kleinbl00: "Surveillance is never egalitarian" nailed it. EDIT: This is my favourite podcast so far. Fantastic job thenewgreen!
Thanks Cadell. I really enjoyed this one too because it has the potential to educate some people imo. That said, please share this beyond our walls. I'd like this one to get some eyeballs. Also, important to note that this is a two-man show with steve making the entirety of the video.
Loved steve's editing with the Obama and Bush clips, and the newspaper highlighting Edward Snowden's quote about his victory. The visuals really bring this thing to life.
I like the quote as well, but I think it's flawed. One could argue that "the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities" is supported by surveillance to ensure certain rights and equality is upheld. It all depends on who and what and how the surveillance is carried out.
Well as it stands now we are all under surveillance constantly, and it is not to ensure our rights and equality are upheld. What you're talking about is having some set of rules and regulations for all people to abide by within a system to ensure our collective safety. No one is against using modern technology to ensure everyone's collective safety and equality, etc. There is a line between no surveillance and constant surveillance where we can find justice for everyone. But the NSA's policies were not democratically decided upon and do not have our best interests at heart. They have the best interests of the power establishment at heart. mk said it in the podcast. A real representative democracy should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
Great job on this podcast. I'll be honest, before watching this I intuitively understood why I should not want the NSA collecting information as they do today, though I wasn't clear why exactly that was so. This video explained it perfectly, so yes, I do care! Two more things: 1. I do feel comparing the situation with the USA and the NSA today to witch burnings in the Middle Ages is a tad off base. I can see the metaphor but the comparison just feels ludicrous. 2. What can I do, as one person, to protect myself and reduce the spying efforts the United States government undertakes?
Michelle Bachman exists... 'Nuff said.1. I do feel comparing the situation with the USA and the NSA today to witch burnings in the Middle Ages is a tad off base.
-I think it was used by kleinbl00 to make a point and I think he did so well. That said, I do think that we as a society have short memories. It wasn't so long ago that "The House Un-American Activities Committee existed. Wasn't so long ago that we had Japanese internment Camps. Currently Muslims are a target etc...
I wasn't super excited about doing this video at first. I am kinda lazy about privacy. I live a SUPER vanilla life and I think the boredom of spying on my would kill the average NSA employee. But the more I read, and the more I looked into what's going on, the more I realized that it's not about me and my vanilla life at all. It's about a fundamental abuse of power. It's about an invasion of our established rights. And I think thenewgreen is wise to draw these other correlations to the recent witch hunts and prison camps. Sure… 50 years sounds like forever ago… but the reality is - your parents were alive when this happened. And if not them, then certainly your grandparents. Your grandparents and parents KNEW PEOPLE - American citizens who were put into camps on American soil… because they were asian - This wasn't even limited to citizens of Japanese decent (as if that distinction would have helped). We're talking about Americans of Asian decent whose families may have been in this country longer than yours… relocated and shipped off because of their heritage. Other citizens were questioned, arrested, and had their lives ruined because of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. We don't talk about this stuff. We're doomed to repeat history. I'm not the dumbest kid in the classroom, and I didn't learn about internment camps until I was 23.
I loved the podcast, great job! I've personally found that when you tell a mass surveillance supporter, you know, that dishonest people can preside over the surveillance, and all these other arguments, it doesn't change their mind. And I'm not really sure why that is. Has anyone actually changed someone's mind with these arguments? I've only been able to convince people against the mass surveillance if they didn't already have an opinion.
Great video. As a Canadian living in the States, knowing I have my own set of rights, I sort of expect my phone and my digital footprint to be tracked. I don't know that I do anything sketchy or anything I should be afraid anyone finds out, but I just expect it I guess.
While I understand the sentiment, that kind of consent (eh, whatever, I expected it) is bad. Disregarding how the program is in total violation of the 4th amendment, and the NSA's charter document is secret (last time I checked), there is a relevant quote to the situation.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
That was said by Cardinal Richelieu (featured in the Three Musketeers), and I find it quite fitting. There's also a book, Three Felonies a Day that discusses how everybody breaks at least one felony a day. The reason? There's so many different laws it's nigh-impossible for one person to keep track of. It's barring the absurd, in my opinion.
I loved the video. I really liked the visuals and how they went with the audio. They added a touch of humour and amusement. It also got me thinking about lots of ankles I hadnt thought of before. Great job!!! The first two points, how surveillance is never egalitarian and digital information is never ephemeral was some stuff I hadnt thought much about. Something I'd like to see added: I remember reading about how privacy should be considered a fundamental right. Privacy is fundamental to the fabric of our society and I think our society wouldnt function the way it does now if we didnt have our privacy. I wish more people thought of it that way. When our privacy is taken away and that is questioned, we shouldnt be the ones who have to explain why we need our privacy, but the other party should explain how or why they can take away our privacy. 'Why are you against it if you have nothing to hide' shouldnt even be an acceptable argument.
Brilliant, thank you guys. You are a piece in what I hope will be a huge wave of reform. We go to war and lives are lost to protect freedom. Most people will agree it is acceptable for people to die to protect freedom. Is it worth sacrificing lives to have the freedom to live without someone watching you, recording you, and judging you on things you do that you think are private? If so, then we need to throw out mass surveillance and accept that we may lose lives to terrorist attacks. It is worth it. Think of what else we could use that $52 billion and 107,000 employees for... something good I bet.
(http://therionorteline.com/2013/08/29/nsa-107000-employees-5...)
I'm not sure that honest people don't care about NSA Surveillance. While it's true that information/or misinformation collected/stored about someone could be damaging to said person. However, the tenant of this podcast on why one shouldn't want surveillance seems to focus primarily around abuse related to religious persecution (witch hunts, etc.). Further, to my knowledge, the data NSA is collecting on a blanket basis is not the type of data that would label someone who could be persecuted on religious basis. If I knew more about the reality of what the NSA collects and stores, I could certainly be persuaded, but I don't currently so I don't worry about it. For me personally, I'm more of a John Stuart Mill's greatest good fan on this issue. Whatever is in the best interest of the whole (everyone) is probably the way to address NSA actions. So if collecting phone numbers/call information that can be used to prevent a massive deadly event then I'm okay with this level of "surveillance." I think it's scary to think somehow something I say (or worse didn't) could come back to haunt me, but on the other hand I'm pretty confident this won't occur in my lifetime. Maybe this belief is naive, but again if this naivety saves me or others from terrorist attacks then I'm okay with it.
I think you mean "tenet." Li'l story. There used to be a vassal state of the USSR called the German Democratic Republic. One of the hallmarks of German culture is efficiency; one of the hallmarks of Communist culture was paranoia. To no one's surprise the DDR was a bastion of paranoid efficiency. By the time the Berlin Wall fell, the Stasi had dossiers on 20% of the population. To be fair, this wasn't because of blanket collection like the NSA's. It was peerage based and accomplished through coercion. Nonetheless, if you lived in East Germany there was a one in five chance the Secret Police had a file open on you. It's important to note: existence of a file does not imply guilt. You got a file if the Stasi thought you could be coerced, or if they thought you might be useful in coercing someone else, or if they suspected you of being someone they ought to coerce someone else into spying on. Basically, the Stasi kept records on anybody they found interesting for any reason at any time ever, regardless of whether or not they ever did anything. So when the DDR merged with BRD, a decision was made: nobody could look at your file except you. However, everyone got to know if you had a file. It's important to note - so important it bears repeating - that the existence of a file does not imply guilt. Remember - if the Stasi took a shine to you you got a file, regardless of whether or not they ever talked to you. It's also important to note that the Stasi were the bad guys. They were the secret police of a regime that lost. Communism is dead. The ideology is discredited. Nonetheless, "the Stasi have a file on Herr Dumkopf" became a standard refrain throughout local German politics for the next 20 years. Secret information, devoid of context, collected by another regime, is still used to color local politics. "The Secrets of the FBI" Your knowledge is flawed. The NSA is collecting everything. Consider: Americans are more likely to elect a gay man than they are an atheist. Suppose the Tea Party decides to leak your posts on /r/atheism? Is anti-religious persecution still persecution? They collect everything. They have done for ten years or more. Read up. Jealous omniscience in the hands of an unelected few is not in the best interests of the whole. BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK WITHIN US The problem is in finding the needle in the haystack. The NSA's approach amounts to, essentially, "we're gonna need a bigger haystack." That is because you are either a) naive or b) devoid of ambition. How or why would it? The GRU was shouting at the FBI about the Tsarniev brothers. They still blew up the Boston Marathon. Here, walk with me. 1) The GRU knew Dzokhar Tsarniev was radical. 2) The GRU informed the FBI that Dzokhar Tsarniev was radical. 3) Dzokhar Tsarniev flew to Russia. 4) The GRU observed Tzokhar Tsarniev training in Chechnya. 5) The GRU informed the FBI that Dzokhar Tsarniev trained in Chechnya. 6) Dzokhar and Tamerlan Tsarniev blow up the Boston Marathon. Oops, missed one - 0) NSA has ALL PHONES UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO (1)However, the tenant of this podcast on why one shouldn't want surveillance seems to focus primarily around abuse related to religious persecution (witch hunts, etc.).
“The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator,” said William Sullivan, who became the number three official in the bureau under Hoover, “he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter. But we wanted you to know this. We realize you’d want to know it.’ Well, Jesus, what does that tell the senator? From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.”
Further, to my knowledge, the data NSA is collecting on a blanket basis is not the type of data that would label someone who could be persecuted on religious basis.
If I knew more about the reality of what the NSA collects and stores, I could certainly be persuaded, but I don't currently so I don't worry about it.
Whatever is in the best interest of the whole (everyone) is probably the way to address NSA actions.
So if collecting phone numbers/call information that can be used to prevent a massive deadly event then I'm okay with this level of "surveillance."
I think it's scary to think somehow something I say (or worse didn't) could come back to haunt me, but on the other hand I'm pretty confident this won't occur in my lifetime.
Maybe this belief is naive, but again if this naivety saves me or others from terrorist attacks then I'm okay with it.
(7:40:56 AM) bradass87: i know that approximately 85-90% of global transmissions are sifted through by NSA… but vast majority is noise… so its getting harder and harder for them to track anything down…
(7:45:52 AM) bradass87: im not all that paranoid about NSA / SIGINT services… you just have to be OPSEC savvy, and you’re all good
(7:49:38 AM) bradass87: and yes, illegal wiretaps are used in coordination between NSA and FBI… though its not seen as illegal, because often the data is only used to give leads
(7:59:00 AM) bradass87: 2048… never heard of it being broken publicly… NSA can feasibly do it, if they want to allocate national level “number-crunching” time to do it…
(02:03:22 PM) bradass87: i even asked the NSA guy if he could find any suspicious activity coming out of local networks… he shrugged and said… “its not a priority” (02:03:53 PM) bradass87: went back to watching “Eagle’s Eye”
(02:06:58 PM) bradass87: NSA capabilities… how FISA operates… i even asked a hypothetical question of my situation… and he was like… “if that did happen… doubtful anyone would figure it all out… resources are strained… plus the FISA mess”