The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald delivered this talk at the TEDGlobal 2014 conference in Rio de Janeiro Tuesday:
Photo: TED/Flickr. Used with permission.
The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald delivered this talk at the TEDGlobal 2014 conference in Rio de Janeiro Tuesday:
Photo: TED/Flickr. Used with permission.
Glenn,
I just wanted to say that you absolutely hit it out of the park with this TedTalk. What an excellent medium for your work to culminate as it has with this concise presentation. The message here is extremely important, and you’ve made it accessible, and I find your points exact and very hard to refute.. I am sharing it with my network.Thank you for your hard work and sacrifice, I truly believe history will be kind to you!
Greenwald’s arguments are getting absurd! He keeps making up hypotheticals to cause hatred and fear of Western governments. These BS strawman arguments are getting old and totally counterproductive (unless you’re Greenwald and want to make some more money off Snowden’s stolen files and their signature brand of spin).
While Greenwald claims to have “tens of thousands” of files Snowden stole from the NSA— most or all of which appear to be PPT decks or other documents that could easily be fabricated or edited— he has very rarely, if ever, shown clear evidence for his claims that virtually everyone in the US, UK, NZ, AU, and other western nations are under surveillance all the time. Obviously, the claims cause fear and anger toward governments and it’s equally obvious that’s what Greenwald and Snowden want to create; they want you to fear and hate your government. But only if you live in the West. Note that they never attack Russia, China, Iran or North Korea.
As an American I don’t fear or hate the NSA, but I loathe men like Greenwald and Snowden that are so hopelessly biased and so completely dedicated to spreading fear and hate against western governments.
Regarding Greenwald’s latest strawman BS argument: To be sure, while no rational person would want Greenwald, Snowden, Assange or their cohorts to have their passwords– these guys not only embrace hacking, they routinely glorify it– I have no fear whatsoever of what the NSA, FBI or any other US government agency would do with my personal information. And most Americans agree with me.
Snowden and Greenwald have repeatedly exaggerated and stretched the truth in an effort to create paranoia that they hope will spark action against the Fed and NSA. Snowden, not surprisingly, is doing that work from Moscow. He claims he’s stuck there, but let’s not forget he first fled to China and “leaked” and NSA PPT deck to the Chinese press during high level talks between the US and China on cybersecurity. The timing of his leak gave the Chinese the upper hand in those talks. And that’s part of why many of us think thought he was a traitor from day one.
Moreover, anyone who is not completely ignorant knew the NSA and other agencies spied on people— including some Americans— before the Snowden theft and his “leaks”. We also know that China and Russia routinely spy on their own citizens and others around the world. And we know they hack US companies and government agencies in the West, or attempt to do so, routinely.
Of course, Snowden and Greenwald never attack Russia and China, the way they do the US, as that could result in them losing the support of their key allies in their attacks against western governments. Their allies also happen to be some of the most repressive— and least democratic— governments on Earth.
BTW, I have been a liberal my entire life and have been critical of government since I was a teenager. I’ve marched, written, made calls and donations and gone door to door for various left causes over the course of the last thirty years. But, I would never even consider getting in the Greenwald camp. He’s little more than a fear and hate mongering capitalist, making big bucks writing stories and books using stolen secrets designed to make you scared, angry and as hopelessly biased as he and his colleagues.
“While Greenwald claims to have “tens of thousands” of files Snowden stole from the NSA— most or all of which appear to be PPT decks or other documents that could easily be fabricated or edited— he has very rarely, if ever, shown clear evidence for his claims that virtually everyone in the US, UK, NZ, AU, and other western nations are under surveillance all the time.”
Yes, and Greenwald’s ultimate goal as a journalist is to edit documents to hide the truth from the public. It’s one of the thigs you learn to do when you decide you went to pursue journalism as a life calling. This goes cleanly with the notion that when a document is appropriately declassified and released to the public, it happens to have large sections of these documents blotted out with black ink.
“As an American I don’t fear or hate the NSA, but I loathe men like Greenwald and Snowden that are so hopelessly biased and so completely dedicated to spreading fear and hate against western governments.”
Yes, and as American citizens Greenwald and Snowden’s ultimate goal was to steal the original Constitution and cruelly set the document on fire while taking photos of their criminal act. Thank God they stopped that from happening.
“Regarding Greenwald’s latest strawman BS argument: To be sure, while no rational person would want Greenwald, Snowden, Assange or their cohorts to have their passwords– these guys not only embrace hacking, they routinely glorify it– I have no fear whatsoever of what the NSA, FBI or any other US government agency would do with my personal information. And most Americans agree with me.”
Pretty much. Snowden and Assange are well known, more or less, to possess a comprehension and literacy of computer networks and programming languages. This makes them malevolent hackers who intend to destroy the Internet with reckless abandon. Let’s all disregard the concept of “white hat hackers” and “black hat hackers” and put them underneath one umbrella that we can conveniently mark as evil. That way, no one will ever approach that dark alley known as computer literacy which clearly leads to vicious acts of terrorism.
“BTW, I have been a liberal my entire life and have been critical of government since I was a teenager.”
Yes, and for those good teenagers who are still teenagers who happened to not know that they could potentially have all of their online activity tracked and monitored and stored in, let’s say, “archives” by “governments” and “corporations” that could be used at a later date “against them” when they “become adults”. Because this idea of “encrypting Internet traffic” is dangerous and could lead to a way to prevent being “manipulated by others”.
What’s this? A loyal comrade of the NSA is in the audience. Troll much? Then give it a rest.
When they’ve shown me their “evidence” and my official government “record” in court, every single thing on it’s been a premeditated, orchestrated 180 degree lie.
I’ve noted an underlying tendency for them to be overly concerned with the act of physically putting carefully worded misleading statements and completely orchestrated(sometimes by very high-tech means) incidents in the record for use in the distant future.
They appear to design their secret rules according to their phenotypical genetic characteristics and intentionally categorize everyone else’s behavior as generally illegal, defective and wrong without anyone there to contest it.
It may seem far fetched but it appears they are enacting a fully automated system which records people and retaliates automatically in ambiguous(possibly high-tech) ways and at the same time they’re intentionally trying to get everyone else to align biologically as targets of this system. They don’t seem concerned at all if the information they put into the computer is true and actually to the contrary.
–They seem to want to fully automate it and wash their hands of the results of the system and the responsibility for it.
In reality this particular western european r1b entity in question has the only and longest history in the world of lying about everything/everyone, cheating every single time, stealing everything in sight and committing genocide against everyone else. It’s very clear from their history that they’re attempting mass genocide with their stolen inetl apparatus’ surveillance system. The situation is obvious. They need to be apprehended immediately.
AAA+ Well done Glenn! You really nailed it. Your composure and responses in the last few minutes were flawless and quite enjoyable. You packed so much into the 15 minutes i will really need to watch it a few more times. Thanks for all your work.
Simply true! But truth is the most unwelcome child in the world, & whistleblowers are the most wanted people in the world.
“Mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind.” 9:50
“The abrahamic religions similarly posit that there is an invisible all knowing authority who because of its omniscience always watches whatever you are doing which means you never have a private moment. The ultimate enforcer for obedience to its dictates.” 11:16
Quote of the activist Rosa Luxemburg by Glenn Greenwald: “He who does not move does not notice his chains.” 14:55
Such a control is inflicted on too many children by their parents or caregivers. This causes severe damage of the personality. How can they speak up when adult? Don’t let us forget these silent sufferings!
Maybe this is worth a try so that they can support each other & preserve their sanity:
http://www.rootsofempathy.org/
Benjamin Wittes is correct here. Notice how quickly Greenwald falls back to a defense of dissidents, activists and marginalized communities, which is where the argument must go. He realizes this essentially grants Wittes’ point, and recovers, but Wittes’ is correct: If there really are people who mean they “have nothing to hide” in the absolute sense that Greenwald understands it, they are very few. When the statement arises in the context of the debate about government surveillance, what people really mean is that they have nothing to hide from the/their government. Wittes’ wrote:
You read a different exchange than I did. Wittes thinks the crucial point is that vis-a-vis govt, citizens claiming they have nothing to hide mean they do not fear their govt would do anything untoward with what they find. Nor does Greenwald’s demand to have email password necessarily turn on whether he’d “maliciously publish” anything. He just maybe wants to, you know, read it at his leisure.
Nobody significant would give Glenn their (real, actually used, and no deleting allowed) email passwords even if Glenn swore not to publish one word. Because in fact, everybody cherishes their privacy and so has “something to hide.”
That’s true. (That’s the argument he’s making.)
That’s also true. Wittes went too far there, and misrepresented Greenwald. But it’s not essential to his argument. Substitute your text for his, and the argument is the same. People won’t trust Greenwald with the passwords for whatever reason(s) they may have. Let it be for the reason that “we instinctively understand the profound importance of it [privacy]”, which is the conclusion that Greenwald draws in the TED talk. To use the challenge to prove that statement is fine.
That’s true again. But Wittes is explaining why those same people who won’t trust Greenwald with their passwords WILL trust the government. So, when they say “they have nothing to hide” in the context of the debate on government surveillance, they really mean “nothing to hide” from the (their) government. That’s Wittes’ major point, as he makes clear in the tweet that I linked to: “point is almost nobody is making the argument your challenge takes on or at least means it as literally as the challenge assumes”.
(In a comment below, I gave a different (additional) reason why people might trust the government and not a random stranger.)
When Greenwald replies with “People who are dissidents, or activists, or in marginalized communities experience the world much differently than you do”, he’s making Wittes’ point because he’s identifying individuals who may have good reason to distrust the government, and Wittes’ point is that the claim “I have nothing to hide” is really about the trust one is willing to place in the government. It’s not a claim that one has nothing to hide from any stranger who might want their private info.
The point is the government is a “stranger” who “wants their private info.”
“It’s for your protection.”
The point is what people really mean when they say “I have nothing to hide” (in the context of the debate about government surveillance), and therefore what can be properly be inferred when those same people deny Greenwald their passwords. (To you this might amount to another case of “punctuation”.)
It’s not so much about punctuation this time as limited vision.
People may have nothing to hide today. But if Jeb Bush becomes president, and has the powers Obama does now?
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, and decides (similarly to Jeb Bush, presumably) that people who are antiwar at all, or anti-corporatism are suspect?
The point is, as I see it, the escalating immunity and impunity of corporate and militarist power to know more about you than the reverse, whatever mask they’re wearing, is wrong. To accede to a surveillance state is no small thing, even if it starts with someone less reactionary (ultra-conservative) or statist as president than those who follow.
Whose “limited vision”? Neither Greenwald nor Wittes nor myself is expressing a “vision” or an opinion on anything but those two points I mentioned. Read the Twitter exchange between Greenwald and Wittes; what do you think they’re arguing about? When I said that Wittes is correct, what do you think I meant? Read the Wittes quote again and note how it concludes:
In that bolded text, he’s saying that the actual trustworthiness of the government is completely irrelevant to the point he’s making. And it is. Maybe if you read everything over again, you’ll understand that. If you’re not interested (“punctuation”), that’s fine. But nothing you have written here is relevant, and the same was true with your replies to my comment on the Hussain piece.
