Report: NSA Has Access to Skype, SkyDrive; MSFT Responds

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

Laugh all you want, Brit, it doesn't make anything I said any less factual, it just makes you a typical lefty who attempts to laugh off what you cannot refute with facts or reasoned argument.

Your precious Britain has a higher violent crime rate than America--3 times higher than in America. 3 times as many assaults, robberies, rapes, etc occur in Britain per capita than occur in America . . . the same with Oz. Both nations have experienced an explosion of violent crimes since they virtually banned private ownership of firearms.

No one here is "enduring the daily slaughter," except those who live in the liberal enclaves of our large metropolitan areas. Chicago has lots of murders, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, L.A., Atlanta, all of the big liberal/Democrat run cities are centers of tight gun ownership restrictions and very high murder rates. The vast, vast majority of those murders with which you seem to be so pre-occupied occur in those areas with the tightest restrictions on firearms.

Those areas with the lowest crime rates are those with the highest proportion of law-abiding citizen who own firearms.

Conservatives don't fear their fellow citizens like you liberals do. I'm not afraid of my next-door neighbor owning an AR-15 or even an AR-16. It wouldn't worry me if he owned a bazooka. He's not a threat to my freedom or independence.

The only people whipped up into hysteria are the MSM who feed the flames, and liberals who live in constant fear of everything. That's why liberals always seek to appease and conservatives to defeat.



Your 30,000 number includes all "good shootings," self-defense, police, property guards, all shootings are "homicides," whether justified or not. By the same token, private citizens use personal firearms to stop a crime in America 2 million times a year. Only a very small percentage of those ends up with actual discharge of a weapon. Merely having the potential victim in possession of a firearm is usually sufficient to stop criminal activity.

Therefore, you desire to outlaw all privately held firearms would not necessarily result in the saving of 30,000 lives each year, it would merely alter the demographics of the lives lost--there would be more dead innocents than dead criminals.

Your way would result in 2 million more violent crimes each year . . . Hey, that might even bring us up to Britain's level of violent crime. LOL

And you know this, how? Because you assume they were as uninformed and limited in their reasoning ability as you?

These were highly educated men, they studied history extensively, they would have seen the gradual reduction in the size of rifles and firearms, they would have seen firearms capable of shooting many times without reloading, they would have been fully capable of foreseeing modern weapons. Aristotle designed tanks and machine guns. The concept of rapid fire weapons had already been realized on the battle field.

In fact, it would be highly unlikely that our Founding Fathers didn't foresee at least the capability of developing such weapons.

If you had the slightest understanding of American history, the Second Amendment, or our Founding Fathers, you would know that the Second Amendment's primary purpose has never been hunting or even self-defense. The focus and primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to have a populous so well armed that those who might consider attempting to seize power would be dissuaded from doing so. Madison in Federalist 46 laid out the argument for a citizenry as well armed and in greater numbers than any possible standing army.

I understand you ignorance and lack of perspective, coming from a nation whose citizens never had to fight for independence from a colonial despotic power, so you freedoms and rights come from your government. In America, we believe that our rights come from our Creator, not from government and that citizens, not government should hold the greater power.



No, it isn't what our Founding Fathers envisioned. A huge percentage of those who have been incarcerated are there for drug only offenses. I doubt very seriously if our Founding Fathers would have supported the existence of the DEA and the "war on drugs." Of course they also would have objected to the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act among other bureaucratic travesties that have been called into existence by our gradually leftward drift.

They envisioned a nation in which criminals would be swiftly dealt with, not molly-coddled by the judicial system and protected more than the victims they harmed.

They didn't envision a system in which those who refused to work would be supported by tax-payer monies. Private charities and individual states should carry that burden. Making life easy for those who are on government assistance is not a means of encouraging individual industry, it only further encourages dependence.

They envisioned a nation in which free markets, not government regulations would determine the price of good in the market.

They envisioned a nation in which individual liberty and freedom were maximized and government restrictions were minimized. (As Jefferson once said, "That government governs best, which governs least..).

