Save the PRISM whistleblower from US inhumanity!

[loveofreason]

OK, so this is a petition link:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_fb_b/?csICfcb

I wouldn't normally post this kind of thing - I don't really find appropriate - but in this case, the principle at stake is so high, I'm putting it out there.

Now, what any administration thinks it can do with mountains of inane data is kind of curious. Data-mining for social trends in marketing and general public opinion is probably more fruitful than catching any lone nutter. And the "voluminous wastes of our minds" that end up creating the oceans (wait, are they oceans? Are they mountains? Are they made of cheese?) of data out there are hardly unique, but being part of a pattern; an era, is inevitable and amusing.

But the secrecy and manner in which such data is collected, and the way in which the US treats anyone with a spine to stand up and expose things like PRISM, are worth protesting. I think.

Of course opinions vary, so ...to serve another function, I leave the thread open for all to discuss whether Edward Snowden did the 'right' thing', and what to make of displays of solidarity with whistleblowers. Do we have a social obligation to protect 'good' individuals from 'bad' government, or is the government 'good' and Snowden 'bad' in this case? Should we stand aside?

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Off with his head!!!

I think he did the right thing. If only because it has revealed a tiny bit of evidence that the government is a bunch of hypocritical elitists. Prosecuting him when he revealed their crime. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Nezaros]

Anyone fighting for transparency of government is doing right, I say.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Now, what any administration thinks it can do with mountains of inane data is kind of curious. Data-mining for social trends in marketing and general public opinion is probably more fruitful than catching any lone nutter. And the "voluminous wastes of our minds" that end up creating the oceans (wait, are they oceans? Are they mountains? Are they made of cheese?) of data out there are hardly unique, but being part of a pattern; an era, is inevitable and amusing.

This, I actually disagree with. What the gov is attempting to do is create a massive one of these:

Spoiler

URL: (Add the "http://www.") southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cod.jpg

Next spoiler contains the full 3000x4000 image, same as in the link.

Spoiler

Following the reverberations throughout the entire system using big data allows for the ability to pinpoint that lone nutter. It also allows any part of that system to be influenced indirectly, and by indirectly I mean through derivatives of derivatives. The potential for the abuse of systemic determinism is great. Cog would/should be proud.

It's like tracking trophic cascade or energy flow at the agent level.

 

[loveofreason]

URL: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/...012/02/Cod.jpg

403 permission denied

Doc... are you still there? Have they got you yet?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

403 permission denied
Doc... are you still there? Have they got you yet?

*wakes up* "Huh? Who are you people?"

Not sure what happened, but try it now.

 

[walfin]

Signed.

 

[loveofreason]

Are you in Hong Kong, Walfin? Buy Snowden a beer

*wakes up* "Huh? Who are you people?"

Not sure what happened, but try it now.

I see it now! I see us all...

the barnacles, the whelks... the pollocks. The cod... god save the Cod!

I 'see' the data they collect in this way - in terms of the patterns created by flows of information. But in terms of what they can achieve with it.... Yeah, someone(s) brilliant could manipulate culture and politics fantastically, but how is that different from any era in the past? Haven't governments always spied on their own people? Is it just the scale? Are we orders of magnitude more transparent and pliable? Should we be worried?

Was freedom ever anything more than an illusion?

What about our agency? Consider the potential for feeding misinformation into this analysing machine

(I'm not convinced who has the upper hand here - it looks like it should obviously be the authorities with the data and the will to abuse it - but how many times has meddling with a complex system bit the meddler firmly on the ass? What kind of unknowns remain unknown? What kind of unpredictable emergents, like Snowden himself, could destroy their plans?)



But yeah... anyone that throws a spanner in the works of Big Power, is a hero in my books.

 

[Architect]

I'm don't think anybody is entirely sure what can be done with all this data. The meme in Big Data is that the One Who Has The Most wins. As technology develops - including our understanding what we have, we'll better take advantage of this information.

