't let him stick his fingers in my ass, and for the same reason I'll tell the stranger on the plane things I wouldn't discuss with a secretary at work. These things are different.

All this nonsense about behavioral modification and conformity (oh no!) in society because people might be watched is completely false for a number of reasons; from that fact that people don't think about it and normalize to the situation when that observation is consistent (Theists, as adults at least, don't behave differently overall: and that's with a being that's distinctly judgmental of them, UNLESS they're primed immediately before hand -- something which atheists also respond to. You have to remind people they're being watched AND judged to get that effect); to the impersonal nature of the surveillance (which is non-judgmental, the primary thing people actually worry about, not mere observation, most of which is done by automated computer programs); to the low statistical odds of it (which people by consequence ignore); to the same personal biases and dissonance that let people smoke with the little voice in their head assuring them they'll be one of the few lucky ones who doesn't get lung cancer, heart disease, or stroke despite the overwhelming odds (even if they were overwhelming).

No, most people really don't care unless they're terrorists or conspiracy nuts, and no, society won't change into some horrible conformist dystopia because it's being watched.

Here's a bit of Irony, though (note the proper use of the term ): The invasion of privacy doesn't bother people unless you remind them of it, and that's exactly what fearmongers like Greenwald are doing. By giving these talks, ostensibly to fight the power he sees as creating this imagined chilling effect, he's causing the real chilling effect he set out to stop.

Glen Greenwald wrote:To allow a society to exist in constant monitoring, is to allow the essence of human freedom to be severely crippled.

Only if you constantly remind them about it, Glen. Good job on that.

Greenwald either doesn't understand the issue properly, or he's being deliberately deceptive for the sake of rhetoric.

There are much more important things to worry about. Giving the government the right to spy on people gives it a lot of power, of course. I'm more worried about how the government uses its power. Thankfully on this topic, knowledge is one of those things that increases wisdom and power hand-in-hand, so it kind of tempers itself. If this massive spy network helps save a few civilians from ending up as collateral damage in the middle East, it may be worth it. Of course we're mismanaging the whole thing, but at least maybe we can do so slightly less clumsily.

Volenta wrote:Governments are misusing the system they've build, and (most?) methods of doing things have not yet been demonstrated to be effective.

Neptual wrote:It's already been shown that these programs do not work and haven't stopped a single terrorist attack.

We don't actually know that. And that's not something you can just "show" (nobody knows what would have become a terrorist attack).
Government does not act blindly; they have internal data on methods. And while largely incompetent and slow to change, government does learn and improve its methods.

Details on this kind of thing would still be classified. So, this may be one of those things we just need to wait for a couple decades to find out, unfortunately. This is where we really just have to realize that we don't know, and the people who are in charge of intelligence departments probably have a better perspective than we do, and put a little trust in our meritocratic institutions, because they certainly wouldn't work if they were transparent (unlike science, which works best when transparent). We can't try to treat everything the same.

Effectiveness does matter. There is a cost-benefit analysis that has to be done. But when it comes at trivial cost (Greenwald did not make his case effectively in demonstrating any significant harm to this kind of privacy invasion), if it even saves a couple civilian lives a decade, it may be worth it.
I'm more worried about the expense of these programs, but if we're looking at government waste, this is nothing in comparison to the pork barrel spending in other bills.

Volenta wrote:I don't have to give up my privacy for sake of catching criminals—they should not have the right to do so.

Unlawful spying? They do not have the right to do that.

When it's lawful, they have every right, by definition. We're talking about democratically elected governments passing laws the population overwhelmingly approves of. They should have the right, because people decided to give it to them, and that's exactly how government should work (at least, until we come up with a better system; democracy is all we have).

Volenta wrote:Radical Islam wants to take away our freedom and we are protesting on a pretty huge scale about it, and in the next instant we are giving away our freedoms ourselves...

...These things are not the same. Not even a little bit. This isn't anything more than popular rhetoric.

Freedom is power, and yes, we are each giving away a tiny piece of freedom to the goverment, which is giving it a lot more power; hopefully to fight the threat of terrorism. It's like when Goku makes a spirit bomb to protect the Earth.
This is not good for the terrorists. They're not winning; this is not what they were after. They want to force Islamic law on us. Sure, they'd like to spy on us too, but to make sure we're praying. Terrorists would also like to tax us, and to issue drivers licenses, and regulate aviation and commerce; lots of other freedoms that we also give to the government that don't make us just like the terrorists.

The whole government spying thing is silly to get worked up over. It's a waste of liberal time like the campaign to ban abortions is a waste of conservative time.

EquALLity wrote: I don't think anything is going to be done about it though, at least not until Obama is out of office.

It doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Both parties support spying on the population. And if somebody gets elected who doesn't (unlikely), they'll get one security brief after obtaining security clearance, and then they'll support spying too.
Obama is a hippie compared to other people who could be in office now. The liberals who hate Obama mostly hate him or disappointing them, because he was such a flower child.
Politicians are not born, they are made. Circumstances being as they are shape people into what they need to be to get the jobs they were elected into done.

Nothing is going to be done about it, really at all. It's a lost cause (if it was even worth fighting for in the first place). I think we need to focus on more pressing concerns; things we can really change.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Neptual wrote:It's already been shown that these programs do not work and haven't stopped a single terrorist attack.

