[cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case
- From: professor rat <pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
" We did it because we loved you " - Markus Wolf, East German KGB head
"We, the Government, have vital information which we cannot disclose. It is
upon this knowledge that we make decisions. You, who are merely private
citizens, have not access to this information. Any criticism you make of our
policy, any controversy about it in which you may indulge will therefore be
uninformed and valueless. If, in spite of your ignorance, you persist in
questioning our policy, we can only conclude that you are disloyal."
Harold Thorby, Australia's defence minister in 1938
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE
LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS
THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering
________________________________
From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013 2:24 AM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case
Agree with that prospectus. There remains the enduring
problem of mediation of disclosures, in Snowden's case
almost a melodramatic blackout of what he is alleged to
have.
A couple of dozen releases, some redacted and snippets
of what is said to be several thousand documents. Hyperbole
substitutes for full disclosure as if the mediators have capabilities
the dim-witted public lacks. This conceit is all too like what the
secretkeepers claim and reeks of exaggeration and bombast,
if not slavish imitation for similar self-serving of perquisites
and profits. Three days of Aspen Security Forum just ended,
paid for by the usual natsec outlets and contractors.
Threats of "aiding the enemy" has gained traction to
squelch
national security journalism, or if not yet the few decent journos,
then their publishers who vet what is to be released despite
the byliners' public moans that they had much more than
got past the in-house managing editors, lawyers, advertizers,
sacred privileged sources.
One gauge of this sophisticted cover-up is the grandiloquent
hyperbolizing of documents which are not fully released for
unbiased analysis and assessment. No respect is due for
this racketeering which serves the purpose of apparently
informing the public but instead disinforms. Dramaturgy.
Hope that this will change is a customary feature, be patient,
be trusting, verily a banner for the current administation but
hardly new with it.
In short, national security journalism is entertainment on the
order of explosive film-making, probing documentarianism,
tell-all ex-spy and -SEAL books, daring insider whistleblowing
(as if that is not tradecraft), law-suit expose of least-classified
highly redacted material, and as ever, bountiful military and
spy agency recruitment and contracting.
"Aiding the Enemy" is in the works for all these virtual
landscapes.
Several for WikiLeaks, Manning, ex-NSA gents, for Snowden
going against Alexander, scripted and guided by a coven of
valiant hyperbolists. I will consume them all to plagiarize the
treaclish.
At 08:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
"DIY national security is
no joke. Now impossible due to
>secrecy bloat and exclusion of the public from participation
>in meaningful ways."
>
>If Manning and Snowden were given the credit and respect they deserve,
the public would be able to participate in more meaningful ways. Nothing
helps National Security more than an involved and educated public that
knows what is actually going on in the rest of the world, instead of the
current public fed on the pablum of spin and fear generated by the
Washington and Media elites.
>
>
>I'm not so worried about our country 'transforming into a Soviet Style
Russia...' We have the skills, resources, and capacity to make that
transformation something much better or much worse than the Putin's of
the world can come up with. I just hope it is for the
better.
>
>Gary Wallin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 7/20/2013 6:10 AM, Jeremy Compton wrote:
>
>I dont think this is going to
happen realistically. Your country is transforming into a Soviet style
Russia. ....
>>>>________________________________
>> From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on
>> behalf of professor rat
[pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:07 p.m.
>>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case
>>
>>So long as we have governments they must protect their citizens from
spying. They must mandate strong encryption. This is the burning
political issue of the day.
>>
>>
>>From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 8:37 PM
>>Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case
>>
>>The other thing l thought was interesting was the strong rise in
encrypted communications with many businesses offering solutions to the
governments snooping.
>>
>>I still have a cell phone, but not a smart phone. So, with all the
information about how governments collect information on people, then it
is wise if you dont want to be giving up a lot of information, that one
would consider possible countermeasures to this. For me this took the
form of 2 years ago cancelling my facebook account which never had
anything useful on it.
>>
>>Jeremy
>>>>________________________________
>> From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on
>> behalf of Adrien Jolibert
[jolibert@xxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 10:30 p.m.