I'm doing the same thing, I'm personally collecting every bit of data about my life that I can. Where I am, what I'm doing, what I'm seeing and hearing. Why? Why not? I'm a software engineer, this is my experiment to see where this goes.

 

[Duxwing]

I could show you any stockbroker's wet dream--tomorrow's newspaper--but if you can't get your act together and your trades in by closing time, then that information would be useless to you. The same applies to Big Data collected by the government. The whole concept of calling a government an 'it' is already an assumption of a single, cohesive consciousness and will in the face of said 'entity' being a manifestly scurrilous and disjointed organization that has lately had difficulty maintaining a budget. No. Not a surplus budget or even a balanced budget, but any budget at all: remember when one almost didn't get passed because the legislators were at loggerheads?

Sure, the executive branch could do something small. Perhaps rub out a few people if another Nixon came into power and everyone were sufficiently enamoured with him and terrified of something else. But the scale of what we're talking about here--influencing national scale events--requires billions upon billions of dollars and huge bureaucracies: Keeping that burgeoning budget hidden for any meaningful length of time would be nearly impossible, as evidenced by the PRISM whisteblower himself. And besides, as soon as 'the government' gets ahold of this data, the private sector will scramble for it, too; in time, the John Q. Public will gain access through the private sector, thereby neutralizing the information asymmetry.

Nevertheless, this prosecution is absurd. Why does this data-mining need to be kept secret?

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

Step 1: Get lots of data.
Step 2: Analyse data.
Step 3: Profit?

I dunno, at very least the idea that data mining is to target individuals seems unlikely, that's just not how it works, let me use an example.

We all remember Da Blob right?
Lets say I rule the world and the Da Blobs oppose me, well if they're forming up into a dangerous radical group I want to be able to see this formation happening, identify the driving forces behind it, and if there's a few key instigators I'll quietly have them suppressed, discredited, or if need be taken out.

The best tool with which I have to do this is Google.

I kid you not.

If I want to find the people who hate me I search my name and the word "hate", and from there I get a list of forums, blogs, etc, because y'see if the Da Blobs are building momentum against me then they're recruiting, which means they're advertising in some way, they're trying to create a community of like minded people who can be radicalised and motivated to action.

Y'know if I want to find out if there's neo-nazies in New York I just Google "neo-nazies in new york" and I've found them.

And governments do this, I guarantee you every single national goverment worth a damn tracks the disposition of its populace and the populace of surrounding countries in essentially this way, but of course there are many locked forums out there and the smarter anti-goverment movements try to recruit through the "privacy" of email, that's what this is all about.

Nobody wants to read your email, nobody wants to read mine, I could send you a PDF detailing the exact workings of a nuclear ICBM with instructions to build and launch one, but still nobody would care, unless you live in North Korea in which case flags go up and suddenly intelligence agencies are interested in me, by which point fair enough.

The whole point of analysing data is to sort through all the irrelevant shit, and 99.9999% of it is irrelevant shit, indeed I would stake my life on the fact that nobody in national intelligence in the entire world gives a damn about what any of us have ever written, ever, because there's billions of people in this world and you my friend are not one of the 00.00001% no matter how special your mommy thinks you are.

And if you are one of them, if you do frequent neonazi.com and brag about how you're going to set off pipe bombs in the mall next weekend, well then I'm happy to lose a little privacy to have men in black bust down your door and kick your teeth in, because their wages are my tax money and I want my money's worth.

Or I am said man in black and saying all this is my job

 

[Absurdity]

Prosecuting him when he revealed their crime. That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because technically it isn't true. The NSA wasn't committing any crime because a federal judge of a secret court was giving them the green light. I mean, one of the leaked documents was a court order. What's more legal than that?

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about how this guy Snowden isn't a hero at all but rather a narcissistic asshole. Fun read.

 

[Analyzer]

It doesn't make sense because technically it isn't true. The NSA wasn't committing any crime because a federal judge of a secret court was giving them the green light. I mean, one of the leaked documents was a court order. What's more legal than that?

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about how this guy Snowden isn't a hero at all but rather a narcissistic asshole. Fun read.

The NSA might have not committed a crime because a federal judge allowed them. But who allows the federal judge to allow the NSA to do that? I never allowed them, and if you believe in the idea of the law and justice isn't it suppose to be agreed upon by each party. If each party is an individual, then where is the consent?

The whole idea and argument of social contract theory breaks down when you think about how can their be a contract if there was never an agreement. A contract is the mutual agreement between individuals or their property. Are we property of a bigger collectivist entity which accepts the social contract?

 

[r4ch3l]

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about how this guy Snowden isn't a hero at all but rather a narcissistic asshole. Fun read.

Thank you for that. I was making some similar points with my dad last night. He's ex-Navy/NSA contractor and he had some valid things to say about what the government has been doing forever and how this is just an extension of that same protocol in the context of the Internet.

Too long to get into, but essentially everything that goes over the airwaves is public. This is nothing new or unexpected. Anyone who is *shocked* by PRISM is either an idiot or looking for a new cause to wakka wakka about.

I believe Snowden's decision to turn over the information to the media and the manner in which he has conducted it show very clearly that he is a grandiose narcissist who claims to be doing this for political reasons when in reality his motivation is far more personal. I think he is mildly disappointed in his lack of accomplishment or power in the world at 29 and feared being locked into his Revolutionary Road life and so he used this opportunity to look like a hero and inject excitement and admiration into his life. Remember, narcissists also love being hated. It makes them feel important.

 

[Double_V]

It doesn't make sense because technically it isn't true. The NSA wasn't committing any crime because a federal judge of a secret court was giving them the green light. I mean, one of the leaked documents was a court order. What's more legal than that?

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about how this guy Snowden isn't a hero at all but rather a narcissistic asshole. Fun read.

I'm on the fence about Snowden and need to read before getting to any different opinion than I have now. Which is, he may not be a hero and the Obama Administration that ran for office based on it's position of being for goverment transparency has done anything but that while being of office.

 

[Double_V]

Thank you for that. I was making some similar points with my dad last night. He's ex-Navy/NSA contractor and he had some valid things to say about what the government has been doing forever and how this is just an extension of that same protocol in the context of the Internet.

Too long to get into, but essentially everything that goes over the airwaves is public. This is nothing new or unexpected. Anyone who is *shocked* by PRISM is either an idiot or looking for a new cause to wakka wakka about.

I believe Snowden's decision to turn over the information to the media and the manner in which he has conducted it show very clearly that he is a grandiose narcissist who claims to be doing this for political reasons when in reality his motivation is far more personal. I think he is mildly disappointed in his lack of accomplishment or power in the world at 29 and feared being locked into his Revolutionary Road life and so he used this opportunity to look like a hero and inject excitement and admiration into his life. Remember, narcissists also love being hated. It makes them feel important.

See, I assumed all of these same thoughts and then came to the 'So what?' moment.

It's Obama that ran on "Change" and now we see that not only did he not "change", but rather he's done things he said he was against, but even moreso than his predecessor(s).

Seems Snowden may not be the only narcissist in the situation. And killing Snowden's credibilty doesn't fix Obama's multiple drama's or get back public trust in his administration.

 

[r4ch3l]

But you just said it all here:

Which is, he may not be a hero AND the Obama Administration that ran for office based on it's position of being for goverment transparency has done anything but that while being of office.

I don't see it as an either/or, Snowden vs. Obama thing.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

It doesn't make sense because technically it isn't true. The NSA wasn't committing any crime because a federal judge of a secret court was giving them the green light. I mean, one of the leaked documents was a court order. What's more legal than that?

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about how this guy Snowden isn't a hero at all but rather a narcissistic asshole. Fun read.

Oh. Now it makes sense. Still seems bad though. Weren't they potentially spying on other nations? I don't think a court in America has that authority.

... Maybe I should go read up on this and come back.

 

[Double_V]

But you just said it all here:



I don't see it as an either/or, Snowden vs. Obama thing.