We don't actually know that. And that's not something you can just "show" (nobody knows what would have become a terrorist attack).
Government does not act blindly; they have internal data on methods. And while largely incompetent and slow to change, government does learn and improve its methods.

Details on this kind of thing would still be classified. So, this may be one of those things we just need to wait for a couple decades to find out, unfortunately. This is where we really just have to realize that we don't know, and the people who are in charge of intelligence departments probably have a better perspective than we do, and put a little trust in our meritocratic institutions, because they certainly wouldn't work if they were transparent (unlike science, which works best when transparent). We can't try to treat everything the same.

Actually we do know this and it is something we can show.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/youll- ... has-foiled

Both parties support spying on the population.

I was thinking something like this, but what about third parties? What about the libertarians? I think Ron Paul would have a hard time getting behind this, but I haven't looked into it (of course, he isn't running again).

Oh, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9gqIPJgN_E

Rand Paul: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 75821.html

It's too bad Ron sucks for other reasons, though.

Rand appears to be one of those strict Constitutionists, who defend the Constitution just because it's the Constitution (like Ron). Sigh.

And if somebody gets elected who doesn't (unlikely), they'll get one security brief after obtaining security clearance, and then they'll support spying too.

Maybe, but how do you know this?

I agree with Brimstone's position. However, I would have liked the US government to be more open about it. It's something we should have learned directly from them and not from Snowdon.

Jebus wrote:However, I would have liked the US government to be more open about it. It's something we should have learned directly from them and not from Snowdon.

Yes, that would have been smart of them from a PR standpoint. Hiding things like that usually just serves to make people think you're up to no good. At the same time, how much clumsier would terrorists be today if they still didn't know? It's a hard call to make.

EquALLity wrote: I was thinking something like this, but what about third parties?

Third parties are not very politically relevant, particularly at the federal level.

EquALLity wrote: It's too bad Ron sucks for other reasons, though.

That tends to be the way of things. If you're not appealing to one special interest, you're appealing to another.

EquALLity wrote:

And if somebody gets elected who doesn't (unlikely), they'll get one security brief after obtaining security clearance, and then they'll support spying too.

Maybe, but how do you know this?

You have to understand that support on this subject is pretty much unanimous. Snowden was an odd duck to go against the tide here. And that's not just military conformity, or a huge number of people conspiring to read your e-mails for jollies; these are people who, in spite of their flaws, really do want the best for their country, their families, and allies. We're talking about mostly rational and intelligent people who have good intentions, and who have more information than we do and who are making judgment calls in light of that information, and all coming to pretty much the same conclusions.

The only way it's not the information they have that leads them to those conclusions is if they're secretly all evil and part of some huge conspiracy -- not a reasonable doubt to have -- or if their incompetence is so extreme as to make us, even lacking that information, better judges of all of it.

I'm very unusual in the sense that I'm one of the few people who doesn't think I can do politicians jobs better than they do from the passenger seat.

Neptual wrote: Actually we do know this and it is something we can show.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/youll- ... has-foiled

That article has quite a slant to it. Forgive me if I question Bill Maher's journalistic ethics.

Is has "no discernible impact", because those things can not really be easily discerned. As I said, a large amount of this information is classified and we don't know what would have or could have happened. Good luck even counting the "terrorist attacks" that law enforcement has prevented.

Initiating investigations is about the closest they can come:



See that giant purple slice? That's what we don't know. A lot of that would probably be illegal information gathering techniques, or other non-publicized tactics. That could be almost entirely NSA surveillance for all we know.

So far, the only real value in collecting and monitoring billions of US phone records has been to provide extra support in investigations already underway by the FBI or another agency, or to verify that a rumored threat isn't real (the "peace of mind" metric), the report found.

That's substantially valuable. Quickly and easily eliminating suspects is not "peace of mind"; it saves massive amounts of resources.
That alone would be enough argument to keep the program going.

And yes, that does prevent terrorist attacks. If an agent isn't busy following up on every nosy neighbor's reports, he or she can do something much more valuable like catch real bad guys.

Bill Maher doesn't seem to understand that government resources, and the resources of terror groups, are inherently fungible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

Saving agency time in one area allows devotion of that time in another area. It's not like the guy who investigates the reports of nosy neighbors is now playing angry birds instead; he's reassigned where he's needed.

And that charge, against San Diego cab driver Basaaly ­Moalin, was for sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. There was no threat of an actual attack.

That's bullshit. It wouldn't be a terrorist group if they didn't hurt people or advocate it. It is meaningful to interfere with terrorist "events" and "activities", even if they aren't that glamorous.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Moalin was giving the terrorists money to buy groceries; he was supporting their terrorist activities. If they bought groceries with it this time, that is only to have more money to buy guns or explosives elsewhere.

The NSA stopped this guy from sending this group potentially substantial sums of money (particularly in Somalia).
Maher has no idea what that means, or how many lives that saved -- none of us do. But apparently saving the lives of Somalians isn't important, so never mind that.

The West is substantially sheltered from terrorism; even if all we do is stop a cab driver from sending ten thousand dollars to a Somalian group who print pamphlets propagandizing radical Islam, that's meaningful.

These butterflies flap their wings and cause hurricanes; you can't always connect the dots in this chaotic world, because causation is rarely so linear.