The 2nd Amendment is as common sense and intuitive as is ownership of private property, freedom to say what you wish, the right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs, the right to privacy, etc.

The difference between people like you and those in the Brady Disinformation campaign, and the rest of us, is three-fold.

First, as I stated earlier, I don't fear my fellow law-abiding citizens. The fact that they may be armed doesn't worry me one whit . . . in fact it makes me feel more secure. I have confidence that my neighbors are as responsible as am I. I'm not concerned in the least that "he might go crazy and shoot a bunch of people" (such events are so very rare that they shock us. If America were truly the shooting gallery you imagine, nobody would be shocked when a mass killing occurred). If I happen to be wrong, then so be it, but I refuse to cower in irrational fear just because my neighbor has an AR-15 and 5000 rounds of ammo.

Second, we believe that individual freedom trumps security. Because we had to fight a war to enjoy the rights British nationals already enjoyed, perhaps we tend to hold those rights more preciously than most. We agree with Benjamin Franklin's assertion that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither.

Third, we don't believe that government is the ultimate source of good, or is inherently benevolent, we believe that the people in their private industry and private lives are the ultimate source of good and that governments should be as unobtrusive in their lives as possible.

See, unlike you, we believe in individuals, not government bureaucracies.

More Americans are killed in falls from ladders than are killed by guns . . . should we ban all ladders?

More Americans are killed by blows to the head, should be outlaw all hammers? bats? pool cues?

The hysteria in the anti-gun crowd is so extreme, that we have grammar school children being arrested for Nerf-guns, teens arrested and charged for wearing T-shirts with pictures of firearms, grammar school children being singled out for drawing a picture of a gun or of drawing pictures of war scenes . . . things that normal boys used to do all the time in school . . . and no one ever got shot by them.

The liberal bedwetters live in panic over an inanimate object.

 
Hey, cats I'd love to argue this issue with you later, but this is about NSA, stay on track. And please stop the hate/insults. It wastes our time. I'll respond after reading all of this you have written.


Sorry Nerrawg, my comments broke for a while, please read my comments below if you still care.
 



Hi JPN! Can't see any of your comments below so maybe they're still broke, or have I jumped the gun and you're still in the process of writing them. I would definitely appreciate reading them if you have time as I am interested in hearing the educated opinions of others on this matter, particularly people that are still currently living in the US. The most recent thing I have seen of interest is the comments made by the director GCHQ in a recent Guardian article. I quoted them in the last post I made, but you can find the entire article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/defence-and-security-blog/2013/jul/01/gchq-nsa-eu

His comments go further to confirm my concern over a current "arms race" in the theft of intellectual property and trade secrets between the major intelligence and surveillance agencies in the world. If allowed to continue, this facilitation of espionage under the guise of counter-terrorism surveillance could have grave implications for human innovation and productivity, putting our species in a much worse position to counter the immense challenges we already face for the future.

- edit - cool, just saw your post JPN
 
To Cats

Your precious Britain has a higher violent crime rate than America--3 times higher than in America. 3 times as many assaults, robberies, rapes, etc occur in Britain per capita than occur in America . . . the same with Oz. Both nations have experienced an explosion of violent crimes since they virtually banned private ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

Hrmm, going a bit of topic here but anyways... The correlation between the time periods before and after the hand gun bans and the increase in crime may be factually accurate, but the argument is misleading. There is currently no evidence for a causal link between the banning of guns and the increase of crime. In fact, both Britain and Oz witnessed a massive increase in immigration and intercity population density during this time-frame, coupled with increases in unemployment, people on benefits, drug addictions and illegal black market economies, all of which further facilitated the "breakdown" of the old social structures of the nuclear family among low income families. All of these conditions have offer just as much plausibility as the casual underpinnings for a rise in crime as the hand gun ban. So the hand gun ban should not be argued as the cause of crime, or at least, not without the consideration of these other phenomena that occurred at the same time.

