SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK
Surprising absolutely no one, the Guardian reports that Keith Alexander was fully briefed and supportive of the GCHQ's plan to destroy Snowden-related computers at the Guardian's offices in London.
The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.
White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as "good news".
A Compromise with the NSA
"The NSA wants to know everything we do? Fine, but only if We the People see everything the NSA does. The real problem with the current mass surveillance is asymmetry."
Now we all know that the NSA is not going to open its doors and reveal its secrets - that would be foolhardy in the extreme and seriously endanger the US and its citizens. And despite the sincerely-held views of many of our members and others elsewhere, from the outside there doesn't appear to be anything like a groundswell of dissent in the US regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA's activities.
However, perhaps by being a little more open it might begin to win back the trust of those who currently doubt that the NSA is working in their interests. What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power? What amount of spying on allies and partners would be acceptable while remembering that each time such activity is discovered it weakens the trust of the ally and can have serious repercussions for US business? Would clearly stating which terrorist plots had been thwarted by intelligence gathered, in part at least, by the NSA be enough? Or have we already passed the point of no return?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fatuous looser on Saturday July 12 2014, @06:38PM
The trust is gone for good & it's not coming back. If you're old & childless, like me, you might have the luxury of withdrawing gradually from this society, which has made itself sick. No smartphone, no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo. They are data collectors for the dystopia & must be jettisoned wholesale. The "online" computer will eventually have to go too, sorry to say. Was mighty fun for awhile but the whole milieu has been poisoned.
The only trustworthy federal government would be microscopic relative to what we have grown today. That way no department has too much money to do mischief like black ops, false drug wars, militarized police departments & foreign entanglements. The gov't. has to be able to audit where the spending is going or we are all sunk.
The Constitution was precious but it's already been killed off. Without an opportunity to reinvent it at some time in the future (extremely unlikely), Land of the Free is ancient history.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:59PM
I personally suspect that the entire edifice is crumbling.
It's interesting that we always refer to our systems as democracies, when they seem to far more resemble the old Roman model of a republic. Democracy traditionally had a meaning that revolved around direct participation in the affairs of whatever government a community had. There was no such thing as representation as we understand it today.
It's interesting also that the founding of the US makes no mention of the idea that it is a democracy . In fact, democracy was something the founders actually feared. It was only later when the term became appropriated by political parties that the terms democracy and republic became more or less interchangable.
I suspect what comes next is actual democracy. We have the technology to directly and easily participate in the affairs of our own municipalities and local governments. We've seen what representation actually becomes - a bipolar system where monied interests devastatingly distort the process of representing contituents, to the point where most elected representatives actually work directly in opposition to the communities they're supposed to represent.
I try to be an optimist, so I honestly believe that the deceptive practice we like to call democracy will cease. Democracy will become something more than voting between two or three well heeled, bought off douchbags every few years.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:03AM
the problem with direct democracy is that its literally mob rules. if, for example, all of the non-whites pooled all their voting power and achieved a majority over whites, they could then indiscriminately punish caucasians without recourse, institutionalizing whats often called "reverse discrimination" (though its just regular ol' discrimination). if a majority suddenly decided that all heterosexual married couples should be taxed 99% or jailed, then that would be law.
direct democracy is a terrible thing, it really is, especially on large scales. what would probably work better is a random-selection representation republic - each area's representatives are randomly chosen from the eligible, and making people ineligible needs to be difficult, otherwise if somebody is "too good" all you'd have to do is slide a baggie of coke under their door and call the cops, boom instant felon and they're no longer eligible. it defeats the purpose if people can be made ineligible so easily and fraudulently. and while i'm talking about ideal, the unbiased use of research and the scientific method should be required for forming new laws too. sadly, i'll never see anything like that in my life.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:20PM
Hi, I live in South Africa. Having voted for the abolition of apartheid, I am now the victim of race-based legislation now labeled affirmative action. The problem of majoritarianism is a real one. I guess I will have to take my tax-paying ass to a place where my ability to be promoted does not depend on the colour of my skin.
(Score: 1) by sqrt(-1) on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:08AM
I have been wondering for some time now - have we hit the limits of representative democracy ? Common belief is that participatory democracy cannot scale (Switzerland seems to be doing well, without many problems that those outside of it are aware of). And we seem to have accepted that representative democracy is the next logical step. Perhaps it is time to look at alternatives. To your point - going to participatory democracy necessitates more decisions to be made locally, which not many (albeit, those in power) are in favor of.