Privacy and the State

[Richard Barrett]

This argument supports the gun lobby.

No it doesn't.

The argument was about Edward Snowden's actual moral and/or legal position, not about the rights and wrongs of the US constitution (which is, like any such document, imperfect in many ways), as I pointed out earlier today. In any case the gun lobby's constant harking back to the Second Amendment involves a quite eccentric interpretation of it, as has been discussed here at great length.

[Beef Oven]

No it doesn't.

The argument was about Edward Snowden's actual moral and/or legal position, not about the rights and wrongs of the US constitution (which is, like any such document, imperfect in many ways), as I pointed out earlier today. In any case the gun lobby's constant harking back to the Second Amendment involves a quite eccentric interpretation of it, as has been discussed here at great length.

Yes it does.

In the disagreement between various factions, presidents and individuals, the constitution can be referred to in the same way, as a higher authority. The gun lobby have been making that exact argument for donkey's years.

That's part of the reason why the gun lobby has been able to maintain primacy (so far).

There is of course a counter-argument (and maybe that's what you mean) that with guns, the merit of the constitution can be questioned

[Mr Pee]

An article on the BBC news website today shows that although millions of phone and email records were collected- which is istelf entirely legal- the NSA only sought more detailed information about 300 of them, and that one such search led to the foiling of a plot to bomb the New York subway. Which in my view makes the whole scheme worthwhile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22925892

[Thropplenoggin]

An article on the BBC news website today shows that although millions of phone and email records were collected- which is istelf entirely legal- the NSA only sought more detailed information about 300 of them, and that one such search led to the foiling of a plot to bomb the New York subway. Which in my view makes the whole scheme worthwhile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22925892

:laugh:

Why do you inherently believe the government is right about everything it does or would like to do? I can't understand this slavish beholden mindset that doesn't question what is being done on its behalf. Have you never heard of misinformation? Would you object to having every personal letter you ever wrote open and read by a third party? Does the fact that much of this is done by private enterprises not beholden to the same oversight as governments not set of any alarm bells as to how this might be abused? How can the West chide China et al for state surveillance when our governments are employing the same blanket surveillance? Do you ever read anything in contrast to your entrenched views or cherry pick media to support your world view? A truly informed opinion involves reading around the subject, including the contrary stance, not right-wing papers simply reinforcing what you already believe. You seem incapable of doing this. If you did, you might notice that the supposed oversight of this mass surveillance is anything but...and that the supposed laws 'allowing' this have been stretched to the point of meaninglessness.

[Richard Barrett]

Yes it does.

This could run and run. OBVIOUSLY I'm not going to support the gun lobby in the US so why don't you just assume that and try to understand what I've said in that light. Clearly the US constitution (I say this for the third time now) is flawed, as are the constitutions, written or otherwise, of capitalist states in general, as far as I'm concerned. I am emphatically not appealing to that document as a moral guide. The argument (for the second time) was over whether Snowden's act of whistleblowing could be related to a higher legal authority than his obligations to the CIA.

"Fewer than 300" - yes I'm sure we can all believe what this document has to say, the NSA has had a few days to get its story straight and is under enormous pressure to say something that will take the heat off slightly. I prefer to await further developments.

[Richard Barrett]

Which in my view makes the whole scheme worthwhile.

Well that's OK then. Note however that it's a view not shared by an increasing number of members of the US Congress, to name only these.

Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden in a joint statement: ""We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA's dragnet collection of Americans' phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence..." - these two senators are members of the Senate Intelligence Committee which one would think gives them access to a great deal more relevant information than is available to you or me.

And former vice-president Al Gore: "Benjamin Franklin famously wrote that those who would give up essential liberty to try to gain some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (...) It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."

[Beef Oven]

An article on the BBC news website today shows that although millions of phone and email records were collected- which is istelf entirely legal- the NSA only sought more detailed information about 300 of them, and that one such search led to the foiling of a plot to bomb the New York subway. Which in my view makes the whole scheme worthwhile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22925892

:ok: For many people, this is the business of government - balancing the competing arguments and interests for solutions to the greater good.

[jayne lee wilson]

"If I had to choose between betraying my friend and betraying my country, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country" (E.M.Forster).

Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning "betrayed their country" seeing the ordinary citizens of the wider world as their "friends", in the name of basic political principles of freedom, privacy, freedom from oppression or invasion. They have taken on a similar role to those dissidents in totalitarian regimes who self-sacrificially risked, in many cases suffered, imprisonment and torture to uphold the basic freedom of - thought and action, the right to be an individual. Totalitarian regimes, police states - these systems attempt to subjugate a people by creating a network of mutual suspicion, by severely punishing disobedience and rewarding informers. No, we do not live in such societies - yet, but if someone grows up in this atmosphere, knowing that someone is watching you, your communications, your deeds and thoughts - then no matter how honourable the stated intention of protection or pre-emption, the individual may feel rather less inclined to dissent, to think freely and critically, to disobey the state even at the level of communication. We've already seen brutal suppression of demonstration on the streets of Britain; how could it be anything but damaging to such freedom of thought, to extend that suppression to a "Total Surveillance" of telephones and the internet - co-opting telecoms and large, global retail companies to achieve it?

Governmental attempts to control individuals - at least in a nominal democracy - will never be rapid, immediate, nor (usually) overt. It will try to creep stealthily into place. These two young men have attempted to show what is happening, and the harm it has already done.

If you insist on always "honouring a contract" we would not have had those whistleblowers who have helped, by their unrewarded bravery, to improve public health systems in Britain. And if just one "insider" could have spoken out about Hillsborough all those years ago? The difference it would have made to suffering individuals.