No one here is "enduring the daily slaughter," except those who live in the liberal enclaves of our large metropolitan areas. Chicago has lots of murders, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, L.A., Atlanta, all of the big liberal/Democrat run cities are centers of tight gun ownership restrictions and very high murder rates. The vast, vast majority of those murders with which you seem to be so pre-occupied occur in those areas with the tightest restrictions on firearms.
Click to expand...

Here is a big point, albeit slightly colored by your personal interpretation. The media and others seem to entirely miss the point that the majority of the horrific stats the US has for gun violence comes from crimes in the inner-cities, primarily among the urban poor and critical not from the recent plethora of high exposure mass shootings that we have witnessed in middle-upper class areas. Of course, just as with Vietnam, the US media machine does not react until middle class white america is affected directly, and then, instead of reacting with reason and factual analysis switches to "hyper-emotional" mode and reacts out of what can only be described by those witnessing it from the outside as "Running around like horde of Head-less Chickens".

Personally, possibly because I am American and was raised shooting guns (definite bias), I am pro gun. However, living in the UK currently, I am a guest in this fine nation and I have no problems respecting the opinions and laws of the people who live here. They are very adamant in their anti-gun convictions and I think it suits this place just fine, it certainly isn't a problem to live here comfortably or safely. I still skeet-shoot here on occasion, and though I sometimes miss shooting watermelons and soda cans with a 44 and watching the results, I'll survive.

The US is an entirely different case. I agree that hand gun bans, like the one in Chicago, are a disaster. The problem is that if you are going to have a ban, you have to have it over a significant geographical area that you can control or not at all. You have to ensure that the likelihood of criminals using guns in crimes is extremely low, or you have to let citizens have guns as well. Guns are so common in the US that nothing, certainly no ban in cities alone, will go anywhere far enough to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Personally I think that while owning a gun is a right, it is already regulated by the government in many ways and it is the change in regulation that is critical to curbing gun crime, along with many more important social issues that I do not have time to get into here.

First off, assault gun bans are almost entirely focused on the aesthetics of the gun and are completely superficial -get rid of any of these. Secondly, high cap mag banning is unrealistic and does nothing. The majority of shootings and gun deaths come from hand guns. Increased regulation of hand guns is a good start. All guns already have serial numbers, but these should all be registered to the owners. All hand gun owners should be responsible for their own firearms, they must immediately report if these go missing and must be able to produce them whenever warranted. All hand guns must either be locked in a gun locker that meets standards or on the owners person/s under his supervision. Ammunition must be locked in a separate locker, this is after all, in the owners own interest as it protects him from thieves. Other short barrel weapons would be included in this, but not longer barrel weapons. All gun owners must have a safety license, however instruction and examination for this licence must be provided free of charge by the Govt. Too many cases of accidental shots and too many people who don't know how to behave on a shooting range. This would go a long way to prevent the issues with both gun crime and gun related injuries currently seen in the US.

I think the most positive side of firearms is the social one, which is commonly overlooked by both gun pro- and opponents. Shooting clubs, competitions and events are not only offer a lot of fun for the individual, but are an important and healthy part of small scale communities with immeasurable benefits that enhance the sense of community, sharing, goodwill and safety wherever they are a vibrant part of the social tapestry. Active members of these communities are often some of the nicest people you will ever meet. I don't really understand all this survivalist, "zombie-hunting" craze going on now other than for sheer entertainment, shooting is a sport that is much more enjoyable in the company of good people than alone.
 
Aarh. so much replying to do, so little time.

First, to put the nail in the off topic discussion,

I completely agree with Nerrawg, as in we need gun control, not gun banning. There is a very good reason that gun banning works well in Japan.
(1) No exceptions. no guns. period
(2) Island
(3) History, Culture.

Realistically, America cannot reach any of those three. But it can do its best to control guns. Banning "magazines" or plastic boxes with a spring in it, won't be effective though...

