You see, I'm still hung on this question of privacy. First, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, et al., have as much if not more information on me than NSA does. Same goes for Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, et al. Is this not a gross invasion of my privacy? Every online vendor knows what I've bought. My bank knows when I've accessed my records on line. They don't know how often I look at a printout of my statements, but they do know how long, when, and from where, I look on-line. Have I given up my privacy to them, or should I be able to demand they not keep such records?Exactly. I'm puzzled by the surprise and anger. A person who chooses to make use of the wonders of the technological revolution should know full well that private information is rather easily accessed. Then, too, government agencies spying on Americans is hardly new. The ways of obtaining private information are new and different. Now it is possible to mine vast amounts of information, but one wonders if more is not less in the long run. As Rmj says, if you are concerned about privacy, try to find an old typewriter, or, better yet, a fountain pen.
Whistleblowers who commit acts of civil disobedience and break laws, just or unjust, should know that consequences may follow. People involved in the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans back in the 1960s were well aware of consequences, and they were willing to take the risks despite their knowledge of what might follow. Must we all now assume, as a matter of course, that no consequences will follow?
What Atrios at Eschaton says:
Haven't had a chance to dive into it fully, but my basic belief is that aside from civil liberties issues, the security/surveillance state industry is just a giant grift, a big scam there to enrich certain communities in Northern Virginia. That it is a net good is bullshit, that it makes us "safe" is bullshit, and that "making us safe," as opposed to perpetuating its own existence and fattening the wallets of its members and those that play along, has much to with anything that goes on is bullshit.The "aside from civil liberties issues" most certainly concern me.
Besides, tell me the name of one politician who lost a bid for reelection because of a vote in favor of the Patriot Act. Who among us is not complicit in the latest "scandal"?
When it comes to spying, those were the days. Nowadays, it seems an incredibly boring undertaking.
UPDATE: Not to belabor the the matter under discussion, which, by the way, is being belabored over and over by print media and hyperventilating cable news hosts and their guests, whether bemoaning or praising Edward Snowden's actions, I believe David Simon introduces a note of sanity to the entire affair. David's post and the large number of comments which follow, many of which Simon takes the trouble to give a response, are well worth reading.
Too true! No one who willingly does business with Google, Amazon or Apple iTunes should be under any illusion that anything they remotely allude to,online is private!
ReplyDeleteWhen I do a Google search and type only one or two of the words I intended to use in the search, and the rest come up through the magic of the internet, that tells me something.
DeleteRmj's link to David Simon's article is worth following. Simon is the creator of "The Wire." Direct link is http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/
ReplyDeleteBex, Simon's article is indeed worth reading. Here's a clickable link.
DeleteGreenwald compared Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg: somewhere on the intertoobs my memory was refreshed that Ellsberg surrendered himself and stood trial for leaking classified documents.
ReplyDeleteSnowden has reportedly left his Hong Kong hotel and is currently in an undisclosed location, a/k/a Parts Unknown. He's a shining example of "Oops! I stepped deep into the sh**, didn't I?"
Then there's the problem that he was with the contractor less than three months, but apparently had "Top Secret" clearance? Seriously?
I've heard for decades that D.C. overclassifies all kinds of information; who knew they also gave away access to it practically for free?
This, I think, is where the scandal goes: not that NSA is vacuuming up data, but that any joe with a job at the right company can read the POTUS's e-mails.
Seriously?
And Greenwald is in Brazil, which may make him a bit less concerned about consequences. There is speculation that the Guardian may win a Pulitzer for their coverage of the NSA story. And - Oh joy! - there is more to come.
DeleteI'm a bit surprised at your nonchalant attitude, Mimi. I listened to an interview with Ed Snowden, and he seemed a very sensible, conscientious type - not a bug-eyed radical. My gut tells me his motives are good, and though he may be mistaken about some things, he deserves our attention and respect for doing a selfless thing.
ReplyDeleteIt may well be that the problem is so big that there is nothing we ordinary folks can do about it - just as the global financial structure is so vast, nothing seems to be able to make a dint in it. Yet you were awful quick to praise the Occupy people a couple of years ago, many of whom were pointless and obviously naïve. And now the movement seems to have largely petered out, without accomplishing anything but a bit of hoorah. But you admired them hugely, I wonder why not Snowden?
Russ, I don't like the spy program, but I'm not at all surprised by Snowden's revelations. I wonder why the sudden surprise and outrage at this particular time. What is different about right now? I'm not saying the spying is right any more than I'm saying that the destruction of the planet by our polluting ways is right. I just do not find myself incensed about this particular "scandal".
DeleteWith the passage of the nefarious Patriot Act, we gave the government broad permission to do pretty much whatever they chose to stop "terrorists" and - surprise! - they've gone ahead to invade the privacy of ordinary citizens under cover of the law. For years, I've suspected that ordinary citizens are being watched with the cooperation of technology companies. I've been saying for quite a while that anyone who uses a computer or any electronic device for communication has yielded any expectation that their information is private.
What does surprise me is that someone with Edward Snowden's history was given top secret clearance. Other than having good computer skills, he does not seem a likely candidate to be working with classified information.
Not much coverage has been given to the vast amounts of money that pass to private contractors to do our spying and fight our wars, which is also nothing new and has been going on for a good many years, but I suspect there lies another heap of scandal.
We've known about this "spying" since at least 2006, when revelations of this program resulted in going to the FISA court (so, the Verizon order that was recently revealed).
DeleteAnd now the interest does seem to be swinging, not to what spying is being done, but to whom we give access to that info.
Which, honestly, is the revelation in this story.
And how does any agency count or keep track of all those who have come and gone from jobs with private contractors who've had access to classified information? The toothpaste is out of the tube; the genie is out of the bottle. The information that has been gathered by the government, private contractors, and other groups such as Verizon, Amazon, Google, etc. will be not be ungathered.
DeleteI too am bemused by the outrage over collecting phone call information. Isn't that what Verizon does anyway? The NSA is looking for suspicious patterns, not conversations.
ReplyDeleteBut it's one more thing to attack Obama, so it will be picked up and used...
Opinions are spread between calling Snowden a hero or a traitor and in between. He broke the law, which he admits, but I do not believe he is a traitor, as John Boehner labels him.
DeleteSnowden's revelations are the scandale du jour. Will we now leave behind the Benghazi, IRS, and AP "scandals"?
Still admiring the careful placement of that motorcyclist.....
ReplyDeleteFor your eyes only...
DeleteBalloon Juice has a relevant image.
ReplyDeletePerfect, Paul (A.).
Delete