Tags for this video have been changed from 'TED, Edward Snowden, Here is how we take back the Internet' to 'TED, telepresence, surveillance, nsa, spying' - edited by doogle

How wonderfully ironic that a talk about intrusive surveillance is being watched by a guy -6.51- wearing google glasses...

And why in the FUCK trancecoach, would there have to be examples cited, when it's glaringly obvious the system is flawed and fucked in favor of those who have perpetrated the ruse that IS, the completely fucked government scenario of what we have? Tell us all this please, in just how many ways is it NOT fucked, from prisons, to infrastructure, to bogus bureaucracy, to the nightmare of surveillance and privacy violations that make the Stasi in East Germany and the Soviet Union KGB look like fucking children's birthday parties?? The system worldwide is as inefficient as any goddamn circa 1840's battleship, and I will be fucked if I have to listen to this kind of trite brain-dead soliloquy of justifications as to what the fuck any news-hound's sources are or what the fuck she says, who gives a fuck if she has any examples cited?? Are you fucking asleep or simply that goddamn naive??

As far as I know this hot bitch is working for the cunt Putin, whose sucking Obama's dick and they're both licking his wife's asshole.

Goddamn. The issue at hand is this smug fuck laughing in the faces of every human on planet earth while fucking them and lying his ass off.

"Outrage get's a lotta shit done right."

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

First things first: I read the article you linked as well as three others by the same author, given that he's teaching at a nearby facility. His article "The Three Types of Austerity" was quite enough to know that I'll never see eye-to-eye with him, or anyone of the same views.

"[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that does not match my perception of reality, given the absolute abundance of (financial) resources within the eurozone. It's a lack of demand for investments that's the problem, not supply. Savings are at record highs, investment is at an all-time low.

So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here, ever. It's utterly pointless. Same for the gold standard vs fiat, inflation good or bad, or any related discussion, really.

Instead, I'll try to reply to unrelated statements.

------------

"Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?"

I know nothing about the situation on set of The Wire. My assumption is that it involved the regular amount of abuse of labour, including unpaid interns.

------------

"Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to)."

Well, good for them. But I don't see why you drag them in here. You made a set of rhetoric questions aimed at hypocrisy by David Simon. I pointed out my view that any possible hypocrisy is dwarfed by the point he made vis-a-vis guilt/Perkins/watch/whatever.

------------

"Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?"

Feeling guilty about the discussion amongst the establishment regarding, for instance, the minimum wage. He finds it questionable how one can argue against giving a fella at Burger King 10-12 bucks an hour without feeling guilty for it. That's the disconnect we're talking about. When extremely wealthy individuals deny even the crumbs to the folks at the bottom.

Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. It was aimed at the demand for tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations or extremely wealthy individuals. I would feel ashamed for any demands to my benefit if a) I didn't objectively need them and b) they would come at a detriment to others in worse situations than me.

Since I'm arguing from a different economic perspective than you, a shortfall in tax income (aka tax breaks) to me means either more taxes at another place, probably from weaker entitities who can't afford to buy their own representative, or a cut in essential services. I operate under a very broad definition of human dignity and see it as the first and foremost objective. Food, shelter, health, etc for all -- which might just be a reason why some people refer to me as a "pinko commie".

------------

"Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?"

He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand. The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates into demand. For an economy that depends on the circulation of goods and services, a massive and non-temporary accumulation of debt or savings (same coin, different sides) in the hands of single players (be it state, corporation or individual) chokes up the system. Less demand, less investment, less growth.
Accumulation is all fine and dandy if it translates into economic activity, but given the pathetic % of GDP that is being invested, despite mountains of unused cash that are forced into financial shenanigans looking for profit, I'd say it is dead weight and a drag.

But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was probably hogwash to you.

------------

To answer your question: a human being and my great contribution to society is my charming personality, of course.

And with that, I bid you adieu. I've had long-ass discussions about Snowden/surveillance and other topics that led nowhere and I'm not interested in having one about economic theory, especially not in a second language. The floor is all yours, including the last word.

If you're still interested, here's another one for ya: for the NSA, espionage was a means to strengthen the US position in climate negotiations

It's not really worth the time unless you're obsessed about this sort of thing, but it illustrates something rather nicely: surveillance is a means for the rich and powerful to maintain the status quo, be it within a society or between nations. It's not a first world problem.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

And here I thought the claims around his four laptops were put to rest in July of last year or, at the very latest, after his meeting with Ray MacGovern, Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake in October.