This seemed to be overlooked, so giving it a bump. Ignore it again if you wish. Forster quote is provocative, I thought...

[Thropplenoggin]

This seemed to be overlooked, so giving it a bump. Ignore it again if you wish. Forster quote is provocative, I thought...

An excellent post, JLW. I don't expect it will make any of the militant right on here take stock, though. That's not their way.

[Beef Oven]

This seemed to be overlooked, so giving it a bump. Ignore it again if you wish. Forster quote is provocative, I thought...

I did not overlook your post Jayne, I read it and thought that it was pretty much what this 'baby-eating' right of centre Beef Oven chap was thinking anyway.

But I think it's simpler than you say.

Being the Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau simpleton that I am, I figured it was about the citizen's right to view the situation as the state being in tyranny, so all deals are off - blow the whistle!

Pretty simple, uncomplicated and unemotional really.

I said so in my post #334 :hug:

[ahinton]

:laugh:

Why do you inherently believe the government is right about everything it does or would like to do? I can't understand this slavish beholden mindset that doesn't question what is being done on its behalf. Have you never heard of misinformation? Would you object to having every personal letter you ever wrote open and read by a third party? Does the fact that much of this is done by private enterprises not beholden to the same oversight as governments not set of any alarm bells as to how this might be abused? How can the West chide China et al for state surveillance when our governments are employing the same blanket surveillance? Do you ever read anything in contrast to your entrenched views or cherry pick media to support your world view? A truly informed opinion involves reading around the subject, including the contrary stance, not right-wing papers simply reinforcing what you already believe. You seem incapable of doing this. If you did, you might notice that the supposed oversight of this mass surveillance is anything but...and that the supposed laws 'allowing' this have been stretched to the point of meaninglessness.

This is all so pertinent. Why it is that so many people slavishly (or so it would seem) uphold most or all government actions and inactions simply and solely because they ARE government actions and inactions has long been a source of considerable perplexity to me. The whole point of a "democratic" society is that it is entitled to trust or distrust the governments that it elects and put them out of office whenever that distrust becomes sufficient to warrant it; that said, Richard Barrett is quite right to point out that, with the best will in the world, if there is little difference between electable parties, such democracy is thereby compromised, possibly very seriously.

[Thropplenoggin]

This is all so pertinent. Why it is that so many people slavishly (or so it would seem) uphold most or all government actions and inactions simply and solely because they ARE government actions and inactions has long been a source of considerable perplexity to me. The whole point of a "democratic" society is that it is entitled to trust or distrust the governments that it elects and put them out of office whenever that distrust becomes sufficient to warrant it; that said, Richard Barrett is quite right to point out that, with the best will in the world, if there is little difference between electable parties, such democracy is thereby compromised, possibly very seriously.

Excellently reasoned and reasonably put. Ditto RB. Indeed, his point about 'democracy' is both salient and pressing. Why is UKIP doing so well in the polls? Is it because it is presenting a different choice to the voters, at least ostensibly? I should add that we all know about politician's promises out of power, and how they change once in (Blair, Obama, ...) I'm no fan of Farage, nor am I fooled by his patter, but plenty are because of how he presents himself, and because the differences between Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem have steadily eroded over time. The three main parties, by their very sameness, their proven malfeasance once in government, failure to fulfill campaign promises, and Westminster bubble-itis (career politicans with no 'real world' experience) are making life very easy for him.

[ahinton]

Excellently reasoned and reasonably put. Ditto RB. Indeed, his point about 'democracy' is both salient and pressing. Why is UKIP doing so well in the polls? Is it because it is presenting a different choice to the voters, at least ostensibly? I should add that we all know about politician's promises out of power, and how they change once in (Blair, Obama, ...) I'm no fan of Farage, no am I fooled by his patter, but plenty are because of how he presents himself, and because the differences between Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem have steadily eroded over time.

Thank you. What you write here again is very much to the point. I must admit, however, that Richard Barrett makes more sense and good points in this thread than anyone else and they are always so thoroughly researched that I sometimes wonder how he finds the time to dig out the various sources in support of his cogent and valid arguments.

[mangerton]

This is all so pertinent. Why it is that so many people slavishly (or so it would seem) uphold most or all government actions and inactions simply and solely because they ARE government actions and inactions has long been a source of considerable perplexity to me.

It's an age thing. The older generation was brought up to trust and respect lawyers, politicians, medical people and men (and it was always men in those days) of the cloth, and to regard their lightest utterances with the respect which they also accorded Holy Writ. We now know that many of these characters have feet of clay, and that it's always advisable to look out of the window and check if they say it's raining.

Where this argument falls down of course is that I'm not sure that Mr Pee is of that generation.

[ahinton]

It's an age thing. The older generation was brought up to trust and respect lawyers, politicians, medical people and men (and it was always men in those days) of the cloth, and to regard their lightest utterances with the respect which they also accorded Holy Writ. We now know that many of these characters have feet of clay, and that it's always advisable to look out of the window and check if they say it's raining.

Where this argument falls down of course is that I'm not sure that Mr Pee is of that generation.

You're right insofar as it goes, of course, but that age of automatic deference has surely long passed, just as has the age in which there was a real discernible difference between the main electable political parties, hasn't it? And, in any case, I'm far from convinced that most people of below, say, state retirement age (not that this has any relevance any more), are susceptible to this, so the lack of obviously vociferous mass opposition to this kind of prospective legislation on the grounds that nanny (i.e. the government of the day, whoever they might be) allegedly knows best seems at best puzzling and at worst scary.