General Discussion > Real World Topics

PRISM, spying and the US attitude to foreigners

(1/6) > >>

Cherry Lover:
I dunno how much people have been following the recent revelations about just how much the US government has been spying on us, but frankly I think it's rather disturbing. Apparently, they've been recording the details of phone calls of everyone in the US, in secret and without any public knowledge or oversight (although there are secret courts to cover it).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

Frankly, I think it's disgusting. It is one thing to argue that the US government needs to get information like this, but that argument should be one to be had in public, not behind closed doors. People have the right to know what is being done in their name, as far as possible. For example, our government is considering making laws to allow this sort of thing, but at least they're doing it in the open, and having a debate over it (which resulted in the law being shelved). The US just does it in private and circumvents constitutional protections and public opinion.

But, what is even more disturbing from the point of view of someone who isn't in the US, but uses US services (which is probably about 75% of the world) is the way that the US seems to think that people outside of their borders don't have rights, and can be snooped-on at will without any court orders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

The more I hear about stuff like this, the more it astounds me that most Americans don't understand why the rest of the world hates them. The US attitude seems to be that freedom is a fundamental right if and only if you're American, otherwise we can do whatever we like, and frankly I find that absolutely disgraceful, and damn hypocritical too. Freedom applies to everyone, not just to US citizens. And, if you want to do business with the rest of the world you can't treat them like dirt.

The most annoying part of it, though, is that boycotting US companies is simply not an option (hell, even this forum is hosted in the US, due to this country's ridiculously moralistic obscenity laws), however much they have demonstrated they cannot be trusted.

Here is what the guy who leaked the information has to say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Personally, I think the guy is a hero. He knows the likely outcome of what he's done, but yet he chose to stand up to the government and hold them to account for their decisions. We need more people who do this, who tell the government they won't allow such abuses.

Finally, I also noticed this:

http://www.chronicle.su/news/anonymous-infiltrates-prism-intercepts-obamas-skype/

Apparently, Anonymous has hacked into Prism, and has details of calls made by various US citizens, including Obama. This could get very juicy. And, frankly, it's what they bloody deserve for snooping on everyone like that.

What I also like about it is the way the US government said "nope, they can't have hacked it, Prism doesn't exist". Which is quite obviously bullshit.

OPOI:
I just feel sorry for the people going through our Internet history :P

But yeah in all honesty, even if that's NSA's job, it's kinda overkill what they did.

The way the US has been trying to deny it is so laughably stupid though, a spokesman this morning was like:
"I'm not saying that it has been done, but hypothetically even if the NSA did what They're being accused of, it is their job. Not that I'm saying they did of course."
I mean wut

Cherry Lover:
Well, yeah, exactly, it is rather ridiculous the extent they've gone to, although I guess it isn't exactly out of character for them and similar intelligence agencies. Indeed, from what I can tell the British and French have been doing essentially the same thing (that being tapping into the main internet cables and hoovering up just about everything).

Frankly, this is what you will always get if you let intelligence agencies act without even the most basic of public knowledge and understanding of what they're up to. I've never seen an active intelligence agent, police officer or other authortiy figure say "you know what we really need? Less power", and I suspect I'm never likely to. And, politicians have little incentive to limit their actions in secret sessions if they know that there is only a downside to doing so (that being that they will be blamed for any terrorist attacks that might occur) and no upside (since they can't announce that they're protecting privacy). I understand why secret services cannot explain their exact methods, but people should at least have enough information to debate them.

Democracy is meaningless if the people do not have enough information to make an informed decision about what is happening. As soon as you start keeping the actions of the government secret, you subvert democracy in a fundamental way. Sometimes that is perhaps necessary, but it should never be done on this scale, especially not on the grounds of some nebulous "War on Terror" which has no formal ending point and, thus, will drag on as long as the government wants to use it to get more power. There are countries which have been in a permanent "state of emergency" for years on the basis of "fighting terrorism", because terrorism (like crime in general) will never go away entirely.

Of course, in this case it's worse, because the people making the decisions aren't even the people being targetted. The US says "we don't use this to spy on US citizens" as if it is somehow OK that they're breaching the privacy of the 95% of the population of the world that isn't a US citizen. Frankly, that sort of disgraceful "fuck the rest of the world" attitude is why the US is so hated, and indeed why there are groups like Al-Qaeda in the first place. If the US didn't consistently abuse its dominant position to advance its interests and those of its allies (*cough* Israel *cough*) at the expense of everyone else, half of the world wouldn't hate it, and Al-Qaeda would have a far smaller recruiting pool.

ranmabushiko:
What's worse about this entire thing... is that by doing this, they're actively ignoring the Constitution.  Considering most laws, by law, are ILLEGAL if they counter the Constitution in any way, shape or form (Yes, including Obama's Gun Laws that he wants to put in), it means that they're knowingly breaking the law.  And flaunting that fact, too.  This, honestly... scares me a lot.  A LOT of things that people do are illegal, even if we don't realize we're acting illegally, with how screwed up the law has become.  And realistically, it's not a democratic republic, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL one.  NONE of this crap should have happened in the first place, if they had followed the Constitution first, and the bullshit laws second.  Thankfully though, they've not managed to gut the Second Amendment as well as they wish they could, which was put into place to ensure would be tyrants and corrupt politicians all have something to fear.  The people uprising against them and shooting them for making stupid laws.

