Yes, for real. Please explain.
andros-Once you answer this question, we’ll just have to vehemently agree to disagree:
Where were you on 9/11/2001?
etv78: People don’t make emotional-only arguments like you are unless they don’t have any actual logical arguments to make. If you want us to listen to you, stop making arguments that are based on how we feel. Because, guess what? We don’t feel the same way you do, and you can’t make us feel that way.
Whatever you think of the NSA or Snowdon, we may all come to rue the fact this whistle can’t be unblown. From this article by Evgeny Morozov in a recent-ish issue of Foreign Policy. Now, IMHO, with this writer you have to keep in mind that the doesn’t have much appreciation or use for the internet generally; he is to the internet what Harlan Ellison was to television. Nevertheless the portent here is ominous:
(He goes on to say that the licensing was costing the Norwegian government $900,000 annually, and they weren’t about to subsidize the rest of the world. It’s understandable, but in a more open time, I believe they might have said, “what the hell–for the few million people abroad who can read Norwegian, we might as well facilitate worldwide access.”)
It’s disheartening when you consider that this sort of thing goes even among members of the EU, let alone how it might affect people overseas.
We could be seeing a return to the situation pre-WWW, when most content consumers were isolated by borders and distance. Anyone older than 40 should remember how it was: if you lived in California and wanted to watch a German news broadcast, you were out of luck. If you wanted to read Der Spiegel* and couldn’t find it at a newsstand, too bad. As a matter of fact, foreign language content in the traditional media outlets was limited to only those languages with sufficiently large and cohesive immigrant populations to support such content. I don’t know how it was in other countries at the time, but I imagine it was more or less the same. The open internet, temporarily at least, has done away with such limitations, but now with the NSA scandal and the end of net neutrality in the United States, the future of the internet as we know it doesn’t look that promising.
Snowdon did blow the whistle at great personal cost, but it may turn out to be at a great cost to the rest of us as well.
As for Snowden being a hero: a hero is someone who accomplishes at great risk to themselves and their own well being. Right now, he’s pretty much a hero, as everything that has happened so far has been a good thing.
If you want to argue that he’s not a hero, you need to give me information about things he’s done that have clearly harmed us. And then that harm will have to override the good he’s done. Because I can still think he is rotten scum of the earth and still regard him as a hero.
And, no, saying lives are “in danger” doesn’t mean a thing. The lives that are in danger are the lives of people who intentionally signed up to put their lives in danger, and the amount of extra danger has never been qualified. It’s always been emotional arguments only–that’s all saying “in danger” is without actual information.
This came out while I was posting. I agree that a lack of net neutrality does cause us to head this direction. I do not follow how this is connected to Snowden’s leaks.
As for items not being available in other countries, that is usually due to copyright issues and monetary interests (though I repeat myself), something that has been around for a long time. The Internet somewhat improves the situation, by making a global market a much easier possibility, but it doesn’t eliminate it.
Also, my previous post should say “…accomplishes good at the expense…”
Let me get this straight: you support the NSA’s activities that violate constitutional protections of our liberties and freedoms, because you think they do so in order to protect our liberties and freedoms? :dubious:
The FBI spied on and blackmailed Martin Luther King, Jr, and ordered him to kill himself. Is adultery illegal? Is being a civil rights leader illegal?
Surveillance has a chilling effect on free speech and political activism, among its other nefarious downsides.
BigT-Your argument is based on pre-9/11 mindset of,“those people are on the other side of the world, and can’t possibly touch me.” Obviously that’s not true anymore. The reason we haven’t had another mass attack is because our leaders have taken the threat seriously. Once we follow your advice of complacency, the next attack’s bloodshed will be on their hands, and that is obviously politically untenable.
I was in midtown Manhattan on that day. I work in an industry that had heavy losses, and I grew up in a town that also had heavy losses. My wife works for one of the airlines that was targeted.
I couldn’t disagree more with your viewpoint and, while I don’t know if hero is the exact word I would use, I think Snowden did the right thing at great personal risk to himself.
I believe what the evidence says. The evidence says the government is acting like a bunch of magpies collecting shiny objects, and the shiny objects distracted them from listening to a specific warning, causing deaths among the people they are supposed to be protecting. Solution: Take away their shiny objects – not “reform”, not “readjust”, take away – and make them focus.
I didn’t know the SDMB had a paratime conveyor connection. Did they take away the shiny objects before the Boston Marathon bombing in your universe?
If the people in charge held the same sort of insane paranoid beliefs that you apparently do, America, and all the rest of the world, would have been a lifeless smoking wasteland long ago. It is paranoid fear that turns people into paranoid killers. You, I think, have a lot more in common with the suicide bombers than you do with the “people in charge”. I am pretty sure even Dick Cheney, whose paranoia actually did get thousands of Americans unnecessarily killed (not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqis) ever believed anything as absurd as what you said: “most of the Muslim world wants to destroy America”.
The NSA’s damage to freedom and liberty has already been extensively covered; their damage to capitalism is estimated in the $35-$180 billion range. This also has obvious implications for protection of the population – making the economy poorer inevitably causes deaths that would have otherwise been avoided by better health care, safety measures, etc.
I agree MOST Muslims aren’t terrorist, however, they’ve done NOTHING to prevent those who ARE terrorists from carrying out attacks. The problem with the Cheney analogy: Iraq was not behind 9/11. If we had kept our eyes on Afghanistan, that country, and us, would be a whole lot better off.
I believe the issues are connected because it gives sovereign states another potential reason to close themselves off or otherwise limit trans-border cybertraffic. In the case of repressive regimes, isolation is enforced to prevent their citizens from accessing “subversive” content; and now some non-repressive, prosperous, and stable democracies want to bring back the walled garden model in order to protect their citizens from foreign snooping. From a recent article in Time:
I get that what the NSA did is reprehensible, but I still place great value on the internet itself as a resource for reference and communication, and would hate to see it damaged to the extent that some writers seem to believe it will be. To be honest, I’ve been uneasy about this potential ramification of the whole NSA affair for a long time now, but have mostly dismissed it as an over-reaction on my own part. But recently I’ve been reading and hearing a lot from reputable authors and other experts to suggest that things really may turn out that bad. In the NSA affair and the Verizon court victory we have, in effect, two essentially unrelated events that might adversely affect the usefulness and openness of the internet, and each for its own reasons that are unrelated to the other incident.
Well, now; there’s progress – you’ve understood the basic concept “don’t let the government play with shiny objects instead of focusing on the actual problem”.
nm
Egypt, Israel to work together to stop terror.
Indonesia arrests 11 suspected militants over U.S. embassy plot
United Arab Emirates arrests suspects in terror plot.
Saudi Arabia arrests 149 people with ties to Al-Qaeda, foils terror plot
That’s great, but those were in those regions. They also never had to watch 3000 people die on national television.