Now to reply to CATman and Nerrrrrr's strange interpretation of my previous point. I did not mean that we shouldn't control inevitable crime. I was trying to point out the flaw in your argument. That is that the NSA is obviously corrupt, and will most certainly destroy America, and that simple things can prevent that. Although this is a bit too radical, it is your argument right?

The NSA should be controlled I give you that. But what happens when you make things transparent, or you put super slow heavy restrictions of them? It becomes so ineffective/inefficient, that you might as well cancel the entire project.

Now about privacy. I've been discussing this issue for a while with two of my friends. One is a lawyer, graduated from Harvard Law school. (I heard he was top of class). Another is a college professor. They tell me (as I am not an expert in American law), that there is no place in the constitution that directly ensures privacy. This is one way they justify NSA-ish organization. (We had this discussion before snowden, but somehow the prof knew of this kind of organization from his Navy friend. weird)

This is not my final response to those above, and probably not my best. I'll do my best to continue. (but so much to do!).
 


Thanks for the response JPN. To start with your first point, the NSA did not have its current capabilities that we are discussing 20 years ago, but they were still effective enough. They didn't have any issues in terms of efficacy for the duration of the Cold War despite the fact that it was illegal for them to wiretap American citizens or read their mail without a public warrant. That's when they were facing a Superpower, now we are facing an infinitesimally smaller threat from terrorists and they want to be able to monitor everything based on secret, nondescript warrants issued by a secret count (FISA). I'm not arguing that the NSA has to be transparent to the US about its espionage of foreign Govt.s or other external threats, but that it still, as it did in the Cold War, has no right to spy on US citizens without due process. US citizens should not even be under the purview of the NSA, criminal activities including domestic terror plots should always be a task for local and Federal law enforcement. Therefore there is no need at all to "cancel" the NSA, just let it continue with its original objectives and have it operate within its original constraints. Electronic surveilance of US citizens should be conducted by the FBI and be conducted only under warrant by a Federal court of law. That is hardly too much to ask as it was always the status quo prior to 9/11.

Privacy, is as I see it, a critical issue, but its not about if there is a right to privacy in the law. What it is about, and what is critical, is that the populous and the government understand how privacy and secrecy are intrinsic to the ability of a democracy to function efficiently and the ability of the free market to function. Without businesses and individuals ability to withhold and profit from original intellectual property, the economic incentive from which the majority of American prosperity has derived is gone. It cannot be overstated how critical this is the functioning of any "free market" system, or for that matter, the specific case of the US. We can decide to not respect or not honour the right to privacy and secrecy in the case of IP, but it is we who will suffer from this decision and certainly not Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists in foreign countries.

If you study the history of cryptography, you will find that it wasn't the revolutions in mass communications that brought about the greatest increases to human innovation and productivity, but the revolutions of secure and confidential versions of these mass communications that were critical. Without cryptography, the internet would have had almost none of the tremendous economic impact it has had.
 


First, I didn't broach the topic of firearms and banning, just as I didn't initiate any exchange of ad hominems, I merely responded in kind to other posts.

I know the issue of guns was off-topic, but I sometimes do allow myself to run down the little bunny-trails that occasionally pop up in these political discussions when they are broached by others.

I suggest we drop the gun debate as off-topic and thus irrelevant. We have diametrically opposed opinions that will not be reconciled in this venue. For me, the Constitution trumps all else.

As to privacy, I will, once more in this thread, point out the 9th Amendment. Your friends are right, there is no explicitly laid out "right to privacy." There doesn't need to be.

The Founding Fathers made it absolutely clear that they did not even attempt to enumerate our rights. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Constitution is not a grant of rights and privileges, it is a series of restrictions and limitations placed upon the powers of our government.

The "right to privacy" is an intuitive right. I don't need anyone to tell me that I have a right to keep what goes on in my own property private. It is as intuitive as is the right to defend oneself (the right to keep and bear arms).

The right to self-determination, the right to say what I wish without fear of governmental reprisals, the right to worship as I choose (or not), the right to be secure in my property and effects, those are all inherent rights, God-given rights.

