Which means we shouldn't care about people in India getting arrested because they're gay?
1,257 karma · joined May 22, 2010
If these companies were truly concerned about human rights, they would take a look at themselves first.
It takes time to read the classified documents and decide which documents should be released and which shouldn't be because it might be damaging to national security. Or did you expect Glen Greenwald to make one gigantic article about all of the 50,000+ documents?
And seeing as we're just speculating as to how Snowden's documents might be abused, here's some speculation to address your concerns: http://cryptome.org/2014/01/snowden-count.htm
From the article:
There are information security programs which compartmentalize data for multiple levels of security and access as well as controls for the distribution and timing of release. These are used to manage classified data handling among a variety of personnel and agencies with varying clearances.
It could be that Snowden remains in control of his material's release by way of programmed implants in the material for access and timing although the material is physically distant from him. This too is conventional security practice.
If the tech giants were genuinely fearing loss of customers or users, Obama's NSA speech would have been drastically different.
They obviously wouldn't lie, would they? And I guess abuse also never happens.
I thought the point of this was to implement mechanisms that would make occurrence of abuse less likely, instead they're just trying to calm people down.
EDIT: After having very quickly skimmed the PPD, here's something interesting:
The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners an d allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially.
Bascially what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want. Good luck trying to stop an agency operating in total secrecy from abusing these powers.
Also, this reminds me of an episode of House of Cards.
If that is true, then who are the people that came up with this plan? Has there been a company that has been lobbying just to sell more equipment? Are people in the government realizing that free flow of information makes their jobs harder? Or do they want to trick people into believing that they care about the children?
What's really frustrating is that, while people report on things like this, you never really seem to understand what the main driving force is behind decisions like these.
> Jesus, what a tool you are.
How very civil and gracious.
Sure we can pull off another SOPA blackout, but I don't think we can do it consistently. They'll keep proposing harmful laws and we can't stop them all.
Does anyone know how I can load jQuery locally?
They should. Ever heard of the practice of getting a warrant before surveilling someone's communications? (google it). At this point this seems to be a foreign concept to so many people because one side is suggesting no spying at all, while the other side is suggesting they're okay with the NSA spying on everyone. There's a middle ground, and it's called getting a warrant.
I don't think you can deduce that from the AMA. It could just as well be a PR campaign and wouldn't necessarily represent what an actual drone operator really believes.
The fact is, a lot of stuff we talk about is being influenced by the NSA, in a very negative way. The solution isn't to ignore it and go back to talking about the cool shiny color of the new iPhone.
What they're trying to achieve by making a public stink about this is good PR. The real fight -if there is actually a real fight between the tech giants and the government- will happen behind closed doors.
An organization like EFF is too broad. We need groups that each focus on one issue only.