6
   

Tomorrow Assange - - -

 
 
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 01:16 pm
Prof Zenkus
@anthonyzenkus
·
2h
Tomorrow Julian Assange will learn if he is being extradited to the United States to stand trial for telling the truth. #FreeAssange

Anybody who posts he should be sent here will make me sad. - edgarblythe
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 12:26 am
@edgarblythe,
Governments are way too secretive. There is very little true argument that the things he exposed were actually serving the people of the US (rather than purely the governmental interests). The people have a right to know the extent of surveillance over their lives. These invasions were meant to involve checks and balances, and lawful process.

Mind you...in the end, neither he nor Edward Snowden appear to have slowed down the surveillance much. If anything it appears to be getting more and more pervasive. Same goes for Corporate Surveillance by the Googles and Facebooks of the world.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 07:26 am
Al Jazeera reports the US won its appeal. The one with the final say has not yet made a decision.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 01:39 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
There is very little true argument that the things he exposed were actually serving the people of the US (rather than purely the governmental interests).

About the only thing that Mr. Assange exposed was the secret identities of democracy activists in various dictatorships, allowing them to be purged from their positions so that they could no longer move their nations towards democracy.

I don't know where that stands on the spectrum of "interests of the US people" versus "interests of the US government".


vikorr wrote:
The people have a right to know the extent of surveillance over their lives.

And they can, if they choose to learn that information. It's been widely reported from the start.


vikorr wrote:
These invasions were meant to involve checks and balances, and lawful process.

Which is exactly what the US government has been doing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 01:40 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Anybody who posts he should be sent here will make me sad. - edgarblythe

I've always thought that the US charges against Mr. Assange were pretty trivial.

The rapes that he committed in Sweden on the other hand, were pretty serious. I think he should stand trial on those charges instead of coming to the US.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 02:59 am
NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden was illegal, court rules seven years on

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden ruled unlawful

In any event - mass surveillance without warrant (issued for the purpose of investigation of a suspected crime), is unethical at best, and dangerous at worst.

In its best form, People have a right to have private lives, and their rights are respected to the furtherest extent possible.

In its worst form, sensitive private information in the hands of corrupt people is used to help that corruption become more entrenched. Entrenched enough corruption leads to attemps to control other people through that corruption. If enough people are controlled by such corruption, it can then lead to excessive control....not surprisingly, this is one of the ways dictators come to power, and maintain power....and it has direct correllation to the possibilities inherent in allowing mass surveillance & the outcomes that can happen if corrupt people gain control of such surveillance. This risk is not in the interest of democracy, freedom, or the american people (but it is certainly in the interests of aspects of its government)
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 04:26 am
@vikorr,

The court ruling is factually inaccurate. There was no violation of the law or the Constitution.

The articles are factually inaccurate as well. None of that was revealed by Mr. Snowden. It had all been publicly described in the New York Times years before Mr. Snowden committed treason.


vikorr wrote:
In any event - mass surveillance without warrant (issued for the purpose of investigation of a suspected crime), is unethical at best, and dangerous at worst.

So what do you think of drunk driving checkpoints that test every driver who passes through?
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 03:18 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
So what do you think of drunk driving checkpoints that test every driver who passes through?

- were they secretive about the fact they were doing it?
- do you know the outcome of what they do?
- can this activity be misused in the future?
- can this activity's results be used to overthrow democracy? (these questions differ to the below)


- are they in your home?
- are they invading all your private conversations?
- are they collecting private pictures you send to consenting parties?
- are they collecting information on who all of your friends are?
- are they collecting information on everywhere you travel?
- are they doing this for every person in your country?


Should your country ever become corrupt enough that they start misusing this information, and that misuse become entrenched enough that excesive controll can be exerted on the population...democracy declines...potentially to the point where it is in fact, non-existent any more. My view is it is too great a risk, because human nature being what it is...many people have been, and will be motivated to misuse this mass surveillance. It is only a matter of when it (the corrupt acts, and the ensuing corruption) gains enough traction to be significantly misused...not if. It might take decades, maybe even a century...

Speed cameras I disagree with (largely ineffective for its stated goals). Road blocks for testing 1000 or so vehicle drivers for alcohol - debatable. All people using roads in vehicles are essentially, actively using dangerous weapons in a public place, and need to use them safely. That said, neither of these examples are mass surveillance of private lives (as per start of this post).
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 04:27 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
- were they secretive about the fact they were doing it?

