![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
root-fu.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics"When the CIA sees three guys doing jumping jacks it thinks its a terrorist training camp."
--Anonymous state department official quoted by the NY Times
Modest workout routine or terrorist training camp? The eyes can deceive us.
The United States has been characterized by some as taking a reactionary, “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism.
America's approach to a wide array of issues including counter terrorism could be categorized as redundantly reactionary in nature. If they bomb us, we bomb them. If they hijack planes wielding boxcutters, we ban boxcutters. If they disguise bombs in shoes, we ask passengers to remove shoes for inspection. If they hide bombs in toothpaste tubes, we ban toothpaste tubes from flights.
We're typically a step behind in our adoptance of reactive measures whilst being hamstrung by an inexplicable stubborn refusal to seek out measures that are proactive in nature. This broadscale reactionary precedent applies across the board as a large scale modus operandi. A reality perhaps prevalent even in united states' surveillance programs.
Technology, surveillance programs and wiretaps in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Gauging ethics requires quantifying a degree of intent. And even weapons of mass destruction or nuclear ICBM's may be deemed harmless without an intent to launch. It may not be an exaggeration to suggest we're not concerned with a black and white portrayal of technology or monitoring programs as we are the potential application to which these technologies will be put to use.
A common issue revolves around modern technologies being dual use in nature. Nuclear technology is dual use in terms of it encapsulating both weaponized and electrical generation applications. It can be used to build nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants. By itself the technology is neither black and white, good nor evil. It can be utilized toward constructive or destructive ends. A precedent that often applies across the board as far as science and technology are concerned.
In addressing the risk versus reward of an NSA surveillance program, its not intent on the part of the state or citizens that matter, as it is the application to which such technology might be put. NSA surveillance is also dual use technology which could be utilized towards moral or immoral ends, depending upon the intent of those who use it.
Attempting to mind read or psychoanalyze intent within deterministic bounds is typically an exercise in futility. The line separating incompetence to malice can seldom be empirically defined outside of subjective and arbitrary constraints.
Luckily for us, we have an assortment of recent trends and prior history upon which to anticipate to what application NSA surveillance might be put. And to what degree it may be defined as good or evil.
Within the last 10 or so years a silent revolution has occurred.
With the advent of internet websites such as Intelius the internet has exploded with services that sell americans personal information for a price. No longer is a citizens personal data considered their personal property. There are no options for delisting ones personal information from publicly accessible databases as in the past. Anyone with a criminal history of identity theft or background in crime can purchase your personal information for $20. Its not necessarily uncommon for millions of social security numbers, debit & credit card numbers, financial information and assorted personal details to be stolen electronically.
The main concern may be the paradigm shift which has occurred whereby people once had ownership over their personal information and an option to delist personal data from publicly accessible databases(phonebook). Whereas, such no longer seems to be the case.
That websites like Intelius are able to sell the personal information of americans without consent implies a citizens data is the property of Intelius. Americans have lost a right to determine if their personal data is publicly available and upon what grounds the data may be disseminated or shared.
This precedent may hint at potential negative applications of NSA surveillance programs.
Its well known many employers conduct credit or financial history queries prior to hiring new employees. By itself, that precedent doesn't carry a significant potential for abuse.
But, in considering recent events where democrats pressured the IRS to special scrutiny of opposed political groups. One might wonder -- if broadscale surveillance and information sharing could be used to attack or discriminate against specific demographics or political groups?
Could an Administration scrutinize the financial history of american citizens and use the data to identify and attack those who donated campaign contributions to a specific candidate or political party? Given the lack of accountability and oversight. And the lack of a warrant system or paper trail there would be no way to hold anyone accountable if it occurred, or to prove in court that it had even happened.
Given recent troubles where many americans deemed 'high risk' were denied healthcare coverage.
One might question whether the united states building a massive database of citizen DNA would exacerbate or alleviate the trend. What if a comprehensive DNA database only gave health insurance companies another tool to deny americans with genetic markers for disease, health insurance? Would that produce a positive or negative precedent?
If its common for employers today to hire or deny potential employees on the basis of them having a poor credit or financial history. Could it be a natural progression for them to deny job hunters who carry genes or DNA markers for illness in the future once citizens personal DNA information is catalogued and distributed?
State surveillance programs may also carry a potential to infringe upon other rights such as freedom of speech.
Anonymous blogs have long served as functional tools for individuals to circumvent oppressive totalitarian censorship. State surveillance programs as initiated by the NSA have the potential to destroy the anonymity and coordinative efforts social media, blogs and similar platforms provide.
In considering the applications of state sponsored surveillance programs, and the collection and distribution of citizens personal data.
Its not so much about intent.
Its beyond the realm of possibility to determine whether a technology will be used for good or evil. Or even what the end game is in terms of application. This makes it somewhat a moot and pointless topic to discuss.
Comic book characters were on the right track with their premise of "great responsibility being a fundamental requisite to wielding great power".
In the end, it may not be about whether state sponsored surveillance will be used for good or evil, nor anticipating to what intended application it shall be put.
It may be moreso a question of whether a state and its affiliates should have the power to claim ownership of citizens personal data and to freely disseminate, buy and sell such information without consent.
Given recent trends of how personal data is sold, shared and traded without constraints or accountability, it may be reasonable to expect future data sharing programs will further extend and compliment the rampant information sharing we're seeing in the present - at the expense of personal privacy and rights.
It is sometimes said that a wise man builds his home upon a reliable and stable foundation.
Just as one would not normally condone building a nuclear reactor on a fault line in an unreliable area known for earthquakes and tsunamis, so one may not condone constructing a broadscale surveillance program sans oversight and accountability.
In the Dark Knight, Batman couldn't hope to bear the responsibility of a cell phone monitoring device in The Dark Knight. If a superhero isn't up to the challenge of utilizing such technology, such responsibility bodes too heavy a burden for a state to bear.
There's no precedent projecting tangible surveillance induced gains that are cost effective in terms of risk or reward. And undeniably an extremely high potential for abuse and infringement of rights. The small potential for gain and large potential for negative application imply the NSA's surveillance program could never be worthwhile & should be scrapped.
In essence, the state is asking for citizens to trust in blind faith they'll do the right thing without guarantees or transparency. An unreliable premise under any circumstance.
Just as many of us would not condone believing everything in a religious text in blind faith.
So we must endeavor to not believe everything a state and political leaders say in blind faith.
What we need are guarantees, accountability and transparency.
Failing those concessions, there is no way state sponsored surveillance can be supported or endorsed.
~Food for thought
.
jjhj
--Anonymous state department official quoted by the NY Times
Modest workout routine or terrorist training camp? The eyes can deceive us.
A Reactionary Approach
The United States has been characterized by some as taking a reactionary, “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism.
America's approach to a wide array of issues including counter terrorism could be categorized as redundantly reactionary in nature. If they bomb us, we bomb them. If they hijack planes wielding boxcutters, we ban boxcutters. If they disguise bombs in shoes, we ask passengers to remove shoes for inspection. If they hide bombs in toothpaste tubes, we ban toothpaste tubes from flights.
We're typically a step behind in our adoptance of reactive measures whilst being hamstrung by an inexplicable stubborn refusal to seek out measures that are proactive in nature. This broadscale reactionary precedent applies across the board as a large scale modus operandi. A reality perhaps prevalent even in united states' surveillance programs.
Dual Use Technology
Technology, surveillance programs and wiretaps in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Gauging ethics requires quantifying a degree of intent. And even weapons of mass destruction or nuclear ICBM's may be deemed harmless without an intent to launch. It may not be an exaggeration to suggest we're not concerned with a black and white portrayal of technology or monitoring programs as we are the potential application to which these technologies will be put to use.
A common issue revolves around modern technologies being dual use in nature. Nuclear technology is dual use in terms of it encapsulating both weaponized and electrical generation applications. It can be used to build nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants. By itself the technology is neither black and white, good nor evil. It can be utilized toward constructive or destructive ends. A precedent that often applies across the board as far as science and technology are concerned.
In addressing the risk versus reward of an NSA surveillance program, its not intent on the part of the state or citizens that matter, as it is the application to which such technology might be put. NSA surveillance is also dual use technology which could be utilized towards moral or immoral ends, depending upon the intent of those who use it.
Attempting to mind read or psychoanalyze intent within deterministic bounds is typically an exercise in futility. The line separating incompetence to malice can seldom be empirically defined outside of subjective and arbitrary constraints.
Luckily for us, we have an assortment of recent trends and prior history upon which to anticipate to what application NSA surveillance might be put. And to what degree it may be defined as good or evil.
Historical Trends
Within the last 10 or so years a silent revolution has occurred.
With the advent of internet websites such as Intelius the internet has exploded with services that sell americans personal information for a price. No longer is a citizens personal data considered their personal property. There are no options for delisting ones personal information from publicly accessible databases as in the past. Anyone with a criminal history of identity theft or background in crime can purchase your personal information for $20. Its not necessarily uncommon for millions of social security numbers, debit & credit card numbers, financial information and assorted personal details to be stolen electronically.
The main concern may be the paradigm shift which has occurred whereby people once had ownership over their personal information and an option to delist personal data from publicly accessible databases(phonebook). Whereas, such no longer seems to be the case.
That websites like Intelius are able to sell the personal information of americans without consent implies a citizens data is the property of Intelius. Americans have lost a right to determine if their personal data is publicly available and upon what grounds the data may be disseminated or shared.
This precedent may hint at potential negative applications of NSA surveillance programs.
Its well known many employers conduct credit or financial history queries prior to hiring new employees. By itself, that precedent doesn't carry a significant potential for abuse.
But, in considering recent events where democrats pressured the IRS to special scrutiny of opposed political groups. One might wonder -- if broadscale surveillance and information sharing could be used to attack or discriminate against specific demographics or political groups?
Could an Administration scrutinize the financial history of american citizens and use the data to identify and attack those who donated campaign contributions to a specific candidate or political party? Given the lack of accountability and oversight. And the lack of a warrant system or paper trail there would be no way to hold anyone accountable if it occurred, or to prove in court that it had even happened.
Given recent troubles where many americans deemed 'high risk' were denied healthcare coverage.
One might question whether the united states building a massive database of citizen DNA would exacerbate or alleviate the trend. What if a comprehensive DNA database only gave health insurance companies another tool to deny americans with genetic markers for disease, health insurance? Would that produce a positive or negative precedent?
If its common for employers today to hire or deny potential employees on the basis of them having a poor credit or financial history. Could it be a natural progression for them to deny job hunters who carry genes or DNA markers for illness in the future once citizens personal DNA information is catalogued and distributed?
State surveillance programs may also carry a potential to infringe upon other rights such as freedom of speech.
Anonymous blogs have long served as functional tools for individuals to circumvent oppressive totalitarian censorship. State surveillance programs as initiated by the NSA have the potential to destroy the anonymity and coordinative efforts social media, blogs and similar platforms provide.
End
In considering the applications of state sponsored surveillance programs, and the collection and distribution of citizens personal data.
Its not so much about intent.
Its beyond the realm of possibility to determine whether a technology will be used for good or evil. Or even what the end game is in terms of application. This makes it somewhat a moot and pointless topic to discuss.
Comic book characters were on the right track with their premise of "great responsibility being a fundamental requisite to wielding great power".
In the end, it may not be about whether state sponsored surveillance will be used for good or evil, nor anticipating to what intended application it shall be put.
It may be moreso a question of whether a state and its affiliates should have the power to claim ownership of citizens personal data and to freely disseminate, buy and sell such information without consent.
Given recent trends of how personal data is sold, shared and traded without constraints or accountability, it may be reasonable to expect future data sharing programs will further extend and compliment the rampant information sharing we're seeing in the present - at the expense of personal privacy and rights.
It is sometimes said that a wise man builds his home upon a reliable and stable foundation.
Just as one would not normally condone building a nuclear reactor on a fault line in an unreliable area known for earthquakes and tsunamis, so one may not condone constructing a broadscale surveillance program sans oversight and accountability.
In the Dark Knight, Batman couldn't hope to bear the responsibility of a cell phone monitoring device in The Dark Knight. If a superhero isn't up to the challenge of utilizing such technology, such responsibility bodes too heavy a burden for a state to bear.
There's no precedent projecting tangible surveillance induced gains that are cost effective in terms of risk or reward. And undeniably an extremely high potential for abuse and infringement of rights. The small potential for gain and large potential for negative application imply the NSA's surveillance program could never be worthwhile & should be scrapped.
In essence, the state is asking for citizens to trust in blind faith they'll do the right thing without guarantees or transparency. An unreliable premise under any circumstance.
Just as many of us would not condone believing everything in a religious text in blind faith.
So we must endeavor to not believe everything a state and political leaders say in blind faith.
What we need are guarantees, accountability and transparency.
Failing those concessions, there is no way state sponsored surveillance can be supported or endorsed.
~Food for thought
.
jjhj
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 00:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 04:34 (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 05:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 10:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 03:36 (UTC)the video could be anything really, to me it looks like a bunch of people in black sweat shirts and pants, in Anywhere, Anycountry being told to do random exercises
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 10:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 14:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:02 (UTC)As far as I can tell, its american soldiers training middle eastern soldiers in Iran or Afghanistan.
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/13 01:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 10:05 (UTC)This is not true. I've done just that myself a few months ago. Even from Intelius.
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 10:24 (UTC)Doesn't count. They should remove it for free considering its your information and not their property. d :
(no subject)
Date: 7/8/13 20:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/8/13 17:12 (UTC)But, I would maintain that the degree to which a persons personal information has been expanded, shared and sold as if it were a commodity owned by private enterprise constitutes an infringement upon personal privacy and rights.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/13 23:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/13 20:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 15:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 20:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/8/13 17:06 (UTC)Why wouldn't the NSA use its surveillance program to attack its dissenters?
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/13 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:15 (UTC)This kind of misidentification happens more than the guys in Washington are willing to admit. It lends new meaning to the slogan, "Support Our Oops!"
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:26 (UTC)What does he know that we don't? :T
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/13 16:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 17:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 17:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 01:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/13 18:11 (UTC)