I know ALL too well about how they've screwed things up, Mike.  I've read books and history on the fact, myself, as has my father.  Osama Bin Laden became an enemy of America because we withdrew all funding to support the hospitals there after we helped them kick Russia out... when they needed medicine and food the most.

And don't even get me started on the bullshit involved with 9-11.

Cherry Lover:

--- Quote from: ranmabushiko on July 14, 2013, 09:39:30 AM ---What's worse about this entire thing... is that by doing this, they're actively ignoring the Constitution.
--- End quote ---

Only for US people, I think. The rest of the world doesn't count.


--- Quote ---Considering most laws, by law, are ILLEGAL if they counter the Constitution in any way, shape or form (Yes, including Obama's Gun Laws that he wants to put in), it means that they're knowingly breaking the law.
--- End quote ---

Well, yeah, but to determine that it is unconstitutional, someone has to complain about it, and since no-one knew it was happening....

Plus, the court is horribly politicised anyway, so what decision you get mainly depends on who managed to appoint the most judges (plus, of course, all judges are appointed by some president or another, which hardly seems to me to be the best way of limiting the government's power...).


--- Quote ---And flaunting that fact, too.  This, honestly... scares me a lot.  A LOT of things that people do are illegal, even if we don't realize we're acting illegally, with how screwed up the law has become.
--- End quote ---

Yeah.

Although, at least you guys have a constitution to protect you somewhat, even if the government is getting good at ignoring it.


--- Quote ---And realistically, it's not a democratic republic, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL one.  NONE of this crap should have happened in the first place, if they had followed the Constitution first, and the bullshit laws second. 
--- End quote ---

Well, that is true, but in this case it's not even democratic. For it to be democratic in a meaningful sense there needs to be a public debate about what the government is doing, and secret actions deny us that.


--- Quote ---Thankfully though, they've not managed to gut the Second Amendment as well as they wish they could, which was put into place to ensure would be tyrants and corrupt politicians all have something to fear.  The people uprising against them and shooting them for making stupid laws.
--- End quote ---

Well, except that people never focus on that aspect. They always focus on the aspect of wanting to be able to defend theirselves from criminals. Which, frankly, is not a good reason to have a gun. The government is here to protect people from criminals, what people need is a way to protect theirselves from the government.

And, honestly, I think it has been gutted somewhat, because by the point that it becomes necessary to rise up against the government, the government will have taken weapons from anyone who is even remotely likely of doing so. All they have to do is call them a "traitor" or a criminal and that's it.

I'm always a bit torn on gun control laws. On the one hand, they make massive amounts of sense, because there really is no reason to possess a gun 99.9% of the time (aside from for hunting or the like), and most of the time it seems to me that guns do more harm than good. However, if you allow the government to disarm the population then it becomes very difficult or impossible for an unpopular government to be overthrown (look at Syria, for example), and that possibility does really need to be there.

Although, honestly, what I really do not like is stuff like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

It seems pretty clear to me that these "stand your ground" laws are far too lenient and broad. What appears to have happened is that some idiot vigilante decided that, because some guy was black and wearing a hood, he obviously must be a criminal, and decided to chase after him. The kid then defended himself quite reasonably, but because the other guy was carrying a gun, he got shot and killed. I do accept the concept of "self-defence", but I don't see how that should apply to a fight you started, against someone who was clearly unarmed. At very least he should have been convicted of Manslaughter, but because Florida's law is ludicrously biased towards people fighting back even when they really shouldn't, he got away with it.


--- Quote ---I know ALL too well about how they've screwed things up, Mike.  I've read books and history on the fact, myself, as has my father.  Osama Bin Laden became an enemy of America because we withdrew all funding to support the hospitals there after we helped them kick Russia out... when they needed medicine and food the most.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, exactly.

Frankly, if you look at history, basically every problem in the world today can be traced back to either something the US did during the Cold War or something that European Colonialists did to maintain control. Most of the sectarian tensions you get now are there because the British spent most of the 19th and early 20th centuries getting them to hate each other so they wouldn't ally and attack us.


--- Quote ---And don't even get me started on the bullshit involved with 9-11.

--- End quote ---

Eh, what?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page