But of course it challenges it. If you don’t want a stranger trawling through your stuff, you don’t want a stranger trawling through your stuff. That’s not irrelevant, particularly if the abuse that can follow is potentially worse (what the government or those controlling it can do to you with your private data) than having malicious intent and “publishing anything interesting.”
Giving away this much power is unprecedented in America.
You’re right! It seems that Wittes’ argument is incomplete. (His full blog post is here, btw.) He needs to add my point (below) about the possible benefit (in security) that can be achieved by trusting the government; without a possible benefit (it needn’t be certain), there’s no meaningful distinction to be made between the government and a nosey stranger. That there’s NO reason to expect a benefit is the reason to NOT trust a random stranger. The same would apply to the government.
But once the possibility of the benefit is there (and it’s a benefit that only the government can provide) then there IS a meaningful distinction between government and Greenwald, and Wittes’ (and my) argument is correct. Your point about the greater danger in trusting the government is still irrelevant. It’s only necessary for those who say that they “have nothing to hide” to be making that meaningful distinction. They have reason to trust the government, but no reason to trust a random stranger. As Wittes indicated, it doesn’t matter if their reason turns out to be invalid.
Thanks for your reply!
Why is the irreconcilable juxtaposition of Zuckerberg’s words and actions in relation to the expectation of privacy such a poignant example of the double standard to which modern culture had become accustomed? Why is the concept of space so intrinsic to that of personal privacy? Why is privacy so essential to our overall sense of well being? Why are the Benthemites so intent on promoting a modern sensibility wherein the average man is willing to cede his innate need for privacy and, by extension, his/her minimum expectation of sovereign space?
Man has been traditionally defined by philosophers as a unique life form in that he alone is possessed of the innate capacity to become self determined. Concordantly, it is understood that man is only truly free to choose a measured course of action when his behavior is no longer governed by instinctual reflex. Such definitions further argue that, with the proper education, man is uniquely capable of developing an aptitude for self reflection that is deemed necessary to controlling his instinctual response to stimuli. Calm reflection, then, can be understood as the mean by which the individual acquires the necessary space between the conscious and instinctual aspects of self wherein reaction to external stimuli is no longer governed by pure reflex. A fully developed sense of self sovereignty (free will) requires an equally developed capacity for self control.
Glenn Greenwald argues that man must be afforded “a realm of privacy” in which he can think, reason, interact, and speak without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon him. He further argues that it is only within this realm that free “creativity, exploration and dissent” can reside. Where, exactly, does this realm of privacy reside? Does the acquisition of this “private realm” have a physical correlative as the story of Zuckerberg suggests? Although it is reasonable to argue that the exercise of control over a certain degree of finite space can reduce the need for remedy from encroachment, does the secure acquisition of said space insure that “creativity, exploration and dissent” will reside within? Is man’s innate desire for “a realm of privacy” being intrinsically driven by a incessant urge to become self realized in time? Or, do such unconscious urges only have the latent capacity to become spontaneously manifest upon acquisition of the requisite physical space? Isn’t it more reasonable to suggest that the “realm” to which Glenn refers requires a developed sense of ones innate sovereignty to be truly appreciated? If trends in public education have resulted in the type of reasoning that allows the average Joe to think of himself as a mere extension of the material influences that surround him, then what does that say about future expectations of personal privacy?
Glenn Greenwald makes the argument that “when people are in a state of being watched they make decisions that are not the byproduct of their own agency, but that are about the expectations that others have of them.” In the doing, he invokes the dystopian fear of an ever-present, all seeing eye of church and/or state that are determined to rigidly enforce societal orthodoxy. In support of this supposition he flippantly dismisses the religious devotion of roughly 4 billion people with a single reference to Abrahamic religions. Thus, it appears that we are being encouraged to conclude that modern state, education, and monotheistic institutions are the source of all personal inhibition. Absent the awareness of a retributive principle or agency, what would prevent man from abandoning all inhibition in the endless pursuit of selfish indulgence? Does this sound like the formula for the type self reflection that is necessary for the appreciation of the sovereign dignity of the individual and/or the “collective good?”
“In the doing, he {Greenwald} invokes the dystopian fear of an ever-present, all seeing eye of church and/or state that are determined to rigidly enforce societal orthodoxy.”
He doesn’t really invoke the ‘dystopian fear’ of it, he draws attention to the self-inhibiting facets of it that are a present reality for many.
“Absent the awareness of a retributive principle or agency, what would prevent man from abandoning all inhibition in the endless pursuit of selfish indulgence?”
This seems an alarmingly odd thing for someone as obviously bright as you to say, so please overlook the following if you were actually mocking it as you certainly should (I can’t tell from the context):
Can you not see the appeal of ethics, humility and wholesome intentions as something in its own right (independent of fearsome rebukes for immorality), even if the supposed allure of ‘selfish indulgence’ is obviously tempting? Does only the threat of punishment make one behave in a decent manner, or is conscience and its appeal when given voice INNATE to humanity – religiously expressed or not? I have no final answer to these questions, but (if you’re interested) Joseph Campbell’s ‘The Power of Myth’ and Eckhart Tolle’s ‘The Power of Now’ both indicate the valuable insight that the threat of punishment for bad behavior doesn’t hold a candle – as a motivator toward an ethical disposition – to the more substantial appeal of a life replete with perceived meaning. And what Greenwald is saying (I believe) is that the mythos of an all-seeing and judging ‘Big Brother’ is obviously inappropriate to human life wherever it appears, in religion or out.
“Absent the awareness of a retributive principle or agency, what would prevent man from abandoning all inhibition in the endless pursuit of selfish indulgence?” – Wilhemena
“Does only the threat of punishment make one behave in a decent manner, or is conscience and its appeal when given voice INNATE to humanity – religiously expressed or not?” – Cindy
A discussion of the nature and role of conscience is conspicuously absent in Glenn’s presentation. Having read your past references to esoteric religious traditions, I suspect that you have considered the possibility that man possesses the innate faculty of conscience that, when fully developed, has the capacity to give expression to a set of objective, transcendental principles that are not based on, or falsifiable by, physical experience, but are derived from the inner spiritual or mental essence of the man himself. Thus, the absence of traditional retributive agencies does not necessary negate man’s latent capacity to aspire to the common good. However, the average modern man has become so inculcated with a set of values which originate from these agencies that his own innate capacity for truth has been severely atrophied, or lays dormant altogether. The very belief that man is possessed of the capacity to realize a set of objective, self evident truths is perceived as an impediment by those who have been tasked to facilitate the transformation of cultural attitudes in context to the newly emerging global order (pacification).
Clearly, Glenn made the obvious mistake of not exploring the meaning of life and presenting that. He thought the talk was going to be about “Why Privacy Matters”. Instead, he went with the NSA PowerPoint slide that clearly showed Facebook had set up an exclusive backdoor to the National Security Agency. Then, he logically went to half conscious statements from Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt. By the way, you don’t seem to be so vociferously defending Schmidt in all of this. Do you happen to be a paid spokesman for Facebook? Because clearly, we’re all idiots and you are the lone genius. Leave it to the lone genius to make the entire world look like fools!
“Do you happen to be a paid spokesman for Facebook? Because clearly, we’re all idiots and you are the lone genius. Leave it to the lone genius to make the entire world look like fools!”
How would you characterize an individual who feels compelled to twice pass judgement on that which he/she admittedly does not understand?
“A discussion of the nature and role of conscience is conspicuously absent in Glenn’s presentation.”
I think you might find that this issue is probably considered somewhat implicit now in Greenwald’s work, as most of the people he defends and supports are people of conscience (both religious and not), and the freedom to listen to one’s conscience rather than the fear of The Watcher is precisely his point with regard to liberty. I agree that repressive societal codes have ravaged the natural connection to human integrity in the modern world (and I would add that consumerism, self-involvement and violence have become entertainment in a disgusting fashion), but I don’t see how Greenwald is neglecting the consideration of innate moral courage – I think he believes real liberty actually encourages it, and in many ways this is a major point of his talk here. In my opinion.
“The very belief that man is possessed of the capacity to realize a set of objective, self evident truths is perceived as an impediment by those who have been tasked to facilitate the transformation of cultural attitudes in context to the newly emerging global order (pacification).”
This is a brilliant comment, and I think Greenwald would agree with it, personally.
“The freedom to listen to one’s conscience rather than the fear of The Watcher is precisely his point with regard to liberty.”
If you truly understand the sacred nature of conscience, then I applaud your insight.
“The people [Greenwald] defends and supports are people of conscience.”
I am not certain to whom you are making reference.
I was referring to Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, James Risen, John Kirakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and others.
I know you’re unimpressed by Assange and Snowden, but I’ve no intentions of getting into that with you.
“I know you’re unimpressed by Assange and Snowden, but I’ve no intentions of getting into that with you.”
This hasn’t always been true. The idealized narrative surrounding both individuals sparked my interest and kindled my hopes for a time. However, the growing realization that each is nurturing an anti-establishment persona with an eye to commodifying their infamy calls into question the degree to which either is committed to the goal of truly challenging the core values of the ruling plutocracy. It becomes increasingly difficult to decry the profit driven aspirations of the elites transnational machinations (and of those that do their bidding), when ones own actions reflect the same concern for brand recognition and/or sustained profitability in concert with the plutocracy’s pipe dream of a globalized economy. The lubricant that best facilitates the frictionless slide of the individual from revolutionary Idealism to political pragmatism is the slippery-slope appeal of vested self interest; few can resist the allure of fame and/or fortune.
A life lived with integrity – even if it lacks the trappings of fame and fortune is a shining star in whose light others may follow in the years to come. – Denis Waitley
“Does the acquisition of this “private realm” have a physical correlative as the story of Zuckerberg suggests? Although it is reasonable to argue that the exercise of control over a certain degree of finite space can reduce the need for remedy from encroachment, does the secure acquisition of said space insure that “creativity, exploration and dissent” will reside within?”
Yes, yes. Let’s all act like Zuckerberg is a deep philosopher from ancient Greece and not a privileged billionaire computer programmer. By the way, if you were competing for the obfuscated code contest, I think you just won. You made us all look like complete idiots by making no sense yourself whatsoever.
“Yes, yes. Let’s all act like Zuckerberg is a deep philosopher from ancient Greece and not a privileged billionaire computer programmer. By the way, if you were competing for the obfuscated code contest, I think you just won. You made us all look like complete idiots by making no sense yourself whatsoever.”
If you do not understand that which I am attempting to convey, how can you possibly conclude that it makes “no sense?”
My God. I think, guys, clearly — I have seen enlightenment. What immediate Zen! Surely, you must forgive me for being so foolish.
What I was foolishly trying to convey to this master of pretentious verbiage disguised as intelligence, is that you are a moron. You are defending a defenseless position.
“What I was foolishly trying to convey to this master of pretentious verbiage disguised as intelligence, is that you are a moron.”
If all you intended to say was, “You are a moron,” then why did you “foolishly” use a lot of unnecessary “pretentious verbiage” achieve that outcome? Project much?
