Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Privacy and Liberty Oversight?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169

    Privacy and Liberty Oversight?

    The whole Snowden scandal has started to die down a bit and now the focus is gradually turning to the underlying issues (whether Snowden is a traitor or hero is at this point a distraction). What have we wrought in the name of national security?

    A board to review privacy and liberty concerns answers to the executive branch and is simply hamstrung from even getting off the ground for several years. Now that it has a chairman, will it be able to provide any real oversight or merely be another paper tiger dictated to by the White House? See the note on Bush's censorship (Obama seems just as uninterested in seeing this go forward, but has been forced by the Snowden leaks to move).

    A few things that jump out as the NSA story evolves:

    Tremendously powerful secret arms of the government operating in the cover of darkness infiltrating pretty much everything electronic they can get their hands on (even this forum!). Worldwide in scope, pretty much unhindered by any genuine oversight, and capable of destroying anybody who tries to out them through protocol or open violation of the law.

    Was watching the Bourne Legacy the other day and while it was a mediocre sequel, the gist of the movie was absolutely portentous re how the secret powerbrokers in intelligence simply destroy anything and anyone who gets in their way. Might have been the usual Hollywood paranoia, but sadly was too accurate re the inner workings of our current government. Just feeling that something is deeply, terribly wrong with where we are headed...

    Whatever the feeling about the ACLU, this was the best outline of events I found...

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...itution-almost

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    A board to review privacy and liberty concerns answers to the executive branch.....
    I know I, for one, have full faith and confidence that our beloved Minitrue will surely take all steps needed to protect us Proles from any possible extra attention from Miniluv.

    WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.


  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I know I, for one, have full faith and confidence that our beloved Minitrue will surely take all steps needed to protect us Proles from any possible extra attention from Miniluv.

    WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.


    Okay, call me out of the loop, but I didn't understand your references at all... Minitrue is Obama? Miniluv is....

    Ah, looked up the term and came up with 1984... haven't read that since high school and completely forgot those Newspeak references or the motto. But now I understand. I remember preferring Brave New World back then.

    Anyway, wondering if there is anyone here who is comfortable with this trend toward total surveillance - for our safety.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 07-01-2013 at 02:23 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Anyway, wondering if there is anyone here who is comfortable with this trend toward total surveillance - for our safety.
    Why should I be? We have the most transparent administration in our nations history. We will clearly be in the loop on what/who is being monitored, how often and why.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite View Post
    Why should I be? We have the most transparent administration in our nations history. We will clearly be in the loop on what/who is being monitored, how often and why.
    I agree with you. Obama has actually ramped up the surveillance and done even less than Bush to establish oversight. It's disgraceful.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Ah, looked up the term and came up with 1984... haven't read that since high school and completely forgot those Newspeak references or the motto. But now I understand. I remember preferring Brave New World back then.
    I'm sure you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Postman
    What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'm sure you did.
    Huxley is pretty on point with the course of countries like the U.S. and Europe. Orwell seemed to be describing modern centralist states like China or the Soviet Union...

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Huxley is pretty on point with the course of countries like the U.S. and Europe. Orwell seemed to be describing modern centralist states like China or the Soviet Union...
    As I said, of course you preferred Huxley.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    As I said, of course you preferred Huxley.
    It's not about a preference, it's about what describes our culture more accurately. We are indeed inundated with information; the number of people who read books, much less serious books, has declined in favor of the sound bite and the Wikipedia (we are all guilty of that here, by the way); or society has in many ways become obsessed with trivialities from game shows to reality TV, to immediate gratification in a million forms; and we are indeed driven far more by the pursuit of pleasure than the avoidance of pain. We have been lulled into a kind of passivity about our political institutions and our principles. What do you disagree with? That in such a culture libertarianism will be reduced to its lowest common denominator as the indulgence of appetite without interference? Huxley is right.

    We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    It's not about a preference....
    So it just happens that you prefer the dystopian version that blames individual freedom and liberty for the downfall of man, eh?

    I don't disagree with some of what you say, but for once it'd be brilliant o see you put that blazing spotlight of criticism on the forces of Governance you always seem so hapy to embrace, who bears at least as much responsabillity as anything in the issues you raise.

    Whats next, a Conservative claiming Ayn Rand got it right too?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So it just happens that you prefer the dystopian version that blames individual freedom and liberty for the downfall of man, eh?

    I don't disagree with some of what you say, but for once it'd be brilliant o see you put that blazing spotlight of criticism on the forces of Governance you always seem so hapy to embrace, who bears at least as much responsabillity as anything in the issues you raise.

    Whats next, a Conservative claiming Ayn Rand got it right too?
    If that's the conclusion you draw, no I wouldn't say that, just the opposite. I think that the stewardship of liberty is MUCH harder to maintain than creating the condition for it in the first place. Humans are creatures of habit and comfort. Our tendency, understandably, is to gravitate toward what is easy and painless. Government is shaped in our neck of the woods as much by what we lack the will to stop as by what we demand. My very point in starting this thread is that we have come to a point where it is obvious that we no longer determine as a people what our government really is... we can't if we don't know what it does. And then even when we know, we quietly retreat under our rocks and say, "well, they're doing it to protect us." There are a thousand ways we are lulled into vapidness and complacency. Liberty is only as good as the individuals who define it. Are we not responsible for the society we have become? Too easy to blame the "government." It is what it is because we have willed it by omission as well as by commission.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post

    Anyway, wondering if there is anyone here who is comfortable with this trend toward total surveillance - for our safety.
    I DETEST it. I thing supporters of such behavior are being foolish and ignoring history. I'd rather have an attack every so often, sorry. You cant just "trust" the government like that with private information. Ill bet they have all my dick shots i sent my girlfriend....

    Since its quote time, Ill go with Benjamin "he who would give up liberty for a degree of security deserves neither"

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    If you guys could summarize this conversation in 25 words or less, I'd appreciate it.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    If you guys could summarize this conversation in 25 words or less, I'd appreciate it.
    Our Government sucks and abuses us all, because we the people are too lazy or stupid to tell it to stop doing it to us.

    25 words. You're welcome.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Our Government sucks and abuses us all, because we the people are too lazy or stupid to tell it to stop doing it to us.

    25 words. You're welcome.
    I think he was being facetious... you know, one of those empty-headed, self-indulgent, sound-bite digesting 'Mericans who are too lazy to read, much less read about ideas.

    So in effect, Winny, by dumbing things down for Potato, you've actually participated in the disenfranchizement of American liberty and the victory of the dystopian apocalypse.

    But your summary was pretty good.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I think he was being facetious... you know, one of those empty-headed, self-indulgent, sound-bite digesting 'Mericans who are too lazy to read, much less read about ideas.

    So in effect, Winny, by dumbing things down for Potato, you've actually participated in the disenfranchizement of American liberty and the victory of the dystopian apocalypse.

    But your summary was pretty good.
    Thank you.

    And I should stress I am not in much disagreement with you here overall.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Thank you.

    And I should stress I am not in much disagreement with you here overall.
    I'm breaking out the champagne! Historic moment on JI.

    Truthfully, I would have been surprised if you did, based on your comments i the past. I think we have no idea frankly of how far the secret arms of government can go in their pursuit of power over their perceived enemies. Nor how ruthless and unaccountable they can be when they decide to destroy their identified enemies -- even when those enemies are American citizens who foolishly demand that the truth be told. This is not a defense of Snowden, per se, but of the need for effective mechanisms to maintain the balance between government and the people. P.K. Dick is looking less crazy and more prophetic by the day...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us