Ask Snowden

[thenelli01]

Snowden had another Q&A today. I haven't read the entire thing, but here is a fantastic question and answer that I wanted to bring to your attention:

 

http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/

 

@ferenstein what’s the worst and most realistic harm from bulk collection of data? Why do you think it outweighs national security? #AskSnowden

 

 Snowden: "The worst and happening-right-now harm of bulk collection — which again, is a euphemism for mass surveillance — is two-fold.

 

The first is the chilling effect, which is well-understood. Study after study has show that human behavior changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively *are* less free.

 

The second, less understood but far more sinister effect of these classified programs, is that they effectively create “permanent records” of our daily activities, even in the absence of any wrongdoing on our part. This enables a capability called “retroactive investigation,” where once you come to the government’s attention, they’ve got a very complete record of your daily activity going back, under current law, often as far as five years. You might not remember where you went to dinner on June 12th 2009, but the government does.

 

The power these records represent can’t be overstated. In fact, researchers have referred to this sort of data gathering as resulting in “databases of ruin,” where harmful and embarrassing details exist about even the most innocent individuals. The fact that these records are gathered without the government having any reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying the seizure of data is so divorced from the domain of reason as to be incapable of ever being made lawful at all, and this view was endorsed as recently as today by the federal government’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight board.

 

Fundamentally, a society in which the pervasive monitoring of the sum of civil activity becomes routine is turning from the traditions of liberty toward what is an inherently illiberal infrastructure of preemptive investigation, a sort of quantified state where the least of actions are measured for propriety. I don’t seek to pass judgment in favor or against such a state in the short time I have here, only to declare that it is not the one we inherited, and should we as a society embrace it, it should be the result of public decision rather than closed conference."

Edited January 23, 2014 by thenelli01

[thenelli01]

Any thoughts?

[Nicky]

He's right. I find myself very self aware when online, dealing with the government in any way, submitting personal information of any kind, anywhere. I worry about the long term consequences of my disclosures, should I ever find myself in the public eye or the target of powerful, corrupt enemies.

 

Obviously, some of that is unavoidable even without government surveillance, but a lot of it isn't. Without someone recording everything, and having the ability to put all the little pieces together at any time, most of these issues would be solved simply by using an alias or making sure to only deal with reputable companies.

 

With government surveillance, there's no escaping the danger. The only solution is to be paranoid about everything and everyone, just like in a late 20th century Communist surveillance state. 

[Devil's Advocate]

I certainly agree with Snowden's comments and Nicky's assessment of them.  This kind of predetection of criminal activity fundamentally reverses the presumption of innocence, making us all person's of interest awaiting an oppertunity to prove our innocence.

[softwareNerd]

And, to add insult to injury, a report from the "Oversight Board" now says:

 

“We are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack,” the report said. “And we believe that in only one instance over the past seven years has the program arguably contributed to the identification of an unknown terrorism suspect.”

 

 

[thenelli01]

I think he capsulized the point very well when he stated,  "The first is the chilling effect, which is well-understood. Study after study has show that human behavior changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively *are* less free."

 

I think Peikoff (or YB) stated the second, more practical, point well too when he said [with regard to stopping terrorist attacks through a policy of mass surveilance], "..it's like looking for a pin in a haystack."

 

I agree with the above assessment as well.

Edited January 27, 2014 by thenelli01

[dream_weaver]

How Snowden's Revelations Have Strengthened the NSA

Snowden has proven, as no one in my era has better proved, that exposure of the Bad Guys in government has no negative effect on them.

 

If exposure does come, and the public does nothing to thwart the hidden Bad Guys, then the Bad Guys no longer have to worry about further exposure. It will be old news. At this point, they can do even more to secure their position of power. The pressure blows over. There may be a time of bad publicity, but this does not change anything fundamental.

 

To add insult to injury, Gary North challenges the notion that for evil to win, the good only need sit back and do nothing. The founding fathers appear to have had it correct when they penned: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."