Exactly, that is what I was conveying. So far it's looking like 'two wrongs' are still ...wrong. Snowden may feel/look like a hero for supposedly exposing a wrong but 'So what?'. Snowden may be a narcissist, wrong, and not a hero but 'So what?'.

At this point Obama and his administration have alot of answering to do. Putting out the Snowden fire can't fix Obama's issues, there are now (too) many credibility problems for him to just focus on one (Snowden).

In fact, if anyone did (want to focus on just Snowden) I'd see it as a red herring.

 

[r4ch3l]

Back in the day when people fought wars or sought to protect themselves as a population or group there was no question over who had "authority" to take in information that could potentially serve as valuable in the future when the group needed to defend itself.

During wartime nobody asks for permission to spy or intercept.

Well, shit. I guess the nation-on-nation/group-on-group metaphor could be extended to citizens vs. government.

Curse my flip-flopping, inside-out fractal INTP brain!

 

[r4ch3l]

Exactly, that is what I was conveying. So far it's looking like 'two wrongs' are still ...wrong. Snowden may feel/look like a hero for supposedly exposing a wrong but 'So what?'. Snowden may be a narcissist, wrong, and not a hero but 'So what?'.

I agree, but the "so what" for me is that people are so binary that they're taking idealistic and simplistic positions on something that is quite complicated and that, truthfully, our individual public opinions on probably have very little influence over at all in the first place.

I'm very disillusioned with things like the Occupy movement, etc. that try and model themselves after a historical moment that is over with, forever (60s/70s protests). Standing around being anti-this or anti-that isn't gonna do shit anymore.

 

[travelnjones]

I agree, but the "so what" for me is that people are so binary that they're taking idealistic and simplistic positions on something that is quite complicated and that, truthfully, our individual public opinions on probably have very little influence over at all in the first place.

I'm very disillusioned with things like the Occupy movement, etc. that try and model themselves after a historical moment that is over with, forever (60s/70s protests). Standing around being anti-this or anti-that isn't gonna do shit anymore.

What i don't get is nothing is happening, no one is doing anything to fix this. I just see the government saying no laws were broken. Which says to me we have some screwed up laws. Also that legality and justice are so far removed they have become opposites. Yet nothing is happening.

The issue goes beyond party too. People say bush or obama whatever they are basically the same dude in terms of fucking us over. Obama is bush two the quickening which almost makes it worse, because some of you had hope.

Our government is beginning to feel like a game where the two sides are working together. The Right makes us pissed off so we elect the left, they the left fucks up like the replacement NFL refs so we want the right back. They really don't do the stuff their bases care about and slowly work at making it worse for everyone.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What about our agency? Consider the potential for feeding misinformation into this analysing machine

(I'm not convinced who has the upper hand here - it looks like it should obviously be the authorities with the data and the will to abuse it - but how many times has meddling with a complex system bit the meddler firmly on the ass? What kind of unknowns remain unknown? What kind of unpredictable emergents, like Snowden himself, could destroy their plans?)



But yeah... anyone that throws a spanner in the works of Big Power, is a hero in my books.

Beating me into submission with rhetorical questions. Nicely done.

Beyond a certain point the misinformation becomes predictable and sticks out like a sore thumb if/when the triangulation doesn't match up. Misinformers are the new targets. To the chokey!

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcVnG4HrWBI

The difference between now and the past is the ability to determine and manipulate maximum influence from all angles simultaneously. What is the prey to do when its food and habitat decrease as its predators increase simultaneously through subsidized means?

In this scenario there's now available niche space. What can fill it? It's entirely possible, much like what occurs when a keystone species is extirpated, that a complex system is reduced to a very basic stable state. This is the bite in the ass lol.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm don't think anybody is entirely sure what can be done with all this data. The meme in Big Data is that the One Who Has The Most wins. As technology develops - including our understanding what we have, we'll better take advantage of this information.