Because clearly, you have an unbiased analysis–given your objective, ultimate understanding. You offer helpful “tips” that Zuckerberg “suggests”, while slamming Greenwald for defaming all Jews, Christians, and Muslims (“Abrahamic religions”). Where is your equally objective and unbiased critique of Zuckerberg? Where is Schmidt, period? Why is Zuckerberg elevated above everyone as the leading pillar of suggestions beyond criticism?
Here, let me help you out. Zuckerberg happens to be the CEO of Facebook, where he oversees all users who happen to have “Abrahamic religions” that use his services. The NSA PowerPoint slide showed that Facebook, which just so happens to be Zuckerberg’s company, has an exclusive backdoor to the National Security Agency. Does this provide a conflict of interest to the participators of Facebook’s services? Should users of Facebook feel vulnerable? How many people have used or indirectly been relayed through Facebook’s services that have used the Internet in general? Should they be concerned about this development? Does privacy matter? Where do we draw the line between corporate power and governmental authority?
Once again, you choose to comment on something for which you have no comprehension. I was not attempting to negate Glenn Greenwald’s perception that Zuckerberg was seeking an elevated level of privacy (physical security) while simultaneously heralding in an Age wherein the average person’s right to privacy is trivialized. Rather, I was attempting to use that image to highlight the fact that the impulse toward privacy can be driven by a variety of factors. In the case of Zuckerberg, I suspect his motivations are manifold.
Space, like classified information, is a commodity in capitalist society. The acquisition and possession of space has become a conspicuous measure of ones wealth. As wealth equates to power, the possession and control of the space that surrounds oneself has become a symbol of influence as well. And, like space, the possession and control of privileged information has also become a measure of influence and power.
60 Minutes once interviewed Dr. Clotaire Rapaille, a psychologist, who made a living explaining American appetite for SUVs to major corporations like the Detroit “Big Three” and European auto-makers:
“Why do you buy a car that doesn’t even make 10 miles per gallon, doesn’t fit into your garage? Do you really need that? And you don’t need that intellectually,” he says. “But at the reptilian level, what I call the reptilian level, the reptilian brain, the deepest part of you, the gut level if you want, you feel like you need that.”
Dr. Clotaire Rapaille went on to explain that the ownership of an SUV provided a sense security in an environment that he equated to war. Thus, the average consumer is instinctively predisposed to the acquisition of a vehicle that, because of its size and physical prowess, optimizes their chance of survival when competing for space on the road. Because of its perceived capacity to impart the illusion of power, the SUV has become a status symbol as well. The instinctual drive to create a secure physical space around oneself is universal.
Glenn Greenwald argues that man must be afforded “a realm of privacy” in which he can think, reason, interact, and speak without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon him. This is true; men must be allowed the space to explore their own nature without interference or distraction. However, I do not subscribe to the view that the habitual abandonment all inhibition facilitates the innate urge toward self realization. To the contrary, I believe that such indulgence engenders a mindset that is far more reactionary to outside influence. If the goal of asserting the right to privacy ultimately results in a mindset that is more easily manipulated and exploited, then you can count me out.
I hope that this explanation helps you to better understand how an individual’s sense of personal worth attributed to privacy (and the right thereof) must be considered in context to its predictable outcome.
Just to be a decent human being in this last and final response, I wanted to apologize for my rudeness. I obviously had not digested your entire post and appropriately crafted a reasonable and justified statement to offer in exchange. You are clearly very intelligent and put a tremendous amount of thought into this. By no means are you a “moron”, and I was overly indulging in sarcasm that made me look like one. So hopefully you will accept that as an apology and understand that my initial responses were simply due to impatience and lack of fully understanding where you were coming from. To be honest with you, I was frustrated that someone with your lexicon was devoting that much thoughtfulness to the counter-argument, which would be why privacy does not matter. So while I realize now that was not your intention, you are clearly more versed than me in expressing the bigger picture–at the very least in this particular case. I hope you find that satisfactory.
Thank you for this gracious response. It makes me glad that I took the time to more clearly articulate my position.
I think it’s insightful to point out that the journey toward self-realization isn’t really going to happen by removing all inhibition. I also think it’s worth pointing out that the journey toward self-realization is not the same thing as liberty. One can self-actualize in a darkened jail cell, but that does not mean that, should we find ourselves in a darkening jail cell, we should be content with that knowledge and the current situation.
> “However, I do not subscribe to the view that the habitual abandonment of all inhibition facilitates the innate urge toward self realization. To the contrary, I believe that such indulgence engenders a mindset that is far more reactionary to outside influence.”
Spot on. But then this point must cut both ways: in allowing the plutocracy to abandon all -their- inhibitions, and thus achieve hegemonic control over everything, it…
> “…engenders a mindset that is far more reactionary to outside influence.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.
Excellent! Bravo!
Glenn Greenwald for president.
The best bit I’ve taken away from this video is the one where if someone you’re talking with says “well I’ve got nothing to hide so I don’t care about mass surveillance”: to which I then pull out a piece of paper and hand it to him saying “Well alright then, since you don’t have anything to hide please write down the email address and password to ALL of your email and social networking accounts so I can log into them, read everything you are up to, what you’re talking about and who your friends are.” Awesome comeback. Thanks Glenn :-)
Excellent presentation, Mr. Greenwald. And your point at the end – that those who falsely accuse Edward Snowden of profiting from his revelations are in many cases merely projecting their own corrupt, self-serving, and unethical standards in an effort to explain his inexplicable (to them) motivations – ding ding ding ding ding …
They simply can’t wrap their tiny brains – surrounded by all that hot air – around the reality that Snowden made a conscious choice to sacrifice his own interests for the greater public good.
I wonder how long it will take the US government to officially pardon him? Not in our lifetimes …
It’s truly amazing to me that Glenn, or anyone, needs to lay out this argument. I’m glad he did, of course, but it just stuns me that anyone needs to be convinced.
First TED talk I’ve seen that’s worth a fuck. Good job! :)
Saying “I have nothing to hide, nor will I EVER” is saying you promise you will never, ever ‘sin’ against the establishment, or state. Even if you should do so. Even if you OUGHT, by every fiber and directive of your conscience, to do so. It’s saying you will not even commit ‘thoughtcrime’ or thinking outside the establishment.
It is unnecessary self-limitation.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc {the establishment}, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” (Emmanuel Goldstein, from Orwell’s ‘1984’)
And in the indomitable spirit of non-violent civil disobedience:
“Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” ~Albert Einstein
“If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.” ~Louis D. Brandeis
I wonder if Justice Louis D. Brandeis had read Bastiat at some point.
“The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable” Frédéric Bastiat – The Law (1850)
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Jeremy and Ryan should go now…hang out in Germany with Laura, wait and you can come back. I see difference between Intercept reporters that are living in the U.S. and abroad. You have to go. I know it’s a rule among reporters to take the consequences, it’s a different story this time… you have to go. Assess later.
Years ago circa 2004-2005 I asked my father who the NSA hired. I was expecting an explanation of geeks, guys who could barely get out a coherent sentence. What he told me was “Killers, guys who had killed a lot of people and weren’t terribly concerned about it”.
I’m dead,I accept that…I don’t care anymore. NSA has people on the ground. Check your sources, they can confirm all of this.
General Hercules…you are probably in bed right now, given that you live in a central time zone (aka military base). I just want to invite you to do a double tap to my head. Please come to my house and put me out of my misery. Nobody is watching, you don’t need to be afraid of the electric chair, because we only have life in prison in New YorK State.
If you need my address please contact me, I’m sure no one will notice.
AG,
You are a good man, don’t worry, the Lord will take care of you. I wish you a long and happy life.
Let’s see if my comment makes it through this time, unless the author is only allowing the laudable comments to be published.
This is all beautifully articulated and idealistic, but fails to offer any tangible solution. How do we only filter out the terrorist activity and allow for everyone else to have their privacy?
Neither Greenwald not Snowden can offer any real solutions. Snowden copped out and chose instead to shine a spotlight on himself. “We’re being watched!” Wow. Earth shattering news, buddy. You know, with your position, you probably had the opportunity to make some kind of change happen, you could’ve influenced politicians or elites to bring about some kind of policy change, but it’s so much easier to run away and take the hero title from the black sheep flock.
We don’t hear about the intelligence community’s successes for a reason. We don’t know about how many terrorist acts have been intercepted via online monitoring. We only hear about when something goes wrong, so that’s why they all get a bad rap. Do you think the CIA honestly cares about your lunch pic posts, or even if you’re texting your friend about stopping by for a lil somethin somethin. Honestly. They have way bigger fish to fry, don’t be giving yourself so much credit.
I’ve also wondered why Snowden, with complete access to databases of personal information, did not simply blackmail some politicians into promoting reforms. Was he too squeamish, or had more senior bureaucrats at the NSA already beat him to it?
Snowden himself talks about the people having the right to decide, but that is obviously just to cover up his real motives. Everyone knows that decisions are made by the elites. However, Snowden may be part of a radical, thankfully small, fringe group which has unfortunately been misled by the wording in some old and obscure government documents which use phrases like ‘We the people’. At the time, editing capabilities on computers were rudimentary at best, and so people just wrote down whatever came into their heads. But there is no excuse for that now, and all those old documents should be re-edited e.g. ‘We the rulers of the United States, on behalf of the people, …do ordain and establish this Constitution….’
“However, Snowden may be part of a radical, thankfully small, fringe group which has unfortunately been misled by the wording in some old and obscure government documents which use phrases like ‘We the people’. At the time, editing capabilities on computers were rudimentary at best, and so people just wrote down whatever came into their heads. But there is no excuse for that now, and all those old documents should be re-edited e.g. ‘We the rulers of the United States, on behalf of the people, …do ordain and establish this Constitution….’”
While I find your intent noble on modifying this thing they all seem to be whining about (the Constitution), I think we need to learn a little history lesson here. Lets make the Constitution Top Secret!
I have never in my life heard such an articulate and intelligent discourse on privacy. I’m not a criminal but I sure would not want my bathroom habits or my medical records to be out on the internet for all to see. You made excellent points. You have our admiration and support. Mr. and Mrs. Nagy.
Hi General Hercules…as long as we’re being candid. I’m curious, NSA has no charter whatsoever to operate in the United States against U. S. Citizens, yet 1.2 million Americans, including Laura Poitras are on the suspect list. Where am I on that list? 1.2 million people, minus people under 18 would be approximately 1 in 200 adult U.S. citizens that are considered “suspects”. Suspects by whom is operative question.
Let me be clear General, the CIA tried to recruit me and I said no because I would be subject to censorship as a writer. However, compared to the lunatic military contractors, NSA and god knows who else…they are the liberals.
So the long and short is…whatever someone happened to tell me, whatever was lying on the floor…I never signed a contract. Get it…I can talk asshole. I never signed anything.
I reported the Military contractors stalking and harassing me (I knew they weren’t Feds) to one of my former classmates on 8/1/12. I gave a statement to my father on 8/5/12 the day of the Sikh Temple shootings, I gave another statement to my father the following week. It’s now been 2 1/2 years, none of the mass shootings were the perpetrators are still alive have gone to trial. The first week I was mass stalked by MIC contractors, a daisy dukes white trash type girl leaned into a car, with southern plates (there were so many). She stood up and said “look it’s death” as I walked by her. Little did I know this was the truth. These sociopaths can kill you and there is no justice. Now I know.