There was nothing of substance on those laptops and to suggest otherwise with any credibility demands extraordinary proof.

Why?

Because of two primary reasons, as far as I am concerned:

- Any of Snowden's claims has yet to proven false. The entire apparatus is trying and they failed miserably so far. Probably because Snowden actually knows what he's talking about, unlike such cranks as Rep. Peter King.

- Snowden spent years working within the intelligence industry (CIA, NSA, private contractors) and he has proven to be careful and meticulous. Unlike the public (or the British MoD), he'd know better than to transport any sensitive information on a device like a laptop or a smartphone. Or an external harddrive. Or a disk. He'd use flash memory, possibly a thumb drive, probably an SD card -- the less embedded controllers a device has, the better. Heavily encrypted, of course, and if anyone doesn't believe that crypto works... tough luck, I'm done trying to convince people otherwise.

So, the only people who received data from him are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. American journalists reporting on American issues, just like he said.

As for the the revelation of "tons of national secrets and techniques": he has revealed nothing. Let me say that again: Snowden has revealed nothing.

He has empowered members of the press, the fourth estate, to do their bloody jobs and fullfil their role as watchdog over the government, something they failed at miserably in this particular regard. All revelations happen at the discretion of those journalists who are now the sole proprietors of the Snowden-documents.

If, however, you don't subscribe to the notion of a free press as a line of defence against government abuse, then I can't change your mind.

By the way, "putting American lives at risk" should have received a trademark by now, the way it has been waved around to kill uncomfortable conversations. I vividly remember how desperate they were to find proof that the Afghan/Iraqi War Logs and the Gitmo Files were endangering lives. As far as I know, they never found any. And as far as I know, all releases based on Snowden-documents were carefully chosen and redacted where neccessary to protect the identity of human assets. All claims to the contrary need to provide evidence.

But I'm glad to see that the "American industry" has found its way into the argument. At least we don't have to pretend that this is solely about terrorism anymore. Industrial espionage, diplomatic advantages and... keeping your own population in check.

Yay! It's just like the old days.

Oh wait, I forgot. My country has been under full scale surveillance by the US, the British and the French since the late '40s, so it's actually business as usual.

And here's the document in question: In the matter of state surveillance

On monday, the FIDH and others will file charges in several European countries against members of different governments as well the heads of intelligence agencies for espionage and whatnot. I'm rather curious about the specific charges made against French and German intelligence agencies. I suppose it'll be complacency or a failure-to-protect sort of accusation.

By the way, it's basically the same group that also initiated the case at the ECtHR, so this ought to be interesting.

And while we're at it, legal advice given to British MPs outlined that GCHQ's actions appear to be in gross violation of the ECHR. No shit, sherlock.

"The key is to remember that the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when people look at the data. It occurs when people gather the data in the first place."

This is what we've been trying to get into people's heads for years and years in this country as part of our fight against data retention by telecoms. As soon as data is gathered in a machine-readable format, you have crossed the Rubicon. End of story.

Also, fuck my government for not offering asylum to brother Snowden.

"it just sounds like a return to feudalism."

How so specifically? An agrarian culture based on farmland ownership?

It sounds to me that your imagination is getting the best of you. Creative, but not at all what I am describing. Somalia is a failed state, and a socialist failed state at that. However, as you know, things from medical services to life expectancy to infrastructure to child mortality to crime all dropped in the 20 years in which Somalia had no functioning government. Things got better not worse. Why do you think that is?

Saying a free market would be like Somalia is like saying that a government-regulated market would be like North Korea. There are other issues to consider.

Libertarianism does not posit that a free market automatically means a perfect or even a great society. But it does posit that a free market system will ease poverty, increase wealth, and ensure peace at a faster pace than a statist one. At whatever level a culture/society starts at, they will improve and be better off in a free market rather than under state rule. Somalia started off in a mess, caused by its failed state circumstances. You cannot seriously expect to go from one day to the next, eliminate the state, and expect that overnight all that damage will sort itself out just because now -- a day later -- there's no state. You have to rebuild and accumulate wealth over time. And Somalia did remarkably well considering the mess it started from.