>>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case
>>
>>You are making a mistake.
>>
>>Saw this interview just 1-2 months before Snowden.
>>http://lesinternets.arte.tv/ (french for most).
>>Some of these interviews told us, there is data collection but for now,
they don't know what to do with all that ciphered data.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jeremy Compton
<comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>>
>>I think it is likely that we may see people declining their usage of
electronic communication to lower levels. I dont use social media and l
am declining my usage of electronic communications.
>>
>>
>>Jeremy
>>>>________________________________
>>
>>From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf
>>of professor rat
[pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>
>>Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:33 p.m.
>>
>>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
>>
>>
>>The mother of all PR disasters rolls on. Obambi seems to want to
break Dubya's record of downsizing the USSA to respectable proportions.
Its quite a spectacle.
>>
>>
>>
>>From: John Young
<jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>Sent: Friday, 19 July 2013 11:04 PM
>>
>>Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
>>
>>
>>Points most valid. Public discourse on national security
>>
>>is deficient. It has become a vast racket concealed by
>>
>>secrecy and ample economic rewards.
>>
>>
>>As global threats dwindle there is more openness
>>
>>until the next threats, then return to greater secrecy than
>>
>>before as the national security racket further advances
>>
>>more than it retreated.
>>
>>
>>The greater the racket the greater chances it will become
>>
>>corrupt, suffer from gigantism, internal fractures and factions,
>>
>>overweaning leaders and their supporting infrastructure of
>>
>>contractors and lobbyists, and disaffected minions who get
>>
>>fed up with the corruption of their bosses and a few bravely
>>
>>go public.
>>
>>
>>As we see lately from a tiny number of honorable grunts.
>>
>>Amazing that there are not thousands among the several
>>
>>million of natsec feeders, perhaps only 1% of which contribute
>>
>>significantly to protection of the nation -- for the rest it is
>>
>>job protection, no joking matter, or for top natsec firms
>>
>>officers fortune protection, many of whom are ex-officials,
>>
>>a sick joke which should be criminal except lawmakers
>>
>>are beneficiaries. This is amply reported, customarily to
>>
>>no effect.
>>
>>
>>DIY national security is no joke. Now impossible due to
>>
>>secrecy bloat and exclusion of the public from participation
>>
>>in meaningful ways. NatSec is now a bastion of scoundrels,
>>
>>and natsec news coverage is complicit. The worst offenders
>>
>>are the pundits, essayists, apologists and opportunists in
>>
>>academic and policy institutions who are actually covert
>>
>>contractors.
>>
>>
>>Corrpution of insufficiently-checked power is well documented
>>
>>in historical studies of the rise and fall of powerful states.
Secrecy
>>
>>is essential to preventing democracy.
>>
>>
>>Anybody who has been a grunt in any of these anti-democratic
>>
>>organizations, mil, com, edu, org, is acutely aware of abuses
and
>>
>>threats of punishment for disclosures -- insiders always the
>>
>>greatest threat to power. Let us hope the abused grunts will
>>
>>continue to now and then let us in on the latest iteration of
>>
>>public opinion manipulation. But expect, by "human
nature,"
>>
>>most will pitifully believe they have a shot at upward mobility
>>
>>so long as national threats endure.
>>
>>
>>This is not to ignore that disclosing natsec corruption can
>>
>>be a successful shot at upward mobility. Natsec industry
>>
>>rewards critics who do not go too far with disclosures and
>>
>>castigates those who do -- ie, compliant media constitutionally
>>
>>blessed in contrast to "conspiracy theorists." So we have
a
>>
>>small sub-set of the industry which briefs selected outsiders
>>
>>with insider golddust at lunches, by leaks, by FOIA, by
anonymous
>>
>>sources, by security confabs, by securitized contracts, by
>>
>>whatever means assures friendly oversight is as cooperative
>>
>>as loyal opposition.
>>
>>
>>At 08:02 AM 7/19/2013, you 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:
