SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday at the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Global Security Forum, John Brennan, Director of the US' Central Intelligence Agency, spoke about the recent bombings in Paris. In what many commentators took as a reference to Edward Snowden, but could instead refer to the Church Committee, Brennan predicted that finding the attackers will be more difficult than it would have been, had intelligence services been left unchecked:
In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand-wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.
I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.
[...]
There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult both technically as well as legally for intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it.
Brennan's complete remarks are available in video via C-SPAN.
[Additional coverage after the break]
- Politico
- Politico
- Foreign Policy
- Daily Mail
- Jerusalem Post
- Guardian
- Time
- Time
- RT
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS News
- Newsweek (limited access; requires Javascript)
- Breitbart News
- Democracy Now!
- Reason blog
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:36AM
What does that mean? How do you design an experiment to test those effects?
Why do I have to personally design you an experiment to test the effects of some unspecified action? That seems like a waste of time. I was speaking generally. Do you disagree that the effects of our actions can be determined objectively? If someone stabs someone else with a knife, does that not have physical effects on their body that can be observed and studied? I'm not sure where you're going with this.
So just a mere matter of getting most people to agree on the fundamental values of society? How would that would be accomplished?
Most people already have a desire to live, and a stable society certainly helps in that regard. If we didn't care about living or dying, our species would likely have died off.
As for how this can be accomplished, all you can do is try to find a common set of values that most people share with one another and see what policies and laws will likely help achieve those goals. Making people see that allowing murder and theft would not be in their best interest is easier than some other things may be.
Are these genuine questions, or is this going to turn into a "Gotcha!" moment?
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:02AM
Why do I have to personally design you an experiment to test the effects of some unspecified action?
I'm not asking for a specific experiment, I'm asking for a general methodology. How do you apply the scientific method to an experiment in ethics?
If someone stabs someone else with a knife, does that not have physical effects on their body that can be observed and studied?
Of course it does. But, as you said, those are physical effects, not ethical effects. Maybe the person who was stabbed was stopped from committing some greater ethical crime.
As for how this can be accomplished, all you can do is try to find a common set of values
It seems to me that the entire history of the human race is a constant story of the disagreement over values. Short term effects versus long term effects; value of life - relative or absolute; etc. It's one thing to say "stable society" it's another thing to define what that means, every government ever has claimed to support a stable society but there are so many different approaches because 'stability' is not a binary thing. Saying things like "try to find" is to trivialize one of the hardest parts of the entire process.
Are these genuine questions, or is this going to turn into a "Gotcha!" moment?
These are genuine questions to encourage you to elaborate on your beliefs. You are so vehement in your dismissal of anything that contradicts your viewpoint, therefore I have to charitably conclude that you've put a substantial amount of study to arrive at your position. So instead of putting all that effort into telling me why I'm wrong, I'd like to hear why you are right.
That's why I asked for some citations of other people's thoughts that have formed the basis for your belief in a science of ethics. Hume's theory of ethics, perhaps? John Locke's Natural Law and Natural Rights? You didn't come up with all of this in a vacuum, right? Philosophers have been studying ethics for as long as philosophy has existed. Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:26AM
How do you apply the scientific method to an experiment in ethics?
Of course it does. But, as you said, those are physical effects, not ethical effects.
We study the effects of our actions so that we can see if an action is good or bad according to our own values. I'm not sure what you mean by "ethical effects".
Maybe the person who was stabbed was stopped from committing some greater ethical crime.
That's irrelevant to the point you quoted.
It seems to me that the entire history of the human race is a constant story of the disagreement over values.
Yes, and if you expect perfection from any method, you're asking for something that does not exist.
Saying things like "try to find" is to trivialize one of the hardest parts of the entire process.
I'm not going to write an essay. If you find that choice of words to be trivializing the subject, then too bad.
It's one thing to say "stable society" it's another thing to define what that means, every government ever has claimed to support a stable society but there are so many different approaches because 'stability' is not a binary thing.
I never said it was easy. These are things that can actually be studied, even if it isn't easy, so there is some hope.
You are so vehement in your dismissal of anything that contradicts your viewpoint
Yes, I tend to not take claims of all-powerful magical beings seriously. Why the hell would I? Unless someone presents evidence of such a thing, I have no reason to believe it.
Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
Yes.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:37AM
irrelevant
too bad
never said it was easy
Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
Yes.
Am I to take that reply as meaning that you are not interested in educating me, or anyone else reading along, as to why you are right, only that everybody you disagree with is wrong? That would be unfortunate.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:52AM
Am I to take that reply as meaning that you are not interested in educating me
I am not interested in spending long periods of time 'educating' you about trivial things, no. But it seems odd to draw that conclusion from some of those random quotes.
only that everybody you disagree with is wrong?
I don't know what that means. Are you someone who promotes religion?
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:26AM
I am not interested in spending long periods of time 'educating' you about trivial things, no
I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.
. Are you someone who promotes religion?
I've always been and will always be an atheist. But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings." But you don't seem willing to make any sort of examination of those ideas so I won't bother you any longer. I will leave you to your utopia of a science of ethics that transcends utilitarianism.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:18PM
I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.
Trivial in the sense that it was obvious what I meant from the start, and easy to understand if you bother to think about it. If you wanted someone to explain such a thing to you in-depth, I am definitely not the person for that, because I have little patience for such things.
But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college
Truly amazing.
I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings."
Religions make many claims. Many of them are downright crazy (though those must merely be metaphorical, even when there is zero evidence of that), but they are certainly not limited to magical sky daddies. I know this. Yet still, most of the believers of these types of religions believe in magical sky daddies along with a host of other nonsense, which I consider a problem.
And no matter how "complex" religions are, what I ultimately care about is truth. I don't care about how happy religion makes some people, or any other such nonsense.