In America, the government doesn't grant me rights, the people grant the government limited power over themselves.

So the right to privacy does not need enumeration. In addition, the right to privacy was affirmed by the SCOTUS in Griswold v. Connecticutt (one of the worst-written, most unfocused and wandering opinions ever to be issued by that august body).

What the NSA has been engaged in not only violates citizens' right to privacy, but it also violates the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is quite simple, straight-line reasoning, you cannot meet the specific, explicit requirement for "probable cause" accompanied by "an Oath or affirmation," with a blanket warrant. It's simply impossible.

Therefore what the NSA and FISA Court have been doing is skirting the law and playing free with both the letter and intent of the constitutional protections Americans are supposed to enjoy.

I agree that America needs a vital and effective covert capability. I even agree that domestic surveillance is a necessary part of that process, but I do not believe and the laws of this nation concur, that it is necessary to sell one's soul (or in this case, privacy) to have that capability.

The freedom and liberty we Americans enjoy does not come cheaply, it costs dearly--both in blood and treasure. Part of that cost is that every American is always at risk from someone running amok and killing others. It is something that cannot be prevented and all the laws one can imagine will not keep Americans completely free of risk.

Again, I echo Franklin . . . "Those who would give up Essential Liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."

The NSA has been doing this for over a decade (to a varying extent), it cannot be credited with any successes in preventing attacks by terrorists. If a program is ineffective, then perhaps we should rethink it, not just continue to rubber-stamp it. Just because an idea sound like it might work, doesn't necessarily mean it will--in this case it seems to be a greater risk to our freedoms than it is a successful anti-terrorism tool . . . at least domestically.
 


Just a quick response to this comment, Nerrawg. You could be correct, except that we have correlating data. It's not just Britain and Oz, but that same correlation of increased violent criminal behavior and draconian gun restrictions exists in every major "blue" metropolitan area in America. So we don't just have limited correlation of events, but we have massive data as to what occurs when guns are confiscated in a free or at least titularly free society.

Gun laws don't actually prevent criminals from accessing or using firearms, they simply give citizens the perception of increased safety and security without actually providing it. History has demonstrated this so many times as to make it axiomatic to say that tighter gun restrictions lead to increased criminal activity.

 
To the argument that the NSA is fighting smaller threats in the form of rouge terrorists,

Modern terrorists are not the Soviet superpower as you say. They are far faster, far better informed, and far more discreet. Thus, if you were to use this example, the NSA indeed needs MORE power than when they were battling the organized Soviet superpower. In order to catch these fast terrorists, the best way is to create a network of persons of interest, just like the modern NSA.

You cannot measure the number of lives saved by the NSA. You cannot measure the scale of a terrorist attack that has been prevented. Cats, your argument on this matter is invalid.
 
Ancient Greece was not the most private state. This led to some drawbacks, but you need to see the positive aspects as well. There is a reason why that state is considered one of the greatest in history.

Also, if you expand your vision beyond democratic states, you see that there are a lot of very successful, peaceful, and desirable states throughout history that have very limited or no privacy.
 


Faster, better informed and more discreet? First, I take it by faster you mean more mobile? I would like to see any evidence to back these claims up. Certainly one could easily argue against better informed and more discreet. The USSR had an intelligence apparatus second only to the US so they were certainly far better "informed" when it comes to just about everything on this planet than the rag-tag organisation that is Al Queda. These terrorist organisations are not discreet in the slightest, they are practically shouting their intent and actions by means of anyone who will give them a microphone. Not to mention that they only appeal to a distinct type of person which makes profiling them infinitely easier than soviet intelligence assets which included people of every culture, religion and occupation because the Soviets had immense financial resources at their disposal.

Its pretty ridiculous to even compare the two, by means of their power and the threat they pose one is infinitely greater than the other. The USSR had the capability, both conventionally and through every WMD available to man from anthrax to the largest nuclear bombs, to wipe every country off the planet. Heck, the Soviets could have erased the entire human species, so to claim that the terrorists are even in the same ball park is outrageous.

