[cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
- From: professor rat <pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 08:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
This is a dynamic growth area so I think its worth checking Wikipedia now and
then.
Btw I hope you didn't go to Harvard.
________________________________
From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:06 PM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
I dont get my education from Wikipedia, l studied a Politics degree for an
education in this area.
________________________________
From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf
of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:00 p.m.
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
Basically democratic-socialism Vs libertarian-socialism. Wikipedia covers both.
________________________________
From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
How are you defining you defintions of these differing political theories
________________________________
From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf
of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:28 p.m.
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
The choice today is neocon/Wilson style hegemony or anarchism. And the natural
selection of good ideas is increasingly unkind to Fukuyama.
________________________________
From: nativebuddha <nativebuddha@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 19 July 2013 10:27 PM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
...and hence the core conflict: are you Hobbesian, Rousseauean or Kantian?
Nothing rational about it at all. It's always about what you believe.
-Robert
On Jul 19, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Gary Wallin <garylwallin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 7:59 PM, John Young wrote:
>> ...its greatest enemy is its hyper-paranoia.
>>
>> National security is not about protecting the nation, its aim
>> is to generate fear of its inevitable failure.
> John, perhaps you are too pessimistic. I don't like the panopticon or the
> surveillance state. But with 7 billion people on the planet and the
> inglorious history of human nature, parts of the security programs may be
> needed. I would prefer that people prevent
abuses of the National Security state and surveillance, rather than calling
for its abolition.
>
> Constructive criticism is needed and pointed questions must be raised. But in
> the end, it is not the nature of the State that is our primary concern; it is
> human nature itself. But both the behavior of both the State and the People
> give reasons for great
concern.
>
>
Other related posts:
