Don't Look Now but Big Brother is Watching

[canuck]

Do you believe that Edward Snowden, "The Whistleblower" is being heroic or is he behaving in a treasonous manner?

 

[Meadow337]

why is it treasonous for some one to expose wrong doing in the government? Governments that don't trust their citizens, don't respect transparency or the law always react with accusations of "treason" when their actions are questioned or exposed. Look at any of old Soviet Block countries, look at how dissidents are treated in China, or how they were treated in Soviet Russia. Is there any difference between a gulag and prisons the USA operates in places they don't have to observe the law? The fact his and others actions are being labelled treason, the fact that they have to go to wikileaks and foreign newspapers to get their concerns out indicate serious issues in a process that should have normal channels to go through with protection from prosecution in a free society.

 

[canuck]

It could be treasonous if what he is possibly making available to other governments in some way harms the US, ie, he has fled to Hong Kong and China may well put to use some of his information (that is, if they don't already have it by their own cyber snooping. ) It's certainly a thorny issue.

 

[Meadow337]

at the moment there is neither proof nor indication of that, and even if he is or has done that, it does not obviate the proof he has tendered of the US governments cavalier attitude to the rights of people to privacy and international data protection laws.

Interestingly Russia has offered to consider an application for asylum.stating that their teasons for doing so where, in part, “By promising asylum to Snowden, Moscow undertakes protection of
those persecuted according to political motives. In the United States there will be hysteria. They only recognise their own right to do that.”

 

[canuck]

You were suggesting repealing the Patriot Act, doesn't that, at the moment, cover whatever it is that the US is (or is not) doing? Do you know that Mr. Snowden has not been talking to the Chinese authorities, or, for that matter, any other country not sympathetic towards the US?

 

[Meadow337]

Do you know that he is? I assume innocence until proven guilty rather than guilty by implication because he might be doing something.But isn't that the same logic that makes the US government think that mass data surveillance without due cause will catch terrorists? By that same argument we should just keep every one under close surveillance because any one might commit a crime in any moment. Police should be given the right to arrest any one who just looks suspicious and be able to enter your home at anytime and make sure you aren't doing anything suspicious. I mean what's the difference right? They are recording your emails and phone calls and all online activity anyway, so why stop there?

 

[canuck]

I think there is quite a large difference between data collection and empowering police to arrest anyone who just looks suspicious. One thing that I find a little bit bizarre in our discussion is that neither one of us is a US citizen and here we are back and forth about US politics. Strange, don't you think?

 

[canuck]

at the moment there is neither proof nor indication of that, and even if he is or has done that, it does not obviate the proof he has tendered of the US governments cavalier attitude to the rights of people to privacy and international data protection laws.

Interestingly Russia has offered to consider an application for asylum.stating that their teasons for doing so where, in part, “By promising asylum to Snowden, Moscow undertakes protection of
those persecuted according to political motives. In the United States there will be hysteria. They only recognise their own right to do that.”

And Russia has a spotless reputation in world politics?

 

[Meadow337]

I think it is interesting that you mentioned that there is a difference in data collection and police searches ... I don't happen to think there is a difference - only in the perception of it. When some one enters your home, opens your drawers and reads your mail the invasion of your privacy feels very up close and personal. When its your emails, phone calls and online activity that is being recorded it feels far more distant and less invasive so there is a tendency to be far more blase, and "good luck to them" about it. However if you stop to think about every thing you have ever said online, every email you wrote, every phone call, every comment on a forum and every web page you looked at being built up into a profile of you, it should hopefully look a lot more personal and invasive.

No I don't think Russia has any kind of good record in the matter, but I found the comment about the US reaction to be astute.

As to your other comment - well its my data and yours as non-US citizens they are particularly targetting.

 

[canuck]

As to your other comment - well its my data and yours as non-US citizens they are particularly targetting.[/quote]\

I didn't get that from the couple of newspapers that we get daily. I don't think anyone rummaging around in my e-mails is going to find anything terribly exciting, nor my telephone calls. I gathered from reading the various news articles on the data gathering is that it is gathered in 'chunks', that's not the word they use but I can't think of the term at the moment, but not necessarily read by anyone unless, of course, some word jumps out as 'flagged'.

 

[Meadow337]

But that's what all the fuss is about.

There's widespread anger in Europe about the reports that the US accessed personal data from leading internet companies, if the fiery debate at the European Parliament is anything to go by. Commissioner Tonio Borg said the EU wants a "clear commitment" from the US to respect the rights of European citizens when it comes to data protection.

He said the commission would raise the issue with the US at a meeting in Dublin on Friday. The German MEP, Manfred Weber, said it was "completely unacceptable" that the US has different rules for its own citizens and those of other countries. A Dutch MEP, Sophie In't Veld, criticised the commission for failing to protect EU citizens.

 

[canuck]

D0 you feel you are in more danger from some action by the US regarding your personal security rather than from within your own country?

 

[Meadow337]

No I don't feel in 'danger' other than I'm concerned for what I perceive as a disturbing trend in the world with regard personal rights to privacy. I think that with all the vast potential for misuse of information there needs to be a serious examination of the entire issue world wide. The internet makes a joke of individual nation's sovereign laws in so many ways - if you can't host a certain site or sell a certain product in your country - host it in another. If you can't buy a certain thing in your country - go online and buy it from somewhere else. There needs to be strong international law on a whole range of issues pertaining to the internet ranging from piracy, data sharing, hosting, pornography, paedophile rings, and all the host of evils that have come along with the good things about it. Included in that is the need for privacy. How many people get messages out from countries (where you can't say or do certain things) on the net? How many people use the net to access information on a range of subjects from bullying, abuse, health issues, legal matters, etc etc .... all of which not only need to be done anonymously but need to be kept anonymous to protect the individuals concerned. And then there is the simple right of expression. A good part of why the internet works as a medium of expression is the anonymity. The trend to using real names and being forced to use real names to register for various free services and the accompanying loss of privacy and anonymity is disturbing. The whole revelation about data collection at governmental level is a huge deal in this context.

 

[canuck]

It maybe is a case of the barn door now being open and the horses have fled - once the information is out there how do you call it back. I would like to see paedophile rings shut down and there seems to be measures in place in some countries to monitor this but there again how do you separate the bad stuff from the innocuous material. I know that locally child pornographers get snagged by the police and prosecuted - don't know if they catch all of them but names appear in the paper quite regularly. If you want personal privacy how do you set up a system where personal information remains anonymous but still weed out the 'bad' stuff? I would want our government to be on watch to protect our safety and I hope that what the US may or may not be doing is mostly benevolent and for protection of its citizens rather than for sinister reasons.

 

[sparkchaser]

It maybe is a case of the barn door now being open and the horses have fled - once the information is out there how do you call it back. I would like to see paedophile rings shut down and there seems to be measures in place in some countries to monitor this but there again how do you separate the bad stuff from the innocuous material. I know that locally child pornographers get snagged by the police and prosecuted - don't know if they catch all of them but names appear in the paper quite regularly. If you want personal privacy how do you set up a system where personal information remains anonymous but still weed out the 'bad' stuff? I would want our government to be on watch to protect our safety and I hope that what the US may or may not be doing is mostly benevolent and for protection of its citizens rather than for sinister reasons.

How much of your personal freedom and privacy are you willing to give up so that 100% of criminals are caught?

 

[Meadow337]

How much of your personal freedom and privacy are you willing to give up so that 100% of criminals are caught?

me personally not much at all, but that's the rub isn't it. A lot of people seem willing to give up a lot without ever being concerned about the potential for misuse. If that particular genie is out the bottle - and the government changes ... what was that about absolute power corrupting absolutely? I think any time that people give up so much power to a government trouble is hard on their heels.

 

[canuck]

How much of your personal freedom and privacy are you willing to give up so that 100% of criminals are caught?

What do you mean by personal freedom? As far as privacy goes - would I like my friends and neighbours and/or the government to know every last detail of my life (boring though it may be) - no I wouldn't like that, but the powers that be may already have gathered much information, however, neither do I want child pornography rings to flourish, nor terrorists to be plotting attacks on innocent people. Right now the only irritant as far as unwanted telephone calls go is I would like to see the people who keep wanting to clean my air ducts shipped off to an uninhabited island with no access to cyber ware and left there.

 

[sparkchaser]

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Meadow337]

Can we agree that the Stasi (State Police) in East Germany were a good example of an oppressive authoritarian government?

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS), commonly known as the Stasi , was the official state security service of the German Democratic Republic or GDR, colloquially known as East Germany. It has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world

The Stasi amounted to a small army infiltrating the very fabric of the communist regime, whose sole purpose was the surveillance and repression of the East German people. Fear of the state – and of the Stasi as a tool of state control – was widespread, and this terror was used as a vital tool in the creation of a malleable citizenry.

There were a variety of things that could bring a person to the attention of the Stasi. Once the MfS had targeted a suspect the goal was often to engender self-doubt in that person, to prevent them from living any semblance of a normal life, and if indeed they were guilty of some form of ‘subversion’, to encourage them to further implicate and discredit themselves

It is worth repeating the statistics: 180 kilometres of files, 360,000 photographs, 99,600 audio cassettes, one in every 6.5 of the population an informer.

The whole system would be a laughing-stock were it not for the fact that hundreds of thousands of unfortunate East Germans, most innocent of any political crime, were arrested, interrogated, routinely tortured and sent to prison camps and psychiatric hospitals. East German Communists were even more determined that their Soviet mentors to eradicate any vestige of anti-Communism. Repression was never called that by name: the Stasi saw themselves as revolutionary heroes, saving a Communist Germany literally on the frontline of the Cold War from defectors and infiltrators.

Sound at all like a familiar story? We are just protecting you from terrorists? Terrorists / defectors / infiltrators ... so long as there is an enemy the actions of the State are justified. Repression is now called 'protecting your freedom'.

Read these reports about life under a government that spied on your every move and then answer - how much are you willing to give up in order to be safe?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/13/east-germany-stasi-files-zirndorf

http://thevieweast.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/living-with-the-enemy-informing-the-stasi/

Going to watch a football match made you subversive:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/us-soccer-euro-stasi-idUSBRE8570LY20120608

Book reviews that highlight various aspects:

http://www.arlindo-correia.com/081203.html

So the question remains - how much of your freedom and privacy are you willing to give up in order to stay safe?

Because there are always some who regard the trade off as acceptable:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...eel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html

 

[753C]

I don't think freedom is what we are talking about. It is more about Privacy wouldn't you say? I mean freedom isn't being reduced here. Just privacy, right? Or am I missing something?