As to the justification for spending so much money on the NSA, it is ultimately a self-defeating policy by the USA. I have a vested interest in seeing the US remain the superpower in the world, I don't like the alternatives. That is why I sincerely hope we slash the NSA and defense budgets and start focusing on the number one threat to US national security: THE ECONOMY. If we don't, the US will collapse under the weight of unnecessary spending on surveillance and war because we have already fallen behind the most developed countries in education and high-tech manufacturing. Soon, if we don't make drastic changes we will fall behind in innovation as well. Those issues should be at the top of the list and terrorism, which throughout the entire history of the US has claimed fewer lives than are lost in 1 year of US traffic accidents, has to be near the bottom of the list.

We desperately need to start looking dispassionately at the actual facts and stop acting out of irrational fear.
 


The term desirable is highly subjective. I personally would not desire to live in any state outside of the developed western countries and possibly Japan, Taiwan and South Korea currently. I certainly also am extremely grateful that I live in these times and not any of the previous centuries including those of the ancient Greek democratic states. Having studied ancient Greece and the foundations of western political philosophy, it is obvious that Greece served as an important model, however do not confuse that to mean that it was by any means considered an ideal state or ideal democracy. As to it being "one of the greatest" this statement is impossible for me to comment on unless some criteria for greatness are defined, because there certainly aren't any universal ones. Greece is interesting because it provides many of the first documented examples of modern social structures, not because it is a civilization that we necessarily want to emulate, after all we have come a long way since then
 
Rome fell from within eh?

I meant that rogue terrorists can be a lot more powerful than you think, and a lot harder to catch than old fashioned groups like the USSR. Some men and a plane ticket can bring down the world trade center. Brothers on the internet can create rather lethal bombs. If left uncontrolled can this have the potential to add up to quite a toll. The most effective tool against these is the NSA. As is the plot of one too many action films, there is no leader, or head to aim for. They are strengthened even more by the privacy provided. (brilliantly laid out in the very symbolic and short novel Lord of the Flies)

Greece, without much freedom, which you claim discourages ideas, was one of greatest places of innovations, ideas, and such.
 


Actually, we can know just how effective the program has been from the claims issued by the NSA just after Snowden's revelations--proven false--that the program was essential in stopping the NYC subway bomber and the Wall Street bomber.

It should give you pause that the NSA is unable to point to a single episode or event that their program, now in existence for over 6 years, has prevented or even been the driving force behind stopping. It should give you even greater pause that this lack of any evidence of success is so profound that the NSA was forced to release a false claim.

Your other assertion is simply ludicrous. It is your argument that is "invalid." Again you are reduced to making claims backed only by your own imaginings and assertions . . . no facts, just assertions.
 
If airbags are so effective, why do people die from traffic collisions? See smeeze, that isn't really a good argument.

As for Cats, I need a bit more research on that case, but I do know that the NSA is trying to defend its case without revealing much either, leading to much ambiguity, and lack of crucial info. But I'll get back to you.
 


Greece provided more than just examples of modern social structures. The fact that this intellectual debate (remarkably admirable for internet banter, I might add) is even in existance is, in iteself, proof that ancient Greece is emulated unwittingly by the civilized world today.

The concept of voting as a community on decisions is an emulation and derivation of Greek political structure. The concept of classless social structure that was theorized by Greeks (but never successfully implemented) is also something we attempt to emulate today (also without much success, honestly). Subjective musings aside, how is Greece not something that we necessarily want to emulate, yet we do so already?
 
You nail my point. Ancient Greece did all of this without much thought about privacy. I was using this to counter Nerrawg's argument that lack of privacy could lead to lack of ideas and innovation.
 


Firstly, one of my points was exactly that the answer to this question:

"Subjective musings aside, how is Greece not something that we necessarily want to emulate, yet we do so already?"

