The fact that governments don't want people or companies talking about what it does at all shows that governments are overreaching.
These aren't nuclear schematics we're talking about. These aren't plans for a doomsday device. We're talking about the government silencing people/companies when it gathers (or forces those people/companies to gather) information about (largely random) people in order to use that information against them if they become "subversive". Government intelligence agencies seem to be modeling themselves more and more after the Stasi's.
Though I will say, people often forget that the primary directive for any government is to stay in power. No matter what.
There's a substantial difference between 'keep quiet for the duration of these investigative legal proceedings' and 'you are never allowed to ever tell anyone about this no matter how much time passes'.
That also keeps the "good guys" thinking they're safe, when in fact there could be a backdoor for the Chinese government that sends over all messages that say "falun gong." As demonstrated by the recent leak at the NSA perhaps we should be investing in as much cyber defense as offense before a cyber terrorist attack occurs.
From everything I've learned about security, offense is much, much more effective dollar for dollar and that any concerted effort of creating an impenetrable shield would result in a cyber Maginot Line.
An all out cyber war would be scary as there isn't any procedure or policy for descalation once started, no white flag.
What's especially scary is that the government wastes all this time and money surveillaning people's online habits when the electric grid, probably the number one target in the event of a cyber war, is so defenseless that a squirrel can effectively take out electricity for the Eastern seaboard.
The Gag orders that the US government is forcing these people/companies to sign have no end date. And I highly doubt they're actively voiding them after investigations are completed...
Hell, I highly doubt investigations are ever "completed".
I don't want to live in a society that organizes around the notion that catching bad actors is the most important thing. There are too many perverse incentives.
Title would've been a lot stronger without the last three words.
Our media has an unfortunate habit of turning stories into he-said-she-said, even when evidence is overwhelmingly on one side.
They seek artificial balance and are unwilling to speak frankly. Ironically this makes their journalism less objective.
It undermines their mission of holding power accountable, because when someone or some agency does something really vile, the media act as unwitting apologists by framing it as just another two-sided disagreement.
Remarkably it is another two-sided argument. Trump is running on "strength" of the kind that tortures and kills people (and their families) if we label them terrorists. Total access to all communications is also a "strong" move toward a new "law & order" government. There are tens of millions of Americans who want the government to have this power. They actually, really want it. They admire Kim Jong Un and Putin's "strength".
This is, of course, an utter failure of American democracy, based on the catastrophic failure of countless American minds left rudderless by institutions (religion and education, arguably justice and science), and unbalanced by effective terrorists and their ultimate weapon, a charismatic fear-mongering demagogue.
Yes, I hope the media fights like hell and whips out their precious humanities degrees to help educate the rudderless about the values they have forgotten.
> It is truly fascinating (and of course, terrifying) to watch governments expect, demand and enforce complete transparency and blind trust from the people, while providing absolutely none of either.
The constant flow of such news only makes this feel truer by the day. It blows my mind that so many of the people who defend these actions are the same people who will take any opportunity to disparage other "non-democratic" countries, while gloating about their supposedly unique freedom. The hypocrisy and the superiority complex are palpable.
Current events translated with the Orwell language filter
Secret courts and secret processes - Police state
Gag orders - Authoritarian
FISA court with 100% approval rates - Kangaroo court
Surveillance of citizens - Totalitarian state
Zero accountablity to people - Despotic regime
Elections is not equal to democracy. I think by now we have to concede the US fails the democracy test. There is no way for citizens to effect change peacefully and these actions are in no way consistent with a democratic state.
Or government is absolute out of control; the system on the whole needs an enema. Wherever you stand on social/ideological issues, we need to be united in the face of this, as well as other basic issues like police with MRAP's on city streets, and the need to maintain our infrastructure.
I think with the advent of the internet, we probably will have less and less moderates every year (at least until some major disaster brings us together).
I'd recommend checking out the libertarian ticket - at least they seem willing to negotiate and can admit when they are wrong. Hell they are both Republicans from Democrat states running on a libertarian platform.
The ticket as it stands, with a guy who thinks that vaccinations should be optional, and can't think of any world leaders? That's not a ticket, that's a joke.
"Everyone wants a dictator in charge, as long as they agree with them"
Not getting a vaccine only hurts you (and arguably others who don't get vaccines, based on herd)... Wanting to force it, is kind of contrary to the whole quote. Also FYI I'm highly allergic to the stuff in vaccines and they still try and make me soooo I kinda want to point out that the freedom to choose what to put in your body should be an inalienable right.
> Not getting a vaccine only hurts you (and arguably others who don't get vaccines, based one herd)...
That's incorrect. Vaccines are effective, but (like most things in the real world) not 100% effective. So not getting a vaccine increases everyone's risk of getting the disease the vaccine protects against.
Totally agree, if the assumptions made on that theory were correct. The fact is, many of the diseases we get vaccinated against: rabies, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc. Are not spread through the air. And pretty much everyone was voluntarily vaccinated for those.
Meaning the less people around you who have the disease the better, as you pointed out this is the general idea. That totally breaks down for air born pathogens that aren't spread via feceal matter, saliva, etc. one sneeze on a railing a train station can spread across 10000 people. We will always come in contact with it, vaccines may help, but yeah... it doesn't spread node to node as chicken pox, more like node to 100 X node.
We haven't even come close to solving air born pathogens.
Also, I'd argue that many of the reductions in disease rates have more to do with better plumbing and teaching people to stay home as opposed than vaccines. Both help, but the theory is just that a theory, with some pretty large holes and ignores the easy international travel, air born illness, and the evidence doesn't really have enough behind it to say "everyone has to be vaccinated"
> The fact is, many of the diseases we get vaccinated against: rabies, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc. Are not spread through the air.
Whether a disease is airborne or not is somewhat irrelevant here (its obviously relevant to how easy it is to spread, but as long as a disease is communicable by some kind of contact, the increased danger from unvaccinated members of the population is qualitatively similar.)
> Meaning the less people around you who have the disease the better, as you pointed out this is the general idea. That totally breaks down for air born pathogens that aren't spread via feceal matter, saliva, etc.
No, it doesn't; it changes the shape of the "increased risk" curve resulting from changes in vaccination compliance, but it doesn't change that there is such an increased risk.
> Also, I'd argue that many of the reductions in disease rates have more to do with better plumbing and teaching people to stay home as opposed than vaccines.
Yes, that those things have reduced disease rates for many diseases is a well-established fact, not really a point in any kind of contention.
So, you think that children should be vaccinated by law, but that adults shouldn't because they might be allergic, and they'd only find out when first vaccinated.
But... you believe they should all have already been vaccinated.
Not getting a vaccine hurts everyone, not just other people who also don't get the vaccine. If you had researched this enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to get vaccinated, this would've been a day one discovery in that research.
Well, I guess you found out when getting vaccinated; that you're alive and here to tell the tale suggests that the system handled this rare exception pretty well.
I think you should be allowed to sign a contract explaining the risks, and releasing all private and public institutions from any requirement to render aid in the case that you're in an accident, or that such aid is to be rendered at your expense.
Then by all means, leave off your belt. Making a stupid choice and then making the public pay for it though? No.
Internet services could be making it impossible to comply with such orders. Routine e2e encryption and easy key management and web-of-trust that piggybacks on their existing social graphs and realtime communication would blind the monster. Complaining isn't going to do much.
The problem is consumers like the ability to reset their password while keeping all their data. If you encrypt using a key derived from the password, resetting the password renders all your data useless.
My sense is that we need more journalism that can relate the dangers here to everyday people. A tech company complaining about a gag order probably won't garner a lot of interest to the average joe.
Sadly, comedians seem to be the only ones that understand this. Like what John Oliver did in his interview with Snowden: explain that the NSA could read his dick pics.
These aren't nuclear schematics we're talking about. These aren't plans for a doomsday device. We're talking about the government silencing people/companies when it gathers (or forces those people/companies to gather) information about (largely random) people in order to use that information against them if they become "subversive". Government intelligence agencies seem to be modeling themselves more and more after the Stasi's.
Though I will say, people often forget that the primary directive for any government is to stay in power. No matter what.
Keep them silent and keep the power.