A society like the US, which is much better off (for the time-being!), would improve even more, rather than deteriorate, with less or even no government. But of course, if a meteorite wipes out DC overnight, that does not mean overnight improvement. After all, the government has wiped out many private institutions that would need to be in place to take over from the government in providing the services they put out of business.

On the other hand, the road towards more state control (which you, strangely continue to support and defend) leads to more deterioration of the society/culture. The US is doing better because of all the capital it accumulated during the century in which it functioned under little government intervention with regards to its economic matters. That wealth has been badly squandered, and now Americans are living off what remains, slowly but surely bankrupting the country though more government interventions, currency inflations, needless war, bailouts, surveillance, ad infinitum.

But make no mistake: whatever wealth the US as a nation has came about though free exchange in commerce, and was not the result of government regulation. The more government interferes, the slower the growth, until now it has reached the point where there is no growth, only debt. (The Treasury should be renamed the Department of Debt, because it has no money, only debt -- just like a majority of Americans.)

In sum: Somalis are improving. Americans are not. Whoever you are, I assure you, you started off in a much better place than the average Somali did. But look at their rate of change!


EDIT: Somalia also did not have a "free market" when it came to warlord gangs. Unless people had a choice as to which warlord to hire for protection or not, then that is not a free market when it comes to protection services. If allegiance to a particular warlord was voluntary, then you could more honestly make the claim that they had a "free market." Still, the situation is improving. And I think it would have improved faster had there not been the (UN-fueled) expectation of a future centralized government, had the UN not been financing groups towards this end, and had they not been incentivizing gangs to fight each other for position in a future "government."

There is nothing "free market" about forced conscription. I don't know why you would even say that.

So are you 'glad' about the current president, whose rap sheet of abject failures trumps more than that of 2 dozen administrations in history? Not saying any other would have done more for the elite who put all presidents in place but seriously....What the FUCK has the not-black president done worth a fiddler's fuck bareboards? Your comment sounds like the same2 rhetoric taught the masses from years of programming and fantastic confabulation.

Gitmo? Name-Calling and cry-racism at any opportunity? Appointing complete cunts to czar posts? Expanding surveillance and promulgating police-state? Debt to $4.939 Trillion since taking office (not that we'd pay back any debt anyhow, another confabulate issue, completely meaningless)?
Nobel peace prize (meaningless)?
Cult of personality antics that would make any dictator green and covetous?
Media-whore first-lady?
Blah, blah, blah green energy after the BP spill?

A real piece of work, but so's frikkin' Mitt Mormonite

Jesus man, get a grip on that shit!?

...and those programmed to be left-leaning are as distracted by bread and circuses as the worst of the clueless right-The real power comes for the left if gears change and the focus becomes financial institutions and political lackeys who fool you into thinking your power is in a vote or a cause-They hook you with bleeding-heart pet-causes and the distraction continues-

There is no stopping the insanity of a world controlled by a hi-jacked economy and you are powerless unless this becomes the focus of all activism. The FBI is untouchable today, as well as the surveillance infrastructure. All these pieces of the puzzle become powerless when you stop paying attention to the farcical slave-economy and the coming world police state.

The real success of programming shagen, comes from each generation becoming thicker, stupider, and programmed to be slaves for shit-tickets to buy more 'stuff' with.

All you need is food and love babies, and they have almost cornered the market on edibles that are not toxic for body, mind, and soul.

The shit they are capable of today makes Cointelpro look like a kindergarten spelling test.


Wholly disagree with the idea that the exposure of Coinitelpro caused the government to "reign-in" a GODDAMN thing. They simply do what all failing or exposed nefarious empires do when their shit starts to stink to everyone....They go into hiding or became instantly more sophisticated then provided a suitable distraction with money and television bullshitting.

Hardly much more sophisticated, the fucking president a year later used his own intelligence resources to break-into the Watergate hotel-A lot of sleepy motherfuckers on this sight should wake the fuck up and stop smelling their own farts long enough to realize that the 'left' and 'right' are the same fucking illusion.

Humans are easily-programmable units and universities are a perfect place to begin a new era of bullshit.

The program has never changed, and these fucks hold all cards except the mind and soul cards.