...will always be "Subjective musings". I tried to point this out to JPNpower in my previous comment, that what is considered "desirable" is completely subjective. This is still the case even though there may be some forms of consensus between peoples over what is desirable, these cases are hardly all-encompassing or consistent throughout history and therefore contextually subjective . I then went on to clarify my subjective biases on this matter so that it was made aware to the reader where my opinions were coming from, this is the reason behind my "Subjective musings".

As to ancient Greece being a system we "already" emulate, you actually answer this yourself:

"The concept of voting .. derivation of Greek political structure. The concept of classless social structure that was theorized by Greeks"

Emulate is not really the accurate term to use here, but derivation is. We have (political leaders, theorists and scientist for the most part that is) decided to use some of the ancient Greek ideas but not others. The ideas regarding democracy and political systems in ancient Greece can hardly be described as uniform or even unilateral. Political philosophers and thinkers of the time were often diametrically opposed to each other. This in itself makes the emulation of ancient Greek political theorems counter-intuitive. It is a selective adaptation of some of the priniciples they had. We do not follow their example by any degree of accurate emulation, nor, as you state yourself, are most of us aware of this derivation of ideas and principles from ancient Greece. If we truly were emulating them, it is my opinion that we would have to be following their example more accurately and also be more aware of that fact.

I don't believe that, as you suggest, Greece has much more wisdom to offer us in terms of political systems to "emulate" and I have given examples of why in previous comments. Another good example though, is Socrates. He could certainly comparable to a modern-day combination of Noam Chomsky and Dr. Michio Kaku in terms of radical new thinking that is counter-establishment, however his treatment in Ancient Greece (I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on this) was certainly not comparable to that of his modern day counterparts. It's a tremendous achievement that both modern-day examples of free-thinkers have nowhere near as much reason to fear their lives as Socrates did. They are allowed to critise the Govt. and the powers that be without anywhere near the dire consequences similar action would entail in ancient Greece. This, of course in my subjective opinion, is a confounding example of why modern society is much better and more liberated than ancient Greece. It follows logically that this allows for great freedom in ideas and expression that lead to increased innovation.

The above however, may be confined to a matter of subjective opinion. What is not however, is a quantitative comparison of innovation and the implementation of new ideas between different societies throughout the course of history. While ancient Greece, as you both rightly point out is a model for modern western democracy, it falls far short in terms of a quantitative comparison with regards to human innovation.

Now, as to JPN's point:

"I was using this to counter Nerrawg's argument that lack of privacy could lead to lack of ideas and innovation."

This is not really an accurate interpretation of the point I was making:

"I merely stated that democracy requires the right to privacy to work effectively. I'm glad you brought up ancient Greece as an example because it is a great example to explore"

Followed by examples of why the right to privacy and confidential voting in elections is crucial to protect minority opinions and avoid corruption. Next:

"What it is about, and what is critical, is that the populous and the government understand how privacy and secrecy are intrinsic to the ability of a democracy to function efficiently and the ability of the free market to function."

This is not stating that innovation and ideas were absent in ancient Greece, it is arguing that the US system of "free-market" trade is built upon the fact that an individual can come up with an idea and patent it. He can own that idea or IP and capitalize on its value through protecting it, and indeed, he can make some of it secret if he so desires (Coke formula is a good example). If he had no real way of keeping his idea private and protecting it from vying interests of other business or a corrupt Govt., it could be stolen from him and patented by someone of much great financial means. There are plenty of cases of this happening in history and what typically transpires is that the larger corporate or Govt. entity that steals this IP sits on it, as to spend the money to develop the idea costs more than selling the existing tech. They do not benefit from innovation, but from the protectionism of their existing business. Govt., quite rightly recognized that this abuse of privacy and secrecy resulted the quantitatively stifling of innovation. Subsequently, the US and other Free-market economies have rafts of laws that are meant to prevent this type of abuse, as innovation and human progress is in the interest of the Nation state as it vies to compete with other nation states on the global free-market.

