Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-not-directly-spying-on-you dept.

Angry Jesus writes:

"German language magazine 'Bild am Sonntag' reports that, in response to Obama's recent order to stop spying on Angela Merkel and other heads of 'friendly' states, the NSA has instead ramped up spying on everybody Merkel communicates with. Cory Doctorow points out that this action demonstrates that the NSA is out of control and deliberately disobeying a presidential order with a level of duplicity worthy of a four year-old."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by deconfliction on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:17AM

    by deconfliction (183) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:17AM (#6451)

    Some of the activities of the NSA clearly violate the constitution. Some seem designed to skirt the edges. Then there is this.

    While it may provide the occasional diplomatic embarrassment, surveillance of foreign heads of state is both constitutional and reasonable.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin, I seem to recall a former head of the German state for whom we only wish we could have had such surveillance.

    This is the standard old school point of view, OK, fair enough. But when as a human race do we get to - enough is enough. The old school rules were established when the world was a much bigger place, and technology much less pervasive. Our founding philosophers declared that We The People had certain 'inalienable rights' to be free of an authoritarian government watching our every move, 24 hours a day, even in the privacy of our own homes and bedrooms (absent specific probable cause and a signed warrant).

    Were those 'inalienable rights' something that just became obsolete the instant technology and childish logic allowed a handful of world superpowers to get around them by just saying- Ok, the govt of A(e.g. U.S.) will spy 24/7 via tech on all world leaders - *and individuals because they could always be potential terrorists* of govt B(e.g. U.K.), and vice versa, resulting in a de-facto New World Order government that is allowed to bypass those 'inalienable rights' of all citizens of the world???

    I mean come on. My 4th ammendment right doesn't just disappear because those children in power play silly games with legal logic like that.

    And even if this childish spying was limited to 'politically interesting' people like advisors to world leaders- does even that make sense? When you become an advisor to a world leader, do you just give up your right to be treated respectfully and decently by the world powers at large? Your "Water is Wet" comments suggests you think they should just suck it up and sacrifice their personal privacy because they decided they wanted to be a significant part of their democratic government. That is so bogus. That can only lead to a withering of the pool of political advisors down to the people who just don't give a frack about their own, or anyone else's privacy. That can't be a good thing for our global human society. There has to be a better way of dealing with our global society than a - I don't know, is panopticon the right word? There just has to be a way to evolve into a global society where every individual feels as secure in their papers and effects / privacy as our 4th ammendment led our ancestors to feel they deserved to be. (ok, well if you had the right color skin, but I digress...)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:28PM

    by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:28PM (#6661)

    I think your confusion stems from a mistaken idea that the founders gave a shit about the rights of the public. Those rights were for the 10% or so of people who were white, male landowners. Women, blacks and poor whites could eat shit and die. And it hasn't really changed in 200 years. The name of the game has always been placate the masses with some seeming acquiescence, then plot some other means to achieve the same goal. And that goal is always the same: control the masses, preserve the status quo.

    --
    Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @10:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @10:36PM (#7596)

      Confusion might also stem from the mistaken idea that all of the founders were in unanimous agreement about everything. Sometimes real change takes small steps in series rather than one giant leap. For example, I've heard that the original draft of the US Constitution abolished slavery, but couldn't get enough signatories in that form, so they changed it. Don't forget, especially if you're from the US, that preserving the status quo is not why the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were written.

  • (Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:44PM

    by starcraftsicko (2821) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:44PM (#6670) Journal

    I mean come on. My 4th ammendment right doesn't just disappear because those children in power play silly games with legal logic like that.

    Right. The NSA & their cousins are way over the line, but its important to understand where the line is. Surveillance of foreign government figures is completely different than dragnet surveillance of 'everyone'.

    And even if this childish spying was limited to 'politically interesting' people like advisors to world leaders- does even that make sense? When you become an advisor to a world leader, do you just give up your right to be treated respectfully and decently by the world powers at large?

    It makes sense. The behaviour and motivations of governments are of interest to other governments. Once could infer that the surveillance represents the respect of those foreign governments. When you play at a different level, you come under a different level of scrutiny. Think major leagues vs minor leagues vs semi-pro vs little league.

    ...sacrifice their personal privacy because they decided they wanted to be a significant part of their democratic government. That is so bogus. That can only lead to a withering of the pool of political advisors down to the people who just don't give a frack about their own, or anyone else's privacy. That can't be a good thing for our global human society.

    The alternative is to have political advisors and leaders with a "right" to rule the world in secret. Think it through. When you reach the level of guiding a nation-state, your actions are substantially more than the actions of an individual. Your efforts deserve more scrutiny.

    There has to be a better way...

    The NSA and its cousins need to be curtailed, but your secret society is probably not an achievable outcome. In the case of the NSA and US constitutional law, dragnet surveillance is clearly an overreach. The part that is unacceptable however is not even the surveillance, but the formal link between the NSA as an element of NATIONAL DEFENCE, and agencies like the FBI or DEA which conduct domestic LAW ENFORCEMENT. The worse part of that link is the formal policy of concealment - even perjury - implied by the process of PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION.

    We must not let utopian ideals and angst distract us from the smoking gun.

    --
    This post was created with recycled electrons.