You say this with a collective tone, "we," which ignores the existing power structure of society that values "evil" as well as "good" as equal means to maintain itself. Hence, for example, the motivation of pharmaceutical companies to produce pharmaceuticals that treat, but don't cure, disease; or treat and/or cure, but cause side effects that in turn require additional treatment.

but if you can't get your act together and your trades in by closing time, then that information would be useless to you. The same applies to Big Data collected by the government.

Something you're not aware of is the idea of indicators, which reduce scope and scale of a given system to an operational platform. This stems from the idea in ecology of an indicator species, meaning that if you go out to empirically sample and find a number of species X within a given range, then the entire local ecosystem is very likely healthy and functional. The most sensitive component of a given system is its indicator, just like the most sensitive species in an ecosystem will be the first to die off.

And besides, as soon as 'the government' gets ahold of this data, the private sector will scramble for it, too

In terms of power structure, this is a false dichotomy. A South Park buff might refer to it as a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

Lets say I rule the world and the Da Blobs oppose me, well if they're forming up into a dangerous radical group I want to be able to see this formation happening, identify the driving forces behind it, and if there's a few key instigators I'll quietly have them suppressed, discredited, or if need be taken out.

If I want to find the people who hate me I search my name and the word "hate", and from there I get a list of forums, blogs, etc, because y'see if the Da Blobs are building momentum against me then they're recruiting, which means they're advertising in some way, they're trying to create a community of like minded people who can be radicalised and motivated to action.

Why insert bias by concentrating on the group level of organization, especially when it's well documented that individuals can and do cause just as much "damage"? Manning, Snowden, Assange, Deep Throat, etc?

You use "hate" as an indicator for the group level. Not much more triangulation is required to ID individuals.

I could send you a PDF detailing the exact workings of a nuclear ICBM with instructions to build and launch one, but still nobody would care

This is arguably because the system is in its infancy.

I believe Snowden's decision to turn over the information to the media and the manner in which he has conducted it show very clearly that he is a grandiose narcissist who claims to be doing this for political reasons when in reality his motivation is far more personal. I think he is mildly disappointed in his lack of accomplishment or power in the world at 29 and feared being locked into his Revolutionary Road life and so he used this opportunity to look like a hero and inject excitement and admiration into his life. Remember, narcissists also love being hated. It makes them feel important.

He made 200k a year and is likely living it up in a Hong Kong bath house as we speak. I doubt it's anything close to a lack of accomplishment. Narcissism I agree with. Same for the idea that his actions are influenced by personal values (whose aren't?). But motivation due to lack of accomplishment and an urge to gain haters? Not so much.

Our government is beginning to feel like a game where the two sides are working together. The Right makes us pissed off so we elect the left, they the left fucks up like the replacement NFL refs so we want the right back. They really don't do the stuff their bases care about and slowly work at making it worse for everyone.

​

 

[Duxwing]

You say this with a collective tone, "we," which ignores the existing power structure of society that values "evil" as well as "good" as equal means to maintain itself. Hence, for example, the motivation of pharmaceutical companies to produce pharmaceuticals that treat, but don't cure, disease; or treat and/or cure, but cause side effects that in turn require additional treatment.

I don't think that he made a teleological argument, only one of Technology Marching On.

Something you're not aware of is the idea of indicators, which reduce scope and scale of a given system to an operational platform. This stems from the idea in ecology of an indicator species, meaning that if you go out to empirically sample and find a number of species X within a given range, then the entire local ecosystem is very likely healthy and functional. The most sensitive component of a given system is its indicator, just like the most sensitive species in an ecosystem will be the first to die off.

You've misunderstood: In that analogy, you already have tomorrow's newspaper. The question is one of organization and implementation, not information.

In terms of power structure, this is a false dichotomy. A South Park buff might refer to it as a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

I never made a dichotomy to begin with. Your argument is a Chewbacca Defense. If the government (such a vague, menacing term) got ahold of Big Data mining, then that technology would spread--just as the atom bomb became the atomic power plant or the military radio became the walkie talkie--making Big Data accessible and regulated, just like automobiles and gasoline.

The choice is therefore between ignorance and occasionally unpleasantry.

Why insert bias by concentrating on the group level of organization, especially when it's well documented that individuals can and do cause just as much "damage"? Manning, Snowden, Assange, Deep Throat, etc?

You use "hate" as an indicator for the group level. Not much more triangulation is required to ID individuals.

This is arguably because the system is in its infancy.

Also note that someone has to watch the watchers, and even with the best knowledge, as I've demonstrated, organization is necessary and extremely difficult. Congress almost didn't pass a budget a year or two ago, and yet you expect them to be able to manage a full-fledged dystopia? But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What, exactly, do you think will happen, and how will the transition occur? Being afraid of a dystopia that rid itself of laws, for example, is easy until you realize that the absence of laws necessitates the absence of building codes, without which any society will soon literally crumble.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

I don't think that he made a teleological argument, only one of Technology Marching On.

This doesn't address my response to Architect and if it does then you're not making it very clear how.

You've misunderstood: In that analogy, you already have tomorrow's newspaper. The question is one of organization and implementation, not information.

You've misunderstood. Indicators allow for very easy and efficient organization and implementation.

I never made a dichotomy to begin with. Your argument is a Chewbacca Defense. If the government (such a vague, menacing term) got ahold of Big Data mining, then that technology would spread--just as the atom bomb became the atomic power plant or the military radio became the walkie talkie--making Big Data accessible and regulated, just like automobiles and gasoline.

What you describe takes place under both government and private power.

The choice is therefore between ignorance (Giant Douche) and occasionally unpleasantry (Turd Sandwich).

For some reason you seem to think big data held by government is separate from big data held by the private sector.

Also note that someone has to watch the watchers,

Yes.
The people.
Who are manipulated by the watchers.​

and even with the best knowledge, as I've demonstrated, organization is necessary and extremely difficult. Congress almost didn't pass a budget a year or two ago, and yet you expect them to be able to manage a full-fledged dystopia?

Civics 101: Congress passes laws. It doesn't enforce them.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What, exactly, do you think will happen, and how will the transition occur? Being afraid of a dystopia that rid itself of laws, for example, is easy until you realize that the absence of laws necessitates the absence of building codes, without which any society will soon literally crumble.

Speaking of a teleological argument...

.

 

[r4ch3l]

He made 200k a year and is likely living it up in a Hong Kong bath house as we speak. I doubt it's anything close to a lack of accomplishment. Narcissism I agree with. Same for the idea that his actions are influenced by personal values (whose aren't?). But motivation due to lack of accomplishment and an urge to gain haters? Not so much.

Word is that he exaggerated his annual income by about 80K (another sign of grandiosity).

I don't personally believe he has a lack of accomplishment at all nor that he would say that if asked directly. I think that by "lack of accomplishment" I actually mean lack of power or influence, which accompanies grandiose fantasies or a desire to give life meaning. I don't think he wants haters so much as attention (positive or negative) and to have had influenced politics and the world.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Word is that he exaggerated his annual income by about 80K (another sign of grandiosity).

I don't personally believe he has a lack of accomplishment at all nor that he would say that if asked directly. I think that by "lack of accomplishment" I actually mean lack of power or influence, which accompanies grandiose fantasies or a desire to give life meaning. I don't think he wants haters so much as attention (positive or negative) and to have had influenced politics and the world.

This is actually what I'm trying to get at here: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16803
The idea that narcissism, even to the point of sociopathy, isn't necessarily a bad thing. What differentiates the good from the bad?

 

[Duxwing]

This doesn't address my response to Architect and if it does then you're not making it very clear how.

My point was that you've misunderstood him.

You've misunderstood. Indicators allow for very easy and efficient organization and implementation.

They make observation easier, not implementation. Like I said, you need to get your act together and put your trades in by closing time today to take advantage of tomorrow's newspaper, and if I'm not mistaken, the NYSE closed three hours and forty-five minutes ago, EST. I gave you tommorrow's newspaper. Where are your millions?

What you describe takes place under both government and private power.

You mean techonological trickle-down? Sure. How does that relate to my point about said trickle-down being inevitable?

The choice is therefore between ignorance (Giant Douche) and occasionally unpleasantry (Turd Sandwich).

You're only envisioning the evils of Big Data. Think of the good that could come of it! More efficient mass transit, more efficient highways, more efficient anything used by many.

For some reason you seem to think big data held by government is separate from big data held by the private sector.

Separate how? To my knowledge, they aren't on the same network.

Yes.
The people.
Who are manipulated by the watchers.

I'm referring to the problem of "Who guards the guards?". In other words, the watchers must themselves be watched lest they turn rogue, etc. Nevertheless, highly efficient Big Data machines could make doing so easy. The question is the implementation of said manipulation.

Civics 101: Congress passes laws. It doesn't enforce them.

No duh? How does your point relate to my argument that Congress is insufficiently cohesive and effective to run a dystopia?

Speaking of a teleological argument...

You're making red-herring arguments. What teleology? My argument described how governments (or organizations in general) run by lunatics are not viable, therefore necessitating some organization on their part--organization that you have not yet explained and seems unlikely given the present fractious nature of the political field.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

My point was that you've misunderstood him.

My statement questions the process that produced his perspective, not his perspective. You're also not Architect.

They make observation easier, not implementation. Like I said, you need to get your act together and put your trades in by closing time today to take advantage of tomorrow's newspaper, and if I'm not mistaken, the NYSE closed three hours and forty-five minutes ago, EST. I gave you tommorrow's newspaper. Where are your millions?

Indicators make it easier to organize data. Organized data is easier to manipulate. You're arguing that a bulldozer isn't being built. I'm arguing that a bulldozer isn't necessary to move a spoonful of dirt.

You mean techonological trickle-down? Sure. How does that relate to my point about said trickle-down being inevitable?

Because it doesn't disprove my claim that power of government vs private sector is a false dichotomy. A simple "I agree" would have sufficed.

You're only envisioning the evils of Big Data. Think of the good that could come of it! More efficient mass transit, more efficient highways, more efficient anything used by many.

The good comes into play when the data isn't held by a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich.

Separate how? To my knowledge, they aren't on the same network.

Dataset X is the same dataset X regardless of whether it's used by Bob or Bill. Or Mike, that untrustworthy bastard!

I'm referring to the problem of "Who guards the guards?". In other words, the watchers must themselves be watched lest they turn rogue, etc. Nevertheless, highly efficient Big Data machines could make doing so easy. The question is the implementation of said manipulation.

Democracy.

No duh? How does your point relate to my argument that Congress is insufficiently cohesive and effective to run a dystopia?

I don't know, maybe it the whole running a dystopia part.

You're making red-herring arguments. What teleology? My argument described how governments (or organizations in general) run by lunatics are not viable, therefore necessitating some organization on their part--organization that you have not yet explained and seems unlikely given the present fractious nature of the political field.

"Without government no building codes would exist AND THEY'D ALL COLLAPSE AND KILL US ALL!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!" God damn, I feel like Proxy...

I wish to end this interaction. It's going nowhere. I should have known better.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.p...isagreements+do+not+warrant+starting+a+debate

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

More to the point here, I'm asking whether the nature of this newfound systemic approach using big data effectively prevents society's ability to protect "good" individuals and seek out "bad" ones? If so, all the social obligations in the world won't do a thing once the system is established.

This is followed up with: Does the nature of the human system prevent its establishment?

 

[Solitaire U.]

I sincerely believe PRISM is a bastard stepchild of ulterior ulterior motives and has little or nothing to do with the psuedo-heroic "War Against Terrorism" or invading the privacy of individuals inside or outside the US.

The US was once a technological innovator. Lately they've regressed to a technological imitator. PRISM was created to help facilitate that. BLARNEY (a 'parallel program') is officially described as "an ongoing collection program that leverages intelligence community and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks."