In the case of the phone metadata program, no. The details were published in the New York Times.


vikorr wrote:
- do you know the outcome of what they do?

In the case of the phone metadata program, it depends. You won't have an official list of their results.

But you know who you call. And you know that they are merely compiling a list of who you call.


vikorr wrote:
- can this activity be misused in the future?

In the case of the phone metadata program, I suppose it could be used to identify members of organizations.

But while the mass data was being collected and stored without a court order, it was only being accessed with a court order.


vikorr wrote:
- can this activity's results be used to overthrow democracy?

Beyond the possibility of a malevolent government being able to identify members of organizations that oppose it, I don't see how abuse of the phone metadata program could harm democracy.


vikorr wrote:
- are they in your home?

In the case of the phone metadata program, not really.


vikorr wrote:
- are they invading all your private conversations?

In the case of the phone metadata program, no. It only recorded who people called. The content of their conversations was not recorded.


vikorr wrote:
- are they collecting private pictures you send to consenting parties?

In the case of the phone metadata program, no.


vikorr wrote:
- are they collecting information on who all of your friends are?

In the case of the phone metadata program, yes. Recording who you call could be used to identify your friends.


vikorr wrote:
- are they collecting information on everywhere you travel?

In the case of the phone metadata program, no.


vikorr wrote:
- are they doing this for every person in your country?

In the case of the phone metadata program, yes. Every person in the world in fact.


vikorr wrote:
Should your country ever become corrupt enough that they start misusing this information, and that misuse become entrenched enough that excesive controll can be exerted on the population...democracy declines...potentially to the point where it is in fact, non-existent any more. My view is it is too great a risk, because human nature being what it is...many people have been, and will be motivated to misuse this mass surveillance. It is only a matter of when it (the corrupt acts, and the ensuing corruption) gains enough traction to be significantly misused...not if. It might take decades, maybe even a century...

Except the potential for abuse seems limited to being able to identify members of organizations.


vikorr wrote:
Speed cameras I disagree with (largely ineffective for its stated goals). Road blocks for testing 1000 or so vehicle drivers for alcohol - debatable. All people using roads in vehicles are essentially, actively using dangerous weapons in a public place, and need to use them safely. That said, neither of these examples are mass surveillance of private lives (as per start of this post).

Sure they are. Testing someone for their alcohol level is an invasion of their privacy.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 05:09 pm
@oralloy,
Your argument is that everyone you do is private to you....unless you don't want to consider it private.

Quote:
Sure they are. Testing someone for their alcohol level is an invasion of their privacy.
They are in a public place, doing a public thing, using a vehicle that is directly dangerous to the public (if of course misused). The key here is the place is public, the actions are public, the use of a vehicle is public, the affect on the public is direct if used incorrectly. None of this comes into your home, nor involves personal information. Of course if you want to be asinine, you could argue that your blood alcohol level is personal information...except the information doesn't exist unless it is created by another person/organisation. But as I said - roadblock alcohol testing is debatable.

Quote:
But while the mass data was being collected and stored without a court order, it was only being accessed with a court order.
*cough* the issue I mentioned was corruption. It is too much power for people to resist. There will have been many attempts, and there will be more attempts to subvert this information for personal gain. This will have been attempted by individuals, and groups. Groups are of course, much more dangerous.

Quote:
Beyond the possibility of a malevolent government being able to identify members of organizations that oppose it, I don't see how abuse of the phone metadata program could harm democracy.
You're kidding? There is plenty of non-criminal private information that people don't want known about them, and you can use this:

- as blackmail against police heirachy (to get them to stop an investigation, or to investigate something in your favour)
- as blackmail against court officials officials (in order to get favourable judgements
- as blackmail against elected officials (to enact laws that allow greater corruption)
- information to discredit election opponents
- information to obtain surveillance photos in order to discredit election opponents
- information to get your pocketed official elected (through the above)
- information to get laws favourable to you passed (once you have enough officials in your pocket)

And of course, any time you are able to blackmail someone to do something corrupt, even if to a small degree, you gain further blackmail material.