What are the three major threats national surveillance poses to our freedoms according to Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin?
http://wp.me/p4X83e-1w
Tom, I will explain. I do not use my real name, because I was still trying to raise money for feature films and working at Fortune 500 companies for health insurance. This time is now coming to an end. I no longer seek to make art, films. write…but only to prolong my life slightly longer. Which makes me very dangerous, since I live as though I am already dead. I am in a position to have told numerous people what is taking place in America. Some of them believe me, some of them do not.
But as more and more people realize, help is not on the way, you will hear this cry louder. It is not the FBI running these operations, but frankly they don’y have the clearance to walk in the door of the NSA. DARPA, they have a 3.2 billion dollar budget and 130 employees. It’s all famed out to Universities, Big Pharma, Skunk Works Etc… And most people would only be working on a piece of the puzzle, they don’t know the whole picture. The FBI, the Justice Department, Congress…does not have Code Word Clearance to even begin to investigate the Crimes Against Humanity that are taking place. And the CIA, true to form, they call the FBI “totally fucking useless”, but’s that’s just an age old rivalry. It’s probably not the CIA either.
This is hypocritical. The IRS requires you to expose your most intimate financial details under penalty of perjury. FINCEN and the rest have access to everything. Would you let me see your credit card statements or cancelled checks?
Worse is Obamacare. There’s HIPPA but I won’t be paid if my entire medical history is doxxed. I don’t go to the doctor.
So every financial and medical detail is stored in a Federal database, and no complaint for some unknown reason.
Glen’s point about surveillance causing us to become more docile, less willing to confront authority even when it is blatantly in the wrong (Ferguson), is the major thing I take away from this excellent speech. Is it the reason so many people do not use their real names when posting?
I’m not sure if you are asking if people don’t use their real names out of fear the government would know who the dissidents are or some other reason. By just coming to “The Intercept” site I automatically assume they have my IP address which would in turn tell them who I am. At this point the government needs to know there are people who oppose all their nefarious schemes. I don’t mind being counted in that group. If I did I would use TOR for everything but clearnet has it’s uses too.
jgreen, that veiled threat from General Hercules… “we’re monitoring the boards” tells you who is running the program, in addition to private partners…Carlyle Group…Cough, Cough, Lockheed Martin…Cough, Cough.
Just make sure you have some cash and a plane ticket for your whole family…sad but true.
I don’t encrypt anything, they know exactly who I am. My father worked for the NSA after he retired. For the people way above Snowden, the people who got their loans forgiven…on five year contacts. Idiot savants from all of the Ivy Leagues, who got to play with the best toys. Now I am being tortured to death, lesions all over my brain and cancer…did I mention I was a talented filmmaker and writer. This is freedom and democracy in America!
As for cash and plane tickets or whether I am armed or not is something I don’t broadcast but play close to the vest. The fact that I have to even consider the possibilities of a malevolent government here in the USA is enough to first, make me want to puke and second, wish for a different status quo. I won’t live in a world where wishful thinking is the best I can hope for. This jackpot society we live in is no accident. People shovel out billions on lottery tickets in the infinitesimal chance of striking it rich. How many rich people play the lottery? It is therefore a regressive tax sucking wealth from the poor to fund others. That concept is diabolically evil and yet people gleefully hand over their money. I kind of got off topic there, but I type as I think and that was what I thunk. With that kind of sheepish behavior permeating the population it’s going to be an uphill battle ’til the levee breaks. I empathize with your current situation and “wish” it were not so. I have, and am continuing to research the DEWs that I know exist. Do I know with certainty they are being employed covertly here in the USA? No. However our government’s track record does not make me confident that they aren’t. Keep fighting ’cause giving up is the only alternative.
Transcript of TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters/transcript?language=en
His argument, as I understand it, is that in private one is free to act like a total idiot. When people are watching, one is forced to smarten up.
But this is simply due to insecurity and it can be overcome with a little effort. I have been acting like a total idiot in public for many years, and everyone including myself is now quite comfortable with it. So why limit one’s freedom to fleeting moments of privacy? Instead, do as we wish, publicly, all of the time.
That’s not exactly what I took from his talk. He laid out that there are different kinds of people who react differently to being watched. Human nature seemed to be the thrust of his message. There is a tendency to be more circumspect when one knows they are being watched. When I first started commenting here, I have to admit there was a bit of trepidation in my soul. The more I comment the easier it becomes. I may not always make salient points but at least I’m not afraid anymore to criticize my own government, who, by the way, used to indoctrinate me on the evils of the totalitarian regimes like E Germany and Russia with their surveillance states. We have become what the government used to rail against. What a dystopian subterfuge has been perpetrated on us and cannot be an accident. God, they(surveillance state) piss me off.
Don’t get me wrong – I certainly believe in privacy for myself.
The question is whether privacy should be considered as a right which is protected by the government. To justify this, it is necessary to demonstrate it has some social value. Greenwald argued that it encourages a diversity of ideas, as people use their privacy to explore unconventional behaviours and concepts. However, most people have no interest in this – they simply want to imitate their peer group and gain social acceptance. The last thing they want to be is unconventional. So Greenwald is conflating what is good for him personally with what is good for everybody.
lol
Thanks, Mona. I pay premium for bandwidth and watching videos chews up the Mbs.
-Mona-
Thx for sharing this link & the one for the great interview with Edward Snowden.
Let me elaborate on Glenn Greenwald’s excellent presentation. I know someone who is a American Assistant Professor of Sociology. She and her friends are very liberal. She said they will not discuss the NSA or surveillance in America. They will not have the conversation at all. People in the U.S. are having tremendous trouble surviving financially and are preoccupied with practical matters…but they are also terrified of doing or saying the wrong thing.
I actually visited a Panopticon Prison, the Kilmainham Gaol, just outside of Dublin in Ireland. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, were imprisoned there and the majority were shot in the prison yard. This instigated the final rebellion, which gave most of Ireland freedom from English rule.
Greenwald mentions Hannah Arendt. She was a genius and I only realize upon rereading “The Origins of Totalitarianism” now the depth of her insight and intellect. She talks about widening the “circle of complicity” until there is no institution in place to challenge the totalitarian regime. Everyone in power is tainted. Similarly, Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn stated that if only the Russians had waited in their hallways with an ax or a log and attacked the secret police, who came to take them in the middle of the night…instead of waiting like sheep in fear, perhaps history would have been different.
Have we not learned from history, that ultimately people yearn for freedom and will overthrow a yoke, even if it takes 1,000 years. Do the current “Masters of War” now believe they have found a different formula that they now believe will work? What I can tell you is that Stalin and Hitler could profess their ideas to an audience and have followers. The group which seeks to establish worldwide dominion, has to completely hide in the shadows, because they have no ideas which would appeal to anyone…even the followers of Hitler. It is greed and power distilled in it’s worst form, and nothing, even masked behind a perverse ideology, to offer the world but death and destruction. Work for these sociopaths at your peril…
There was some discussion earlier about God, and the rather curt but topical dismissal by Greenwald of the (more rigidly orthodox teachers of) Abrahamic religions.
In all religions there is a mystic core, which doesn’t at all see God as the all-seeing eye of potential disapproval but as an everlasting Presence of Divine Love.
For example, in Christianity there is the mystic Christianity of, for example, Meister Eckhart, the heartfelt Catholicism of Thomas Merton.
In Judaism there is the mystic core of the Kabbalah.
In Islam there is Sufism, “The Way of Love.”
In Hinduism there are countless mystic paths.
In Buddhism there is Zen, or Ch’an Buddhism (this is my path).
Taoism has the teachings of LaoTzu and Chang Tzu…
In all of these “inner traditions” of the more orthodox religions there is a different concept of the Divine Presence (GOD) than in the everyday orthodoxy, even though the inner traditions are still very much a part of the religion as a whole.
This “different concept” is, mystics agree, the same God – limitless, ever-present, but not anything but LOVE ITSELF. It is absurd to attempt to put the limitless literally into words, but the beautiful poetry in the Old Testament (Song of Songs, for example) and the “Father” concept of the New Testament (the prodigal son’s father in Jesus’s story wasn’t monitoring or judging his errant child, but merely waited – always ‘there’ – for the son’s return to LOVE) speak vividly about this very concept.
Islam’s Sufis, as I said, also speak of it. God is “The Beloved” for many of them, just as many Jews and Christians have called God “Friend.”
Here is Western poet Coleman Barks talking about the Sufi poet Rumi – a poet who the wonderful poster here known as ‘Sufi Muslim’ described as basically a commentator on the Quran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7HkCMa-RqM
I disagree that the mysticism you highlight is a central core of religion.
It is possible central to spirituality, but most Religions are about manipulation and show variable tolerance for the mysticism which you claim is at their core.
Fear is more central to religions and their obsessive regimens of uniformity – pray in unison, kneel in unison, stand in unison,,,,, – which they beat into the submissive heads of the fearful followers
Fair point, and it certainly isn’t my intention to derail the observation that religion is very often grotesquely oppressive. Nonetheless I’ve met (for example) Krishna devotees in Hawaii, Christians in Europe, Kriyayoga students in Canada, Taoist practitioners and Muslims in the States – not all of whom would define themselves as mystics in the way I’ve defined above – who are instinctively kindhearted and contemplative, and credits to their religion, even though the ritualism of their path was quite stringent. I think strains of this deep spirituality (as you rightly define it) surface occasionally in the orthodoxy, even though I absolutely agree with you that it doesn’t do so remotely enough.
I may as well add to the list: I’ve met exemplary Jews in Israel, Buddhists in Japan… same thing.
After reflecting a while, I reckon what all decent religionists seem to have in common is a devotional and kindhearted approach to their path, whether they consider themselves as transcendentalists, mystics, or not.
Now, of course all the people I’ve mentioned may well have been just as admirable without their religion, but they seem to be a credit to it, as I said. My intention really was just to add dimensions that I felt were unaddressed to the overall discussion.
I appreciate your responses and I too have met many charming and (seemingly) sensitive people from a wide range of religions. The biggest problem for me is the inherent misogynist messages and this is the key to their manipulations.
Anyone who supports these established prejudicial clubs is doing a dis-servce to humanity and to the planet, no matter how nice they may seem.
That said, nobody is perfect.
I know that reasonable arguments cannot convince the believers to move beyond their religious crutches and I do not see much chance of positive change for life on this planet until they do.
So, I simply refuse to accept misrepresentations when I can – while also knowing it is a fool’s errand.
Thanks.