PRISM could be an acronym for:

Piracy (and)
Rape (of)
International
Streams (of)
Metadata

How ironic (but hardly surprising), for the most allegedly anti-piracy society on the planet to indulge in such a practice.

As for the whistle-blower...

He helped create the fucking thing. Let him fry.

"Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative."
- Sarah Connor, Terminator 2

 

[Duxwing]

I sincerely believe PRISM is a bastard stepchild of ulterior ulterior motives and has little or nothing to do with the psuedo-heroic "War Against Terrorism" or invading the privacy of individuals inside or outside the US.

The US was once a technological innovator. Lately they've regressed to a technological imitator. PRISM was created to help facilitate that. BLARNEY (a 'parallel program') is officially described as "an ongoing collection program that leverages intelligence community and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks."


PRISM could be an acronym for:

Piracy (and)
Rape (of)
International
Streams (of)
Metadata

How ironic (but hardly surprising), for the most allegedly anti-piracy society on the planet to indulge in such a practice.

As for the whistle-blower...

He helped create the fucking thing. Let him fry.

"Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative."
- Sarah Connor, Terminator 2

Why is the US no longer an innovator? Note that innovation differs from invention in that the former, unlike the latter does not involve the creation of an entirely new technology. Inventors make things. Innovators improve them. Though I suppose that powerful figures (who?) in Congress could be using the metadata to target hacking of foreign networks to gain access to R&D documentation. But man, that's a heck of a lot more circuitous route than plain old embezzlement.

-Duxwing

 

[Solitaire U.]

"an ongoing collection program that leverages intelligence community and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks."

Exploiting foreign intelligence is not innovation (or invention, but don't get anal on me again about the textbook definitions, please), it's assimilation.

Just seems like the US assigns greater value to foreign information sources than its own.

Why, you ask?

Why is Chrysler owned by Fiat?
Why is the Chrysler Building owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Council?
Why is 7-Eleven owned by I-Seven in Japan?
Why is John Hancock Life Insurance owned by Canadians?
Why is Anheuser-Busch headquarteres in Brazil?
Why is Detroit an industrial wasteland?

You tell me.

 

[Duxwing]

"an ongoing collection program that leverages intelligence community and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks."

Exploiting foreign intelligence is not innovation (or invention, but don't get anal on me again about the textbook definitions, please), it's assimilation.

Just seems like the US assigns greater value to foreign information sources than its own.

That mission statement sounds like they're using contacts within the country that they are spying on to get more intel, not hacking into patent offices and stealing designs for commercial benefit: hence the term leverage, which, in buzz-speak, means to "make use of".

Why, you ask?

Why is Chrysler owned by Fiat?
Why is the Chrysler Building owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Council?
Why is 7-Eleven owned by I-Seven in Japan?
Why is John Hancock Life Insurance owned by Canadians?
Why is Anheuser-Busch headquarteres in Brazil?
Why is Detroit an industrial wasteland?

You tell me.

The market is global. Different counties offer different opportunities. Some have low taxes, others loose labor and environmental protection laws. My dad tells me about this all the time, especially regarding regulation in the financial market: squeeze the banks too hard, and they'll take their business elsewhere. The US is, in comparison with countries like China, simply not the most (and I mean that literally) fertile ground for heavy, dirty, low-paying industry, and until light, clean, high-paying industry becomes more profitable, the former kind of industry will dominate; entrepreneurs will naturally flock to places whereat such industry is most readily available.

Like they say in business school: location location location.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Why, you ask?

I'd argue it's because we've grown complacent and lazy (being the possessors) and other entities are motivated to gain what we possess and thus out-innovate us left and right. Something to the effect of capitalistic redistribution which we hope to keep stable or at least slow, through mimicry.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I'd argue it's because we've grown complacent and lazy (being the possessors) and other entities are motivated to gain what we possess and thus out-innovate us left and right. Something to the effect of capitalistic redistribution which we hope to keep stable or at least slow, through mimicry.

hear hear

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The guy has been charged in the US for spying. If they don't extradite him from where ever he is, they will probably find him guilty in absentia.