It of course takes time to build up enough of this ability that such corruption becomes endemic, but once it reaches a tipping point, where you have control of the main people, and through them the populace, the corrupt (dictatorship/once democracy) can then use this system to:
- identify any opponents speaking out against the corruption
- discredit many, or even most of them, with the private information so far gathered
- track the remaining ones, knowing all their friends, all their safe houses, all the places they know well

If you get a dictatorship, or even a sham 'democracy' like Russia, then I don't see how anyone would ever be able to overthrow such a regme.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2021 05:49 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
They are in a public place, doing a public thing, using a vehicle that is directly dangerous to the public (if of course misused). The key here is the place is public, the actions are public, the use of a vehicle is public, the affect on the public is direct if used incorrectly. None of this comes into your home, nor involves personal information.

Yet testing someone's blood alcohol level is still an invasion of their privacy.


vikorr wrote:
Of course if you want to be asinine, you could argue that your blood alcohol level is personal information...except the information doesn't exist unless it is created by another person/organisation.

What is asinine about it?


vikorr wrote:
You're kidding? There is plenty of non-criminal private information that people don't want known about them, and you can use this:

- as blackmail against police heirachy (to get them to stop an investigation, or to investigate something in your favour)
- as blackmail against court officials officials (in order to get favourable judgements
- as blackmail against elected officials (to enact laws that allow greater corruption)
- information to discredit election opponents
- information to obtain surveillance photos in order to discredit election opponents
- information to get your pocketed official elected (through the above)
- information to get laws favourable to you passed (once you have enough officials in your pocket)

It is hard to see how a simple list of "who people call" could result in such coercion.

Maybe if someone calls something embarrassing like a phone sex hotline or something, but probably not most other people.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 12:30 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
It is hard to see how a simple list of "who people call" could result in such coercion.
Never said that such would be used in such coercion. Use your imagination about types of private information people don't want other people to know, that could be used for blackmail - there's quite a list. Frankly, such a list should be obvious to anyone of even moderate life experience. Hence why your responses so far have seemed asinine - you appear to be going about purposefully being dense.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 01:17 am
@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

It is hard to see how a simple list of "who people call" could result in such coercion.


And you know that's all they do because they said so?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 02:55 am
@roger,
Well, that and all the media coverage and court cases.

There are other programs besides the metadata program of course. But it's pretty clear that the only thing that the metadata program ever did was record who everyone called over the previous five years.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 02:56 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Never said that such would be used in such coercion.

Sure you did. We were talking about the phone metadata program that Mr. Snowden pretended to reveal.

The only thing that the metadata program ever did was record which numbers people called over the previous five years.


vikorr wrote:
Use your imagination about types of private information people don't want other people to know, that could be used for blackmail - there's quite a list.

And very little on that list will be revealed by basic records of who people have called over the previous five years.


vikorr wrote:
Hence why your responses so far have seemed asinine - you appear to be going about purposefully being dense.

The phone metadata program will never be anything more than a list of who everyone called for the previous five years.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 06:30 am
Julian Assange has a stroke in Belmarsh prison: Fiancée blames extreme stress caused by US extradition battle
vikorr
 
  4  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 02:08 pm
@oralloy,
Ah, I found the source of the misunderstanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_%282001%E2%80%932007%29

Quote:
NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — refers to the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.[1] In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, the phone calls, Internet activity, text messages and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lay within the U.S.
Our charming media then used the term 'Mass Surveillance of its own people' in conjunction with the above, without ever offering what that meant. Actually - virtually nowhere I looked (only a select few) talked about only metadata being collected internally, but once it's pointed out, you can see how carefully the wording is designed to give the wrong impression. It seems internationally, and nationally contain large differences, despite the use of almost identical phrases in terms of surveillance.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 02:43 pm
@vikorr,
The only reason they weren't reading all the US contacts was that 'Raptor' took in so much information at one point that it was thought it would take years to collate all the information gathered.

It ended up that a lot of the information was filtered back through software programs looking for certain people, places, events etc - not to stop operations before they happened as designed, but to corroborate already gathered evidence. They cast too wide a net and buried themselves in uncollated data.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2021 02:45 pm
@hightor,
I'd bet his stroke came after his cellies told him to get clean clothes and a shower. Or else.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Tomorrow Assange - - -
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 02:25:27