Glenn said it like it is. In the war on information control, narratives will be used to justify why the deeply-intrusive information gathering tactics must be used – secretly. How that information is used. Why dragnetting is the best method to do this. Why it is best for us if we do not know about the information gathering activities on innocents at all (hence demonizing Snowden). How we need to understand how it is in our best interests to have our privacy rights ripped to shreds. But most importantly, how WE SHOULD RESPOND respond when we find out with the “…I have nothing to hide…” line. This line did not originate from the general public; it was fed to it. It’s simply information control and management. Control of public response to abuses is one of the most paramount important of all information flow lines in the grid. And so many will voluntarily strip themselves of the freedoms that so many died for. In the name of their protection…
I insist on using encryption even as all my phones remain hacked. I insist on using an anonymous browser even as relay node lists are corrupted. I insist on calling my friends even as phone calls are listened to; connections dropped; their phone numbers removed from the calling lists. I insist on documenting my torture even as I am tortured at levels just a notch beneath fatal levels. I insist not because I am a terrorist with “…something to hide…”, but because I refuse to have my clean practice of my innate rights equated with terrorist acts. I insist on so much more because otherwise, my freedoms and rights are devoid of any meaning. And I shall do so until I die.
Please read the following and spread this in all six continents. So that no one will say they did not know. Thanks.
http://freedomfchs.lefora.com/topic/7442322/Nanodevices-in-Sensory-Overload-Mind-Control-Torture
That was the most enlightening video I have seen in a very long time. I agree, we are dealing with a society of sheep, whom do not understand the need for privacy because they live so called conformist lives. The issue in my mind is how do get our privacy back? Given the tools that are available and how do we wake up the sheep and get them involved?
Really idealistic but fails to propose a better alternative. How do we intercept terrorist plans without intercepting everybody? Snowden’s revelations were honestly nothing earth-shattering. We’re being watched. No shit. He couldn’t propose a better alternative either; he wanted to shine a spotlight on himself. With his job and position, he had an opportunity to perhaps influence politicians or other elites, because the only way to really fix a corrupt system is from the inside, but it’s easier to cop out and take the hero title from the black sheep flock. We don’t hear about all the successes within the intelligence communities, the number of attacks they have prevented, and for a reason. We only hear about the failings.
That was a great talk. The literary refs, the panopticon, the youtube refs — it was perfect. Thanks.
Saw Glenn for the first time at Harvard Univ. I asked someone what they thought of him and at that time the man said “He is a national treasure.” Okay I am critical of Glenn often times because I do not like what Snowden did but there is no one on planet earth who has as great a verbal capacity and ability to convey the subject matter on the government surveillance state and its erosion of civil liberties better than he. The wealth of knowledge he possesses is amazing and I will defer to him that as much as I am critical of him he presents a cogent well thought out opinion. Having said that I DO see the loss of privacy and the use it can be made not only from government but the corporatist state as well. STILL, even then if I were Snowden assuming I had the intellect to do what he did for a living I NEVER on planet earth would have betrayed my country as I think he has. Why? Not because I disagree with all that Greenwald and others say I do agree with much BUT because of the fact that as egregious as our nation might be the others that occupy spaces of power are MUCH worse.
Just a few months ago Snowden wanted to return here to face trial. I suspect is was because Russia is, perhaps, not a great place to be. Now Snowden’s girlfriend is going to live there. Good luck. I direct Greenwald’s attention to a recent documentary I saw on HBO called “Hunted: the War Against Gays in Russia.” It was so upsetting and so violent against homosexuals that I had to cut it short. This is the place where Snowden was forced to seek sanctuary. Good thing Snowden is heterosexual otherwise his very life would be in jeopardy.
Greenwald makes no secret of his own sexuality and so I ask him tell me a nation state of immense power where he would like to live his life. I am quite sure it would not be Moscow. I urge all those who are critical of this nation and who withhold criticism of Russia or even the Middle Eastern states to see this series. It is chilling and if you are gay you would NEVER want to live in Russia, you would NEVER want to live ANYWHERE in the Middle East, you would NEVER want to live in North Korea but living in the US a nation that is nearing universal recognition of gay marriage in so far 30 states is quite amazing. Where else could this occur? Perhaps you say the UK or Denmark or Sweden but I would say those are miniscule states in relation to the US. We are huge and there is still much opposition to gay marriage BUT it is changing. There must be something this nation is doing right if so many who want a free and better life risk their own to get here!
“…living in the US a nation that is nearing universal recognition of gay marriage in so far 30 states is quite amazing. Where else could this occur?”
Well, just so you know, Canada has had same-sex marriage since about 2005. Pretty big country.
But I think you’re missing the point. While the aspirations of the US people and natural culture themselves are one thing, the government is another, and America’s truly ‘exceptional’ quality in tangible terms is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution is supposed to compel the government away from corruption, you see, and no it can no longer function in this capacity because the government has been compromised by:
corporatism (the control of govt by corporations generally)
and militarism (the control of govt by the Military-industrial complex).
And both of these corrupting influences have obviously made inroads into American culture (the mass media is corporate, after all), making the dissolution of the Constitution’s potency even more effective via state and corporatist propaganda which preserve the status quo – for an elite looting as much of the planet as it can, not for America per se but through the auspices of the US system for ultra-rich multinational interests.
Increasing the cultural freedoms to consume, to marry, etc are allowed in America by the elite simply because such play no threat to the established unconstitutional order, they do not threaten corporatism or militarism at all, indeed ultimately they provide only more docile customers who will pay taxes to fund a system disempowering them on a much fundamental basis than egalitarianism on the all-of-us-are-exploited level.
You defend your Country, which is noble, as the essence of America – unpolluted by consumerism and ‘might makes right’ or even ‘right makes might’ messaging – is indeed a significant and beautiful voice, but there is a call to criticize the government whenever it gets overreaching and authoritarian, as this is indeed a threat to the values we’re supposedly standing for as a nation.
It is this call Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras etc are answering. This is their point, which I think you’ve missed.
Cindy, I just want to say that I find your contributions here, without fail, to be cogent, thought-provoking and proffered in a manner that makes them compelling even, I suspect, for those who may be inclined to argue with them.
Thank you.
A really nice compliment, thank you! I appreciate your posts, too, and admire your calmness and precision. And your cat!
According to what Glenn wrote, she has been living there for going on four months.
Just to solidify your bulletproof argument about how free this country is: just look at his we protect economically disadvantaged ethnic groups and religious minorities. You know, I was recently watching TV and they mentioned a part of America known as Ferguson, Missouri. The people living there make no secret of themselves being openly black–and this is where we all acknowledge how free America is: we allow them to be black there!
Then another example, this time I’ll take you to a place known as New York City, New York. There is a religious minority there, they call them “Muslims.” Whether or not they wanted it to be a secret of how they practice their faith, we have them under constant surveillance by local, state, and federal law enforcement! Talk about tolerance! We allow them to do that!
Correction: *his was supposed to be *how in the first sentence
While I’m error-proofing and seeking both spiritual counsel and economic opportunities just to show how great this country is, I killed two birds with one stone! Consider this, from spiritually gifted Hindu mystic and present-day CEO of Microsoft Corporation Satya Nadella:
—
‘It’s not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along.’
Not asking for a raise, he added, is ‘good karma’ that would help a boss realize that the employee could be trusted and should have more responsibility.
—
I mean, I don’t understand this whole Hindu religion, but where better to go for an understanding of this deep, spiritual tradition than the most renowned spokesman of that faith! Clearly, this man doesn’t just have good karma, he has the best karma of all! Talk about an economic success story and a powerful man!
For years now you start a post by saying how much you admire/respect/somebullshit Glenn. Then you shit all over him. Pathetic.
Just wanna say thanks, Glenn, for a beautifully articulated primer on the importance of privacy as a philosophical and political value! Hope to get a chance to hear you live one day. Best regards.
“Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey”
A Sagacious Beetle.
Feedback: The first 80% hits 9/10 but the last point fails to underscore the following:
That when people surrender their liberties and privacy that they implicitly make themselves easy targets to those that would maintain their power because of the ammunition they offered to fallible, self-interested individuals that may arbitrarily use that gifted intelligence against them. Even if they have done “wrong,” there maybe other “seasonal” motivations in play.
GG referring to ‘Edward Snowden’ as ‘Snowden’ in the book instead of ‘Edward’ as the gentleman pointed out (I never even noticed), may be simply because last names/surnames seem to have a way of creating often accurate instantaneous contextual associations in the human mind, between a referenced person and an issue, development or event, in most cases.
Shared first names are more common than shared last names, and thus the former tend to branch out too extensively to be useful in some contexts. First name ‘Edward’ associates weaker and less powerfully than ‘Snowden'; ‘Glenn’ not as powerfully as ‘Greenwald'; ‘Bush’ not as powerfully as ‘George'; ‘Nelson’ not as powerfully as ‘Mandela'; and so on. There may also be a matter of ‘distance’ (not literal distance), or ‘familiarity’ factor that conversely favours using firstnames. Here, at the Intercept for instance, we often call or refer to GG as ‘Glenn’ rather than ‘Greenwald’ because of a ‘virtual proximity’ we subconsciously ‘feel’ by virtue of a shared set of beliefs (or not, for his detractors). We may do all this at unconscious levels sometimes. I think…
Correction:
Sentence 2, paragraph 2, should read: ” ‘George’ not as powerfully as ‘Bush’ . ” Sorry.
Teaser Trailer for Laura Poitras’ new documentary “Citizenfour”
http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/watch-teaser-trailer-for-edward-snowden-doc-citizenfour-debuts/
Laura’s voice is killer.
Glenn looks so serious. Haha!
He looks like he was in the, “Oh fuck” phase, seriously questioning, “Ive walked into a scorcher burn. This “kid” in front of me here is as far from what I had imagined as I can imagine. Awww shit.”
I really liked this but the part where he describes God – I would say that’s not just the Abrahamic concept – that’s the logical concept of God, a Creator who can who can create all things. Why wouldn’t God who is created all, know “His” creation intimately? I don’t think Greenwald meant to draw any comparison but I just want to clarify – God as all knowing and all hearing is really about many things and can never be compared to a human to human relationship. That’s why when someone says they are a servant of God it does not mean in any way as a servant to a human being. God is the One who provides for the person but the use of the term servant recognises how we are all completely dependent on our Creator. In addition, final justice can only be provided by One who is all hearing and all knowing. When God knows and sees all that is in no way like a human seeing or hearing. In fact, it would be completely different because a human being able to see and hear does so with bias and human reasons. God swt sees and hears all in terms of a Creator – nothing can be compared to how God sees, how God hears, how God knows.
This doesn’t start with social control – although some may try to use it for that – it starts with the idea of God, and the Divine limitless attributes that God must have.
I also wouldn’t use the term invisible for God. God is Unseen, invisible gives the impression that you can use a method to see God. God is part of the Unseen just like so much that our lives depend from the force of gravity, to each atom, to the process of photosynthesis. It’s actually a very natural idea.
Sorry to turn that into a discussion into religion but I just wanted to put that there.
The notion of an all-loving Divine Presence does not have to include an Omniscience/Omnipresence monitoring and damning people for their potential ‘sinfulness.’
I happen to agree with you that God is limitless, and ever-present.
Greenwald is bluntly pointing out that the human ‘projection’ of God favored by abusive orthodoxies is a cruel outgrowth of all-too human humans who use religion to dominate the masses.
I really liked this but the part where he describes God – I would say that’s not just the Abrahamic concept – that’s the logical concept of God, a Creator who can who can create all things.
I think the reason he specifies the Abrahamic religions is because those religions specify God as a single entity – an all-knowing entity – as distinguished from those religions which have multiple deities (Hinduism, for example) or that are focused on nature or pantheism, which are really quite different concepts.
I am not a scholar of religious pursuits, however, and am open to correction if I am misunderstanding how non-Abrahamic religions function.
Most sects of the Abrahamic faiths see God as greatly concerned with the behavior of human beings, and some make him into a bean counter of sins. He sees all; including into your mind. Literally nothing can be hidden from Him [sic].
In my experience, both individually and in what I saw in peers, being reared in this belief can make one quite neurotic and fearful. It inhibits all kinds of thinking, much less reading.
In Nowhere to Hide Glenn reports he was struck by the implications of this theology when attending the bat mitzvah of a close friend’s daughter, and the rabbi tells her to remember she is constantly watched by god:
Thanks Mona. I’m familiar with it in Christianity from my own upbringing and, more peripherally, wrt Islam and Judaism. I was questioning catluvr’s point that this is not limited to the Abrahamic religions. I guess what I was wondering was if folks who are more familiar with religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism see those religions as possessing a similar concept of God as singularly all-seeing. I was especially curious as to how that concept might be incorporated in pantheistic religions since there isn’t just one deity. It’s an interesting idea to explore. Hope some folks with other experiences can pop in with contributions.
And thanks for pointing out that bit where Glenn explains the origin of his thoughts on this. I’d forgotten that from my own reading. I was never terribly concerned about the idea of God as being an all-seeing authority per se, but I was never much of a church-goer either, so didn’t have that inculcated at an early age. I also questioned a LOT of what was asserted about God by my relatives from a very young age because, while I couldn’t put a name to it at the time, I recognized the rank hypocrisy that many of them engaged in under the cloak of religion. I think that had a lot to do with me rejecting – or regarding with suspicion – the pronouncements of organized religion under many, if not all, circumstances.
FFS, I actually do know the book is titled No Place to Hide.
But it’s quite different being “watched” by a true “authority” (God) vs. being “surveilled” by self-designated and all-too-human “authoritarians” bent on you obeying and conforming to the dictates of a totalitarian state. The difference is everything, as the former is a legitimate authority, the latter is the very opposite (the embodiment of evil). There isn’t any higher authority than God, remember, and to conform to Him is to be “in the right,” so to speak. The problem really lies in the essential “separation” that Abrahamic religions teach concerning you as an embodied soul and God, and why these religions (and Western cultures) are so intensely rational. In Hinduism, by contrast, you as an embodied soul are recognized as both “atman” (the little or separate egoic self) and “Atman” (or Atman as Brahman). You are two in one (duo sunt in homine), and that is the critical difference. Conforming to God then means conforming to YOURSELF, i.e. to the Highest authority IN YOU. That’s why people meditate and pray, so as to link back to the Divine source (“religio” meaning “to bind”). In that sense, to be “watched” by God is to be connected to that Higher part of you that knows what’s proper, what’s free, what’s best, etc. That’s the GOOD authority, the one you WANT to follow and conform to.
I have arrived at a point where it seems to me that the people who most depend upon religion and the psychological prisons of religious manipulators are the people who actually have the least faith that their god(s) can be trusted.
These people pray as a form of manipulating their god(s) into a better mood.
Fear is the most commonly used tool in their schemes and a peculiar devotion to sadism (self-righteousness or hellfire destruction and damnation) are vital components of their reality. They NEED fear and sadism as the two edges of their sword of domination.
Just like the corporate owned government which springs from the same world-view.
The most distinct example is found in christianity.
Here is the “rationale,”
Jesus – both man and god – NEEDED to be tortured and crucified so that his vicious killing could prove his faith and thereby reinforce the world-view that this planet is only a stepping stone of injustice and brutality.
The worshippers of a Christ actually worship sadistic brutality as a necessity.
They are not alone – just one clear example of this kind of belief.
Those of us people who think that equal justice on this planet is a worthy goal are seen as deviants and dim-witted fools by both the establishment religions and the governments they use.
People have a fundamental right to know…
that if they are in a large, confined crowd and receive an evacuation order
and/or panic-inducing information from their cell phone or mobile device…
it’s almost certainly a hoax designed to create an artificially generated stampede.
Learn more: http://agsaf.org
That really is the crux. What we are witnessing with all of these disclosures about the NSA – with their “collect it all” mentality – is that craving in manifest form, even as they seek to hide the cost to our society in the fiscal, personal and public realm. To believe that these powers will only ever be exercised for the greater good, should be inconceivable for anyone who has studied the history of power and how it is employed by humankind. Those among us who want to believe that our government is “better” in some way than those of societies we eagerly label as “totalitarian” or “police states” – such as China or Russia or Myanmar (the list goes on) – are engaging in simplistic, delusional wishful thinking with their disregard for how such societies came to pass and how the actions of their authoritarian governments are being mimicked, and in many ways surpassed, by our own.
I never thought of the idea of the Abrahamic God, who’s always watching, every bad think we do, as the Ultimate Penopticon NSA.
Glenn Greenwald is just fucking beautiful. Unbelievable, this guy. I never cease to be amazed by him.
It was a killer analogy ….
More of a prototype than analogy, imo.
I hope he didn’t mean it like that. I thought he meant more that it can be used by people for that end. The idea of an all seeing Creator is what you’d think if you think there is a Creator – after all, they made it all and made your ability to see etc. The idea of God as Unseen is also natural given all the unseen natural forces that exist.
85% of the universe is “unseen” or “invisible” to us. Every star, every planet, every galaxy we can see in the sky only accounts for 15% of the matter in the universe. The rest is dark matter, or dark energy. We know it exists, because of the effects of gravity, but we have no idea what it is.
All I can say is this: What an amazing human being.
What Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald have done is pulled the rug out from under the Five Eyes surveillance Alliance.
They will never regain the trust of their citizens, never.
I wish Mr. Greenwald, his partner David, and Edward Snowden, the best that life has to offer.
They are the epitome of selflessness.
Good to see Mr. Greenwald’s presentation given the ‘global’ platform it deserves. Although those of us who have read, watched, and listened to him over the years most likely did not learn anything new from this talk, the elocution of his standard message always engenders fresh and captivating must-see speeches.
Things I would wish to remain private:
1. My dance moves.
On a somewhat heavier note, I had a number of posts “disappear”, only to realize that I’d typed my email addie incorrectly for the very first one, which meant that the autofill was incorrect for each subsequent one. Sure wish we had a one-time sign in option that would prevent that if you didn’t get it right the first time. :-s
Brilliant! (imo)
(4:56) The “give me your email password” challenge works well in support of your point that “we instinctively understand the profound importance of privacy”, but it doesn’t work as a direct rebuttal to those who claim to be unconcerned with government surveillance (“have nothing to hide”), which is how you have used it on Twitter. As is shown by the replies you’ve gotten, those people (at least) will distinguish between government surveillance and surveillance by a random nosey individual such as yourself. In the latter case they perceive no possible benefit, whereas with the government they at least have the hope of a benefit (in the form of increased security). They have reason to trust the government, and no reason to trust you. But the challenge does work nicely as used in the talk.
Just as a structural point, it seems that everything you’ve been saying up to this point was addressing that same “destructive message”: If we all “instinctively understand the profound importance of privacy”, that includes those who do not consider themselves bad people.
Imo, the only one of these four points that can ever be effective is #2. And it’s not enough to simply assert it. It’s proven by historical examples, right? Abolitionists, suffragettes, labor organizers, civil rights activists, Vietnam war protesters… groups and individuals considered “dissidents” in their time, who in retrospect were clearly contributing to the collective good. MLK is probably a particularly appropriate example because he was subjected to government spying. Imo, this point should be argued at length.
The Luxemburg quote (#4) is only useful as a rejoinder to those who equate the existence of freedom with the sense of freedom they experience personally. It’s just a way of pointing to dissidents and others whose constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are being infringed. Once that’s done, we’re back at #2.
#3 will persuade only those who experience personal pride or satisfaction in the idea that the label “free society” can be affixed to the US. What’s so great about a “free society”? If it’s not an empty semantic point, the answer goes back to #2.
There might be a tiny audience for #1.
Edit: strike “personal” from “those who experience personal pride or satisfaction”.
Your later points made me feel a bit dizzy as they circled themselves, so I’m not going to try to disentangle your words there, but your first argument – that some people would give the government but not Glenn the ability to monitor them (“They have reason to trust the government, and no reason to trust you”) presupposes that “government” is some kind of impersonal mechanical device (in these trusting souls’ eyes) rather than a group of humans who have no more business being entrusted to see people’s private lives and data without authorization than Glenn does. That strangers could abuse this trust for blackmail purposes or other manipulations applies equally to government workers as it does to private individuals; indeed the government is more dangerous than Glenn in that it can do far more oppressive things with impunity than he could. If these people think being a member of government makes someone automatically trustworthy it speaks of a naïveté that surely can not be condoned by adults.
Since we’re talking about what people will consent to (government vs. random stranger), the authorization is assumed.
Granted, but your reply completely ignores my point about benefit: “In the latter case they perceive no possible benefit, whereas with the government they at least have the hope of a benefit (in the form of increased security)”. There is zero incentive to trust a random stranger with sensitive personal data.
No, because Glenn could forward the data to the government if he wished. Or to the Russian mafia. Or he could dump it all on a public web site…
There is no ‘benefit’ to surveillance if the government is untrustworthy and made up of people disobeying the Bill of Rights. Which it is.
The government may promise to protect you, but that’s all you have, a promise. Glenn could promise to put money in your bank account. Would that be a good incentive, even if he’s lying, just to access your data?
And no, Glenn does not have the impunity (this means ‘able to do it without punishment’) of the government of the United States
Many, many, many of the people who barncat is claiming will see the difference between Glenn and gov as benefit to no benefit, do not in fact see it that way at all. Millions around the world don’t trust not only what is being done with the surveillance, but they also believe that the mass surveillance and collection is counterproductive to actually finding threats.
Snowden gave one specific example of the abuse when he told of his fellow workers passing around photos they found of what they or he described as random attractive people brought up on NSA computers. That’s just one of countless and endless privacy abuses that have taken place and will continue to take place.
Good observations barncat. My caveat would be, when addressing as large an audience as possible, it is critical to approach your subject from as many angles as possible to engage as large a percentage of that audience in thinking about what you have offered for their consideration. No one can get inside the heads of their listeners to determine what bit of a conversation will resonate because there is no practical way to grasp the entirety of even one life and the experience encompassed, let alone that of a large number of observers. For that reason alone, I am thankful that Greenwald uses everything he has in his personal arsenal of rhetorical weapons.
For example:
There might be a tiny audience for #1.
That audience is growing and has potential, as things get worse in society, to become much larger very quickly through flashpoints that no one can predict at the present. OWS was an example of many, many people, who might have never before thought about engaging in protest, suddenly awakening to that possibility. Here, in Ohio, my 78 yo mother attended rallies for SB5 and experienced a profound awakening to how these things affected her and her loved ones. She’d never before engaged in protest in her life, but she’s involved now.
Just anecdotal and personal, of course, but there are lots of examples of people stirring now. I hope we see much more as we go forward.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Pedinska.
That’s an excellent point, and it might well have been what Greenwald had in mind. I don’t recall him ever using that pitch before, so maybe he’s responding to worsening conditions. I’m willing to agree that it’s worth using.
As a general rule, I disagree with this “kitchen sink” approach, even for a wide audience. I believe that if there are several possible arguments to be made, but one is clearly superior to the others, it will be most effective to go with that single argument, or at least devote the bulk of time (or space, if writing) to it. Imo, if too much attention is given to the inferior arguments, the most significant result is to diminish the effect of the best argument by distracting from it. (In the case at hand, I’m also saying that #3 and #4 are dependent on #2.)
A great example of this is the “Islam is no worse than any other religion, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot” argument. This arises in the debate about the WOT and its impact on Muslims, right? It is thought that negative opinions about Islam and/or Muslims help to justify violence against Muslims. But, clearly, if we were to grant that there are unique problems with Islam, and Muslims will respond violently to insults to their prophet, and Muslim women and girls are treated horribly, and Muslim societies are generally oppressive, how in the world would attacks against Muslims be justified by those facts? The most effective strategy would definitely be to let those facts go uncontested, and argue that they have nothing to do with the wars we are waging in the Middle East. Because they don’t. When Harris and Maher do their anti-Islam shtick, the response should be “ok, if all that you say about Islam is granted, how is it supposed to inform our foreign policy in the ME?” Let them make the argument that we should wage a “war of civilizations” before a TV audience; they would look ridiculous. But instead, we get caught up in this utterly useless and futile debate about Islam. It’s really a tragic mistake.
There’s more to be said about the “kitchen sink” approach – persuading people using weak arguments can result in failure in the long term – if several arguments are made, opponents will always respond to the weakest one (I learned that here) – using multiple arguments increases the complexity of the presentation, and complexity is always a negative, especially with a general audience (an argument should never be more complex than is absolutely necessary, regardless of the audience) – but I guess that’s enough for now.
Edit: change “facts” to “claims” in “The most effective strategy would definitely be to let those facts go uncontested”.
But, clearly, if we were to grant that there are unique problems with Islam, and Muslims will respond violently to insults to their prophet, and Muslim women and girls are treated horribly, and Muslim societies are generally oppressive, how in the world would attacks against Muslims be justified by those facts?
I agree that these are side points designed to distract from the main issues, and definitely see your points about complexity, but the fact is that avoiding those arguments has it’s own dead ends in that people can cast the arguer in other lights – “You don’t care about women!” etc – which is why they are put out there to begin with.
The fact is, I have shared this talk with a large number of people. Of the ones who responded – some of which have remained unconvinced that this surveillance is problematic (The “I have nothing to hide” group) no matter what I say to them – are now coming around and were very impressed with this set of arguments. So, even if it’s only a few that this resonates with, I’ll take them, and keep sharing and having discussions.
Thanks for having this thoughtful discussion with me! It’s a beautiful, sunny autumn day, so I have to get out and do some yard cleanup. The raised beds in the front yard need to be converted into graves for Halloween. ;-}
One other thought on this. If Glenn’s goal is to maintain and broaden the discussion started by Snowden – get folks cogitating, for maybe the first time about these issues, as opposed to arguing folks into submission on a finite number of points – then I think his presentation is good. As we saw at the end, when the moderator posed the question of financial benefit to Snowden, Glenn’s immediate disdain and exposition on why that wasn’t true got the biggest applause of the night.
Sometimes you really DO need to address broader (even ridiculous) concerns, sometimes one at a time, in order to get folks to see at least a fragment of the light you are offering. That strategy is why the Jehovah’s Witnesses were back at my door this morning after my husband had a wide-ranging discussion with them a few weeks ago. Maybe you have a point about it not being successful (at least, with my husband), but there were still a lot of ideas exchanged and points conceded during the discussion. It was really quite interesting. ;-}
Ok, Pedinska, that’s all worth thinking about. Thanks.
That really is the crux. That is why it is so important to be aware now, to fight the incremental systematizing and implementation of these controls now, and not wait until we have reached something that resembles in entirety the characteristics of those societies that we all recognize as totalitarian dictatorships. By the time we admit that we are as bad as China, or Russia, or Myanmar, it will be far too late.
Things I would want to keep private:
1. My personal dance moves.
Zuckerberg: Hey, Eric.
Schmidt: Oh, hey Mark.
Zuckerberg: You know, I’ve been running into this problem and it’s been troubling me for a couple of days now.
Schmidt: Go ahead, shoot.
Zuckerberg: You see, let’s just start here. We’re both innovators and brilliant geniuses.
Schmidt: Given.
Zuckerberg: Now, we know everything about everybody.
Schmidt: Duh.
Zuckerberg: The problem I’m running into, is this..
Schmidt: Come on, don’t be shy Mark.
Zuckerberg: I want the ability to rain down like Satan on all the peasants, you know — the people that we get our money from.
Schmidt: I thought we were already doing a pretty good job of that, Mark.
Zuckerberg: Ha! Or so you thought. Thanks to that bastard Snowden we can’t have our group orgies with the government as openly.
Schmidt: Yeah, times have changed. Shitty, man. I feel ya.
Zuckerberg: Thankfully, if we treat them like idiots and make them believe that we’re concerned about their privacy maybe they’ll be dumb enough to believe it.
Schmidt: Haha! Who are you kidding Mark, they’re complete fucking idiots! All of humanity!
Zuckerberg: Thank God! I was being a little sarcastic to see if you would just admit that fact.
Schmidt: Great plan on giving those lower castes known as brown people access to the Internet, by the way. That way, we can rule even further and subjugate the third world countries with greater impunity.
Zuckerberg: Yeah, just give them a shitty laptop or what have you. What can I say, but that great minds think alike.
Schmidt: .. so anyway, I’ve got some plans later today .. So, what was your problem?
Zuckerberg: These fucking peasants, lowlives, scumbags. They wear clothing.
Schmidt: You know, I’ve been running into the same problem.
Zuckerberg: How do we get them to realize how pathetic they are? How ashamed of themselves they need to be? How *disgusting* it is that we have to live on the same planet as them? Now, I’ve accomplished a few of these goals already, I just wanted to innovate and —
Schmidt: — have them experience all those feelings, loss of dignity and respect while they’re in a state of perpetual nakedness?
Zuckerberg: What else can I say, but great minds think alike.
Schmidt: Let me call up some of my friends, now; I’m not gonna bullshit ya, man. This might be a few years down the road. But, we can get this done.
Zuckerberg: I know, I know. I just needed some consolation in the meantime.
Schmidt: Thanks, Mark.
Zuckerberg: Same, Eric.
Schmidt: Later.
Zuckerberg: Peace.
Eloquent, and deeply insightful. And quintessentially American.
Great presentation, Glenn!
The last point you made is a crucial one that plays a huge role in how both the national media and Snowden’s detractors have covered him right from the beginning. They can’t fathom that he might genuinely be driven by ethical or moral reasons. In their jaded world everyone is trying to make ‘connections’, make gobs of money, be a national celebrity, etc., so what is Snowden’s REAL motivation?
The idea that it’s principled is as foreign a concept to them as hearing a language spoken from another planet. “No one does ANYTHING for reasons that aren’t self-serving and it’s naïve to think anyone does!”
They consider their view practical and realistic. It’s “conventional wisdom”
And it goes well beyond exposing government corruption.
They can’t believe it truly bothers anyone in the US that drones are killing innocent people overseas. “If you and your family aren’t being targeted, why do you care?”
Or that millions of Americans could die without healthcare. “Oh, boo-hoo! Do you have health coverage? Then shut up!”
Or that climate change worries anyone and isn’t just a scam, “They’re being alarmists and/or lying in order to sell books and push an anti-business agenda!”
Since everything they do and say is insincere, to believe that others aren’t just as ethically bankrupt is beyond their comprehension.
The late Bill Hicks touched on this point beautifully 20 years when he said people in marketing serve no useful purpose and should simply kill themselves. “Oh, you know what Bill’s doing he’s going for that anti-marketing dollar! That’s a good market! He’s very smart!”
The point Glenn made several times about the timid and obedient lives of those who proclaim they have nothing to hide is one of my favorites. When I encounter it, I tell the offender that if they truly have “nothing to hide,” they ought to be deeply ashamed for being a sheep.
Also, his point about the deity of the Abrahamic religions, yes, I found it quite oppressive to have been raised to fear that omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who was monitoring my every word and deed. It caused me to censor my thoughts and quash certain lines of internal inquiry before “He” could say I was indulging them voluntarily. (A bad thought is ok as long as one banishes it and does not nurture it.)
It just boggles the mind that a mature adult would have no objection to state surveillance of everyone. One can get deprogrammed from a religion and thereby lose the Almighty Monitor, but it’s not nearly so easy to escape the state.
Well, my experience of an omnipresent being who monitors my every thought and deed is completely different to yours. It never caused me to censor any thoughts, it just caused me to often think twice before I would do something. For example, there is a diary lying around, I can take a look inside it, no one will ever find out, it won’t cause anyone any harm, but then the thought that an omnipresent being was watching me and knowing I am doing something wrong would stop me.
I think the point I am making is that the idea of an omnipresent being can have a harmful effect on some people, and a positive effect on others …
That strikes me as craven. A friend once gave me his old computer to use until I could acquire my own. A few days after he’d done so, he recalled there were files on it that were private and he asked me not to read them; said he’d come to my place and delete them. He did a day or two later.
In the meantime, I didn’t read them, didn’t even look.
By this time I no longer believed in any kind of personal deity. But I did have respect for my friend and for myself. I did not require a supernatural being to guide my actions.
Why is it craven? Just because you do not require a supernatural being to guide your actions, it doesn’t mean no one else does. People are different, a belief in a God might be harmful to some, and a belief in a God might be beneficial to others.
Today I don’t need a God to tell me not to look at someone’s diary – I strongly believe in privacy, and I wouldn’t look inside it on principle. But when I was a child, my principles weren’t quite set in stone. Maybe you were very mature, and had principles when you were a child that you would adhere to at all costs, but this wasn’t the case for me – I knew looking at someone’s diary in secret was wrong, but at the same time, I could justify it with “oh, it won’t cause any harm to anyone if I had a quick look”. It was however the idea that there was a God who was watching over me and would be unhappy that I did something wrong that would stop me.
I think you need to accept that human beings are complex, and different, and just because a belief in X isn’t beneficial to you, it doesn’t mean that a belief in X cannot be beneficial to someone else.
Why is it craven? Just because you do not require a supernatural being to guide your actions, it doesn’t mean no one else does. People are different, a belief in a God might be harmful to some, and a belief in a God might be beneficial to others.
Today I don’t need a God to tell me not to look at someone’s diary – I strongly believe in privacy, and I wouldn’t look inside it on principle. But when I was a child, my principles weren’t quite set in stone. Maybe you were very mature, and had principles when you were a child that you would adhere to at all costs, but this wasn’t the case for me – I knew looking at someone’s diary in secret was wrong, but at the same time, I could justify it with “oh, it won’t cause any harm to anyone if I had a quick look”. It was however the idea that there was a God who was watching over me and would be unhappy that I did something wrong that would stop me.
I think you need to accept that human beings are complex, and different, and just because a belief in X isn’t beneficial to you, it doesn’t mean that a belief in X cannot be beneficial to someone else.
Thank you.
Related: Not only do people not understand why privacy matters, they don’t understand what it means. When you hear discussions about it, it’s often treated as a binary attribute, “something is private, or it’s public”. This misconception is used to support a lot of recent government encroachments of privacy.
Privacy is defined by *how difficult* it is for an interested party to get at a piece of information. It’s not a question of whether something is private or not, it’s a question of *how private* a piece of information is.
For example, police departments argue that installing cameras in public places does not reduce privacy, because “there’s no expectation of privacy in a public place”. But if that’s the case, why do we feel instinctively uncomfortable at the notion of a camera on every intersection?
We feel uncomfortable because it *is* a reduction of our privacy. It is a reduction in privacy because it makes it *easier* for the government to track the whereabouts of any particular citizen. Without the cameras, a police force would have to devote their limited resources to have their officers tail a citizen of interest around town. Because it’s more resource intensive, these police forces are forced to be more selective about who they track. By placing cameras on every intersection, they’re making it easier to spy on any given citizen, and also effectively making it easier to inappropriately track the whereabouts of a citizen that warrant surveillance.
I wrote a blog post a while ago expanding on this topic if anyone’s interested:
http://paqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/facebook-google-and-police-state.html
Bleh, can’t edit the comment. The end of the second to last sentence should read:
“and also effectively making it easier to inappropriately track the whereabouts of a citizen *who does not* warrant surveillance.”
But if that’s the case, why do we feel instinctively uncomfortable at the notion of a camera on every intersection?
The hair on the back of my neck literally rises every time I see these and, now that they are quite literally everywhere you look – seriously people, just start looking – I should by all rights be walking around with a foot and a half long blonde mohawk. :-s
Anyone who thinks we are not living in a surveillance state is kidding themselves and/or not paying attention. It’s really quite blatant.
Goly, it’s almost as if, if the government paid attention to the fourth amendment, we could secure our rights AND they might actually be more efficient at catching the real, you know, bad guys ….
Hi Bobby –
I think you have a point here about privacy and effort needed to obtain info. Obviously a lot of digital abuses are occurring because it requires now relatively little effort. I did read your blog post… well done.
Oh the irony. You say you want privacy, which compels you to talk about it in ways that only highlight how freaking adorable you are and, really, can only result in more attention and less privacy. It’s a vicious cycle. Maybe if you could cover your face when you talk or something. There is just too much cute happening in that video, I can’t even.
Great talk.
The following should be viewed in tandem with Glenn Greenwald’s excellent talk, IMO:
“Hubertus Knabe: The dark secrets of a surveillance state”
TED Salon Berlin 2014 · 19:34 · Filmed Jun 2014
http://www.ted.com/talks/hubertus_knabe_the_dark_secrets_of_a_surveillance_state
“Tour the deep dark world of the East German state security agency known as Stasi. Uniquely powerful at spying on its citizens, until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the Stasi masterminded a system of surveillance and psychological pressure that kept the country under control for decades. Hubertus Knabe studies the Stasi — and was spied on by them. He shares stunning details from the fall of a surveillance state, and shows how easy it was for neighbor to turn on neighbor.”
(There is already a Stasi-like apparatus operating from coast to coast in the U.S., but most people either don’t believe it or don’t seem to care. I wonder where the those with “The Intercept” stand on this issue.)
Thank you for posting this Mr. Tate.
I absolutely with Mr. Greenwald regarding preservation of individual privacy rights when viewed in the conduct of state imposed government mass surveillance by any government on Earth. I consider such electronic surveillance to be a violation of my inalienable birth rights and therefore, an action that any reasonable person would vehemently oppose.
You should know that I get a repeated Error#2032 when trying to watch your embedded link. This is probably due to one of the numerous browser blocking add-ons that I use. Even unblocking some of them, did not resolve the problem. I used this link to watch the TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters
Edit: “I absolutely agree with Mr. Greenwald….”
A comment editor would be a nice feature in cases where people are frequently distracted when writing or proof-reading comments.
Someday…perhaps.
Glenn’s statement of governments/power elites creating “a prison in the mind” in the masses was born out this week by the assertions of 2 power actors, 1 in the UK and 1 in the US. Both the director of state security in the UK and the Attroney General in the US essentially said the same thing. We can not do our jobs of keeping the citizens of these countries safe, unless we can monitor them. It is imperative that citizens give such license to governments to poke their noses into realms of behaviors of those citizens for their own good. What a load of crap. To me such double speak is exactly what Glenn pointed to in this talk, and is an appaling threat that has been going on for decades in both countries. If those in power know what you don’t want them to know, there can be no resistance to the limit of their power. These power mongers are the biggest blackmailers on the planet. Anyone who ever held a security clearance remembers the exit debriefing when leaving the position which required a clearance, so in the venacular: keep your lips buttoned about what you saw, heard, or did unless you want to be put in a hole you can’t get out of. There will be no quarter given to any transgressors of this dictum. Why is it that living in a western democracy should be only possible under a threat of the loss of personal liberties and privacy?
We can not do our jobs of keeping the citizens of these countries safe, unless we can monitor them.
Yeah. Boston marathon.
Even when they are given the information gift-wrapped they just toss it into a trashcan until the damage is done. Then they resurrect it as justification and pray that no one is paying attention.
Absolutely wonderful talk Glenn.
I have been following your brilliance for years, and you seem to get better are more bold as time passes- one of the greatest 15 minute speeches ever!
I’ll watch this later, but in general, privacy only matters if you value freedom. Freedom was a useful concept when the Earth’s resources were considered infinite; people were free to take them and use them for any purpose they pleased. With limited resources, whimsical wastage by one individual puts another in jeopardy. So freedom, and hence privacy, have become luxuries which humanity can no longer afford. Every action must be subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis, based on the interests of society at large rather than the individual. Some people may feel that choosing which chair to sit in is a personal choice, but have they stopped to question why they need two chairs, or whether it would be better for society as a whole if they were working rather than relaxing in a chair? How can society make those types of choices, if it does not know what the individual is doing?
Or as the corporate government’s prophets Schmidt and Zuckerberg have revealed after climbing down the blood, sweat and tears of the common peasants whom they happen to have derived all of their profit from — there is one thing clear in this bright, enlightened age: privacy has gone out of style. Get over it. I mean, do you people really have to wear clothing still? I find that a violation of the corporate governments fundamental right to watch us at all times naked, embarrassed and ashamed of ourselves. Shame on all of you, take off your clothes. The next time you try to use this form of encryption (clothing) you will be destroyed.
Here is the deal.
I’m all for getting naked but it has to be a two way street.
The whole “private party” concept goes against the grain.
Until these assholes exercise transparency in the rules of party attendance, I have to consider that they are no more than voyeurs at what has become a party at the expense of the public.
That’s no fun.
The perverts have to get naked too.
I think you nailed it, Lyra. Great extension of Todd’s quip – and I’m also ROTFL.
I mean, do you people really have to wear clothing still? I find that a violation of the corporate governments fundamental right to watch us at all times naked, embarrassed and ashamed of ourselves.
That would certainly have helped to avoid the necessity for this SC case:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-06/amazon-workers-take-security-line-woes-to-supreme-court.html
Not always sure if you are being sincere or satirical but in this case I think you are conflating freedom with license. Just because the law says someone can do something doesn’t make it good for society. Freedom doesn’t mean anyone can do anything. The basic principle behind freedom stops when you deprive someone else of their freedom. We have allowed money and the pursuit of it to replace authority, common sense, and the rights of those without means(money). We are stripping the planet like locusts partly because we ignored the wise men who warned of Overpopulation and the pressure it would put on this planet. Instead we listened to chemical companies telling us that their new wonder seeds will feed our burgeoning population. Technology will save us? Balderdash(always wanted to use that word). Our “must grow” mantra that affects every part of society is unsustainable, and yet that’s all I hear as an indicator of how we’re doing. Nothing can grow without limits without infringing the freedom of everyone, eventually. Society has been parceled into segments like manufacturing, banking, labor, and environment, to name just a few, and we think we can manage them individually, and if we can get all the pieces working well then the whole will be fine. The problem is they’re interrelated and the same is true with freedom. Government can’t give us freedom if it was already ours but it can take it away. Sorry for the rant, but once I get going…
Occasionally the former, but usually the latter. And this time I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.
I have developed the politician’s ability to sincerely believe whatever I say or write, even when I rationally know it is not true. This is possible, since as someone once said, for every statement which is true, the opposite is also true. In other words, if I say something false, it is simply because human understanding has not progressed sufficiently to demonstrate that it is in fact, true.
quote”In other words, if I say something false, it is simply because human understanding has not progressed sufficiently to demonstrate that it is in fact, true.”unquote
Says a certifiable narcissist.
Many people today may not be aware they have, on average, less freedom than at any previous time in history.
It can be easily demonstrated that the following are now at all time highs:
– the number of laws on the books
– the number of people in prison
– the number of permits that are required for simple tasks (crossing a border, driving a car, starting a business, building a house or even cutting down a tree).
The reason is – governments have set up systems to track what people do, and therefore can regulate it. If someone commits a traffic violation, there is a system whereby the license plate number can be used to determine the owner and impose a penalty. If licenses are furnished with a GPS chip, that is merely an extension of an already existing tracking process. At first there will be a protest. But within a generation, drivers will simply take it for granted and no more think to remove the tracking chip than they now think about removing their license plates.
In other words, privacy – which is the zone of ignorance that the authorities have about our actions – has shrunk dramatically in the past hundred years. Freedom has shrunk correspondingly. Yet most people aren’t even aware of the fact. So the Zuckerbergs of the world are right – it is only a matter of overcoming the initial shock of something new, and people will adapt to the new reality and quickly lose awareness that any other reality is even possible. If people find it too onerous, a safety valve can be set up – a surveillance free vacation destination where whatever happens stays there.
All due respect for your erudite political views Mr. Mussolini, but privacy and freedom to exercise that privacy in the conduct of personal affairs are inalienable rights granted upon virtue of birth.
The State has no jurisdiction over my inalienable rights, nor is it permissible for any state to violate those rights with a body of statuary law which does not comply with universal natural law.
Therefore, any society of any given state has no right to assume control over my rights to privacy.
It is not for society to “make choices” regarding my rights to privacy.
Those were taken away after 9-11 by President Bush, with an executive order.
Another spectacular talk Glenn! Coming from a person who is still in their teens, I’d just like to say that not every teen is as apathetic towards privacy as the media likes to portray. The ongoing breach of privacy extends worldwide, and it’s quite sad to see the state of which such diluted principles extend to. These types of talks need to be taught within the classroom, showcasing an adversarial nature towards government, as time and time again–they’ve proven that they can’t and shouldn’t be trusted. Amazing talk and after reading your “No Place to Hide,” I look forward to more of your projects in the future. Amazing job Glenn, Laura, and all the other journalists that have participated in the ongoing debate in regards to surveillance and privacy!