|
“Collecting The Haystack” And Almightiness
The NSA will now push new internal rules to protect data it illegally collects from being accessed by its own staff. Those rules will include an additional layer of encryption, four-eyes rule for system administration and more compartmentalized access. That is fine because it will kill the NSA’s productivity and effectiveness.
The NSA’s says it needs all teh data it collects to find “terrorists”. If one believes that the NSA genuinely wants to find terrorists one should be worried that it has chosen the wrong method for the false problem:
General Alexander spoke in defense of the N.S.A.’s surveillance programs, including its collection of a vast database of information about all phone calls made and received in the United States. “You need a haystack to find a needle,” he said
The assertion that one needs a haystack to find a needle is incredibly stupid. It assumes that there is a needle (or “terrorist”). Something neither given nor provable. Even if there were a needle how will making the haystack bigger it easier to find it? And why is the needle the danger that must be found? Edwald Snowden set the NSA’s haystack on fire. Alexander now has his house burning because of the much too large haystack he accumulated.
That General Alexander comes up with such implausible assertions makes one wonder about the real motives behind the obsession with data collection. My hunch is that the only real reason behind it is “because we can”.
People under total observation change their behavior and change in their characters. But total observation also changes the behavior and character of the observer. It creates fantasies of unlimited power, of almightiness and leads to total arrogance.
I believe that Alexander and the politicians’ defending him show the symptoms of this disease. They assume that they are unbeatable and can act without any consequences. It is up to us to teach them that they are wrong.
This is all completely crazy. It is the Total Awareness fantasy. But the ppl selling it make money, and that’s the American way!
The whole boondoggle is afforded by present technology. It is a commercial opportunity, a sort of underground and tentacular dot.com bubble.
I remember being in two USSR countries (now ex-), too funny, as a keen young person and collaborator. (Switz. always had strong ties with satellite USSR, not Russia!,Turkey, Cuba, and others, being outside the EU.) In one I had to get permission from the Ministry of Culture to make photocopies. This was easy to obtain, you got a permit with a stamp for a tiny fee. But the photocopies cost a bomb! (It was a scam.) In another every page photocopied was supposed to be consigned to a local official, you could copy anything you liked, simply the Gov. wanted to know what was going on. (many ppl did not bother..) So ads for second hand washing machines or appeals for lost dogs and tons of other totally trivial nonsense piled up endlessly and were, my friend Boris told me, simply thrown away. 🙂 The Gvmts really had no interest in this info, and of course analyzing it was practically speaking out of the question. All this played no role in the Fall of the Wall. But the new technology…was seen as a danger and had to be ‘watched’…or was a potential source of info…
Now that is not to trivialize the collecting of info on ordinary citizens. The danger now is very different, and it should be opposed, fought. The data can be used to falsely target groups, individuals, areas, territories, professions, even States, and so on, with whatever mocked-up or real data. The data can be easily analyzed though that has a cost. The problem is that once the data is there, and has been in fact collected with that aim, and shines with the false gloss of scientific analysis, results will materialize, as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, as it must be useful for something.
The crux of the problem is not the data itself, but the authoritarian or despotic Gvmt. and its corporate partners.
One can always define the enemy within, like Hitler (groups of ppl), or infidels, terrorists, readers of dodgy books, dissidents, etc. and the enemy without, the savages out there, both lame, ridiculous, and a horrifying potential threat, such as Iran for USisr today.
Spying on individuals – suspected, or important, or open to blackmail – is the main use?
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 20 2013 16:16 utc | 43
bevin (93)
(myself:) “The majority of people *want* to be governed (to whatever degree). And *this* is a by far more important factor contributing (and explaining) the status quo than the 1%.”
(bevin:) This sounds uncomfortably close to “Russians love the knout.” When you talk of “people” you refer, naturally to the alienated population in a class society who have been socialised to doubt their own capacities. In a revolutionary situation political consciousness changes quickly and dramatically: in essence “human nature” is transformed.
You see I’d really love to see it like you. Unfortunately though:
The people were free to read a book, to learn something or to watch ever stupider TV programs. Unfortunately most they chose the latter.
Similarly people are free to learn about the state, democracy, rights and important political issues. Unfortunately most chose not to do so but to rather accept the bad choices confronted with and to pick one thug out of some thugs.
People are free to learn about products and to make an informed decision which product best meets their needs, price, aso. Unfortunately most fall for cheap marketing tricks and allow being treated like a herd of sheep. There are even major brands and large corporations that could come into existence and become immensely large merely by marketing such as creating a “cool” image.
Not only have the 1% got at and kept the power based on this but, even worse, one major reason they can stay in power is that a major part of “opposition from the 99%” is based on wet dreams, social dogmata and, frankly, unrealistic interpretations of how humans tick.
I had my share of those discussions with a (democracy fan) friend of mine and it usually ended with me saying “Yes, dear X, *if* people were different, *if* people would be as you’d like them to be, democracy might actually work. Unfortunately though we have to find a more satisfying situation with people the way they actually are”.
No matter what issue one wants to discuss with the 99% out there, they usually quite soon turn away toward something that is more interesting to them, soccer, to name an example.
Again, all that is needed is actually there. We do have laws against fraud and deception. We just fail to apply them to the political processes. Just imagine if there was a slight change so as to not only elect new representatives but to also vote at the same time whether the incumbent candidate plus-minus did what he promised; if yes or if at least the canidate can show that he honestly tried hard, everything is fine, if not (as in most cases) he would lose all financial benefits that came with his office and he would, say, be locked for two terms.
Right now, however, there is no consequences whatsoever if representatives f*ck their constituents. Actually, more often than not they end up being the only available candidate of some party again.
On the other hand every other interest group, be it their party, their major donors or the business community, *does* have leverage; a candidate simply can’t afford to f*ck them; the average Joe and Jane, however, can be ignored because they have no leveredge. Why on earth should any candidate even care (beyond some nice sounding phrases) what Joe and Jane want? They are simply no or almost no factor in the issue any politician is interested in: his future.
And again we are deceived. By the bullsh*t “logic” that they keep telling again and again that a politician that doesn’t perform will be brutally punished by not being reelected. Bullsh*t squared! Even if he wouldn’t be the only available candidate again, so what; he would simply be replaced by another thug and would walk away with a nice bonus package (pension, etc.) to work in a good position at some client he served while in office.
The ugly truth is that we, the voters, usually have no power whatsoever because the system makes sure that the politicians are outside the feedback loop; they won’t be punished, no matter what.
So, why do we continue to discuss theoretical concepts rather than to simply demand that breaking the law during elections (by intentionally deceiving) shall be punished like everywhere else?
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 22 2013 2:03 utc | 95
|
