Skip to main content

View Diary: The Dangers of Surveillance: Harvard Law point counterpoint (38 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's similar to Assange's theory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeterHug, CroneWit

    Assange apparently believes that information equals power, and that dispersing information necessarily disperses power. In effect, if everyone knows what's going on, then they will behave appropriately to solve problems. If they do not have the basic data to understand problems and possible solutions, they will behave inappropriately.  

    I think that's simplistic, but it does provide important insight into what he's doing. And there's no question that information is an important kind of power.

    I don't see how raw dispersal of computing power will really democratize. For example, it has been hypothesized that the NSA has compromised the encryption keys in Windows systems. If so, it won't help to have longer/better keys if the NSA already holds them.

    •  Link missing from above (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "it has been hypothesized" should link here. it has been hypothesized

    •  You can always make bigger keys. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, CroneWit

      As key size increases, the amount of work it takes to break the encryption increases exponentially.

      However, there are laws (and we can be sure the NSA had a hand in designing them) that restrict the size of the key that encryption algorithms available to the public can use.

    •  Information gathering is predicated on the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      assumption that humans are creatures of habit. Some are and some aren't. In any event, one-off events can't be stopped.
      I don't think information is power. The sequestration of information is a power play, a kind of deprivation that's designed to inflict damage. Doing it in a virtual environment makes no difference because the effect always registers in the perpetrator's gut. The deprivator feels empowered by depriving someone else of something he doesn't even want for himself. Deprivation satisfies, much as does the lie. Whether or not the deception is believed doesn't much matter.
      In a sense, deprivation/deception are lesser evils. Destruction would be worse. But, destruction, being more obvious, is more likely to be intercepted and stopped. So, deprivation/deception (the destruction of the truth) are lesser endeavors, less risky and more likely to succeed. Oh, and they take less effort. Deprivators are lazy.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:40:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'Similar to Assange's theory' (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      CroneWit, 84thProblem

      We'll call it the "Rape-Fugitive Hypothesis".

      •  C'mon, Rei, go for another Godwin (0+ / 0-)

        Assange is a psychotic mass murderer!

        He has started a World War!

        He rapes children!

        These are things you have tried to claimabout Assange by comparing him to figures like Charles Manson, Roman Polanski, and Benito Mussolini.  

        If you could find any single on-topic, constructive thing to say about surveillance, this would be forgivable. It is indisputably a lame attempt at thread hijacking. But it is starting to look like thread stalking.

        If you try it in any future diaries on surveillance, I will post a note in the diary asking commenters that any personal attacks on Assange be Hide Rated.

        You don't want that. I don't want that. So say something useful about surveillance. You can throw in your ad hominem about Assange inter alia and I won't care, but I resent people who do not care about the topic of the thread and are just here to start a flame war.

        •  Your straw man could use a little more straw. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry, but my browser doesn't understand your link.  I presume you were trying to link to a post where I rebutted precisely what you're repeating here?  

          You were saying that we should overlook the fact that Assange is running from a serious crime and just pay attention to what he is talking about, treating him as the spokesman of a movement as you're doing.  I ask if you do that with anyone else, or just people you like, and brought up three examples (none of which were Hitler) of people who committed crimes but also had other achievements and asked whether you would apply the same standard with them concerning their other achievements.  You start screaming Godwin and refusing to address it further.

          It's a serious issue.  Your treatment of Assange is like inviting Hans Reiser to speak about filesystems while he was on trial and saying, "Meh, whether he murdered his wife is off topic, the guy's a filesystem expert!"  It is wrong to turn a blind eye to a person's crimes and keep treating them as the spokesman of a movement.  And Assange is a rape fugitive running from what multiple courts have found is probable cause that he raped a girl and, towards another, unlawful sexual coersion and two counts of molestation.  But you're more than willing to just overlook that because you like the guy.

          I'm not.

          If you could find any single on-topic, constructive thing to say about surveillance, this would be forgivable.
          "You keep coming here and protesting that I'm acting like nothing ever happened with Reiser.  If you could find a single on-topic thing to say about filesystems, this would be foregiveable."
          If you try it in any future diaries on surveillance, I will post a note in the diary asking commenters that any personal attacks on Assange be Hide Rated.
          Oh, great.  Now anyone who's upset by the wilful ignoring of rape is to be hide rated!

          I'll repeat: if Assange was a football star and someone came here talking about how good of a player they are, someone on DK complained that they were ignoring the rape, and the fan responded like you do (including, I should add, your previous record of trying to make out the rape charges to be some laughable offense), you'd be run out of the site on a rail.  But because he's Julian Assange, we're supposed to shut up about that whole pesky rape-thing and hang on every word he says.

          Sorry, but that's not going to fly by me.  

      •  Bullshit HR's for mere disapproval. (0+ / 0-)

        It's a bit over the top IMO but I'm pretty sure that's not the litmus test.

        I was gonna listen to that, but then, um, I just carried on living my life. - Aldous Snow

        by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:14:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Trolling, Mr. Everton. (0+ / 0-)

          Threadstalking and thread hijacking are trolling.

          I honestly don't care what people think. I know and get along with people whose opinions appall me. But I expect substantive contributions in exchange for substantive posts.

          Trolls want none of it. For their own reasons, often purely malicious, they want to stop conversation.

          Hide recommendations are not the end of the world. They are a community's way of saying, "enough. You are not adding to the community. You are subtracting from the community, sowing ill-will."  

          Trolls then either start making substantive contributions or they end up getting voted off the island. It really should never get to that point, but some people feel compelled to behave like asses.

          •  The last two times.... (0+ / 0-)

            I've made long, detailed posts critical of your treatment of Assange as a spokeman, to which you've not responded.  So it's awfully rich of you to come here and then, when I don't write something long, say that that's worthy of a hide rate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site