The Free-market model of capitalism has so far resulted in the most efficient social model for both the quantitative and qualitative turnover of new ideas and innovations. It has done this by providing powerful financial incentives to individuals with new ideas to explore these ideas and expand them into the marketplace. At its most successful, it also allows for consistent failure of a large majority of ideas and innovators, without this effecting the security of the innovator him/herself. This facilitates a natural selection for the best ideas from the idea "pool" in your nation. By increasing the size of the idea "pool" your nation has, i.e. the number of innovators, you increase the potential for the selection of exceptional ideas that will put your nation at the forefront of humanity. Education and security are the most important factors in this, and privacy and secrecy fall under the category of security in this case. The size of the population or the location of natural resources are not nearly as important as the system that provides the tenements of successful free-market enterprise (do not confuse this with the neo-liberal/con BS about taxes etc) is, Just look at the development of Zaire, Zimbabwe or India compared to that of Singapore, Taiwan or Sweden.

It is this free-market system (and not models of ancient Greece) that requires secrecy and privacy to work effectively and stymie potential for successful large corporations and entities to abuse the system and thereby suffocate new innovation and developments.

To recap, privacy and secrecy are critical if you desire to:
1. Have effective democracy that protects minority opinions and protects against the systematic pressuring of voters or the systematic stigmatization of individuals with minority or opposing political leanings
These protections are implemented through the confidential ballot processes that protects voters and laws protecting the privacy of individuals who donate to political parties
2. Have an effective capitalist Free-market economy, for the reasons stated above
 


Actually, while smeeze's comment may be lacking as you point out, your counter argument is as well. The effectiveness of airbags to prevent people from dying in collisions can and has been measured empirically. It has been proven to save X amount of lives (can't be bothered to research the exact numbers so you can google it yourself if you are so interested). This hard data can also be further broken down for example:

How many more live do airbags save at 40 mph collisions, how many in 80, 90 or 100 mph collisons?
How much money used on the development and fitment of airbags in cars vs the medical costs of increased injuries?
What is the exact percentage increase in survival outcome, severity of injury? etc etc.

It goes on and on. Research like this is why we have airbags, because we know how good they are for a fact! Research like this is imperative for the reasoned decision making of Govt. and businesses in terms of whether or not to have airbags or to pass new legislation regarding said airbags.

And this, is exactly the point:

You can't have reasoned and accurate decisions if no one has the data!

If no one (not even the specifically selected oversight committee from The House of Representatives) has access to the data regarding the efficacy of NSA surveillance due to the classification of such documents, then technically:

The Govt. and the People will NEVER be making acccurate, informed and reasoned decisions about NSA Surveilance!

That my friends, is not an argument in confidence of the NSA programme, but one that directly opposed to its existence on the grounds that it cannot be reasonably regulated or operated in its current state with its current lack of any effective oversight.
 
Your second post is very strong... I have nothing that can refute it at this moment.

I see that in order for us to understand and trust the NSA, we must be able to know exactly what it does, or what it has done. Hmm..
 
However, I can challenge your idea that privacy always leads to good results. privacy=anonymity. And the mask of anonymity has created a monster. I can think of two example off of the top of my head.

The first is fiction. In the story "Lord of the flies", the mask of anonymity creates a monster out of little children, making them try to murder each other.

The second, and my main point, is in reality, in modern Japan. The internet has created an extreme world of privacy and anonymity. People use account names such as JPNpower, or Nerrawg to hide their ideas and actions. This has lead to multiple instances of forced suicide, mostly in young people, such as high schoolers/college students, and young sallarymen. Hidden behind privacy, people do and say such horrid things that they would never say to anybody's face. People gather around in a circle of hate, and inevitably force somebody into killing themselves. When they realize what evil they have done, they don't repent, and repeat the process over again. Such is the horror of privacy.
 


Thank you JPN, it has been a pleasure to discuss this issue with you in a reasoned fashion. I appreciate hearing the reasoned opinions of others and in particular the ones you have provided. Its also nice to do this without the typical name calling and other idiocy that so often appears to be the norm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom