This is terrible and it's good that it's seeing some press as a result of Snowden's plight. But the author tries to imply that Snowden is somehow approving of Venezuela's policies.
Seeking asylum isn't an endorsement of Venezuela. It's a last-ditch-effort to stay free against government oppression.
I think most people would prefer the US's version of government oppression to Venezuela's, but might change their mind if they thought they were going to go away for long time if they stayed in the US.
Well, I sure would prefer Venezuela to receiving the Bradley Manning treatment.
I think Snowden would do a lot for his cause if he faced the Obama administration in court.
However, it's cheap to ask others to be martyrs. Can't really blame him for saying "Okay I risked a lot by leaking this but I am not going to spend the next 20 years in a cell if I can avoid it!"
So in 20 years every country is going to be a surveillance state. How does this alter the sci-fi universe? Is every sci-fi novel taking place in the future going to have to be some spin-off of 1984 to maintain credulity? Did we all not want to hear that? Is there any room for alternate future visions of civilization given that they are all variations on a panopticon theme? Is this some sort of political singularity in the making?
I think the tension between centralized panopticon infrastructure run/controlled by a power system that's trying to maintain control and the long-tailization, balkanization and echo-chamberization of the ideas that get spread across it will be a defining factor in the chaotic world we're moving into.
There are more than a few steps from surveillance of Facebook accounts to Orwellian dystopia. There is more to 1984 than just surveillance (mind control, etc). Whether one leads inexorably to the other depends in large part on what you think of democracy. If you think that an educated people can be easily manipulated and controlled with doublespeak, as they are in 1984, then some sort of dystopia is likely, and frankly that's the case whether we have a surveillance state or not. If, on the other hand, you think people are mostly rational and capable of determining rationally what sort of world they want to live in, then that will always create a bulwark against tyranny.
I'm personally in the latter camp. I think that a generation of millennials, who don't particularly value privacy and don't see much wrong with the government monitoring certain communications when they voluntarily post every little detail of their lives on Facebook for hundreds or thousands of people to see, are still nonetheless rational people who will stand up against any infringement of the things they really care about: house and home, family, their means of making a living, etc.
My bigger concern is actually with regards to automation and robots. Despotic regimes depend on having military force. That is they only way they can suppress the will of the majority. But soldiers are just people, and pitting soldiers against their own countrymen is an unstable equilibrium in the long term. It's not sustainable in the face of actual public opposition. But automation and robots changes that equation. It makes it possible for a few to rule the many without relying on the inherently unstable situation of trying to keep hundreds of thousands or millions of soldiers loyal to the despots against their own families. To the extent that dystopia keeps me up at night, that's what I worry about, not surveillance.
I seldom agree with you (I think maybe once), and the first paragraph of this post alone is loaded with statements with which I'd disagree.
But you cannot be accused of being uninteresting.
I mean, you spend so much time here smacking down people's concerns about very real things that are happening in the news as we speak. NSA-spying, growing government power, curtailed liberties, etc. You have a tendency to characterize people on the other side of that argument as conspiracy theorists, or otherwise irrational and on the fringe.
But, what keeps you up at night is the possibility of an army of killer robots controlled by a couple of multi-billionaire megalomaniacs holed up in a subterranean fortress.
But, surely you see the dissonance between your assertions that people's concerns over NSA-spying, etc. are irrational and the fact that you're worried about killer robots?
I mean, if you believe that there are people with such an intent as to dominate us with technology, then why is it such a stretch to imagine that it's exactly what's happening now with the NSA? It would seem a little more practical for those megalomaniac billionaires to use something like the super-secret TIA, NSA-spying, etc. than to build an army of robots.
Does the government literally need to create a killer robot and stamp "USA" on it for you to be concerned? Because, you know they've done that also. They call them drones.
I don't think people concerned about NSA spying are "irrational." I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass, I think they're wrong about the scope of the 4th amendment, I think they're wrong about how much of the public shares their views, but I don't think they're "irrational."
>I think they're overreacting, their fears are unlikely to come to pass
Again, I find it odd that you think it's more likely that the crazy billionaires will unleash an army of killer robots on the population. I think more of the public is concerned about what's actually happening right now with NSA-spying, etc. than you assert, and certainly it's a more pressing concern for many more reasonable people than your killer robot army.
It just boggles the mind that a person who is concerned about the potential for a wild, sci-fi future of killer robot armies is at the same time so nonchalant about his government's recently confirmed, actually occurring, secret mass-spying campaign on innocent citizens.
More or less total surveillance and indefinite storage exists today.
It takes very little creativity to imagine this being abused. Choose a few keywords, and you can easily identify everyone in the U.S. with any significant civil libertarian.
Once you've got the list, all you have to do is prevent these people from getting political power, and voila, 1984.
The robot thing definitely takes more creativity to think of than that.
More generally, I tend to think that all Brute Force methods are the most crude, and a last resort even in a tyranny.
If you think that it takes an elite cadre of civil libertarians to protect the country from 1984-style dystopia, then surveillance is indeed a scary thing. But surveillance isn't going to do anything against broad-based public opposition. If you think the masses of ordinary people are capable of preventing a 1984-style dystopia through majoritarian mechanisms, then surveillance is a lot less scary.
I think that a generation of millennials, who don't
particularly value privacy and don't see much wrong with
the government monitoring certain communications when
they voluntarily post every little detail of their lives
on Facebook for hundreds or thousands of people to see
Where are you getting this idea from? I'm a millennial, I value my privacy. Most of my non-CS/IT friends also care about their privacy. The key difference is that they had been unaware up 'til now that giving your data to Facebook meant giving your data to the gov't. They had weird, inchoate notions about what it means to share and what some potential implications of that can be.
A recent Pew poll said 6% of Americans use Reddit. Reddit is overwhelmingly used by millennials, so just from there you get some idea of where millennials stand on this: and I think it's pretty clear (there's almost certainly some NSA-related post on frontpage any given day nowadays), they're not happy with their privacy being violated.
Maybe it's because I'm on the fringe of what can be called millennial, but I don't see how sharing every little detail of your private life with your thousand closest Facebook friends shows a substantial concern for "privacy" as I understand the term.
If I was well-assured that if I participated in Facebook all of my posts, private messages, likes, etc. were truly private and would never ever be released to the gov't or any other entity in any way, ever, under no condition such that they could prove to be self-incriminating, I would use Facebook. But I know that isn't the case, and hasn't been the case for a long time, and thus I don't use Facebook nor have I ever.
There are a lot of millennials who plainly did not realize this. Whether it was willful ignorance or whatever else, I don't know, but I can tell you that a good bunch of them now are not happy that this is so. They just feel powerless in being able to change or challenge the status quo, which I guess they actually are. They could stop using Facebook, but that decision comes at the expense of losing out in other important parts of life.
That was a typo by me. s/posts, private messages, likes/private messages, likes/.
I think a public post is public, so it's fair game as concerns the gov't trying to use it in whatever way they wish.
On a tangentially related note: you have said much about what constitutes an 'unreasonable' search as the founders may have meant it: that, e.g., one's personal e-mail contents, private Facebook posts, etc. are not as "personal" as one's personal belongings in a home (like a diary). I had a diary when I was young (teenage years), in it I wrote fairly personal things. I guarded it with all my might, and I think I was successful: I don't think anyone in my family ever even knew about the diary's existence. But yet I did not write things highly highly personal, because I was acutely aware that it was just a physical grab away from anyone. When I started using the Internet circa 2001 I finally felt and experienced a liberty that I never had had before. If you had access to my google searches you would have insight to my most personal being: what kind of porn I liked, my trying to find out ways to commit suicide (teenange angst phase), and so on -- things that I would never write in my diary. That is, I felt more confident about my privacy on the Internet than I did about a personal belonging in my own house. Now, that might have been the result of being afraid of a religious helicoptering mother and so not everyone's like me in this regard... but don't you think the founders would rather empathize with my situation and see things my way than yours? That one's Internet belongings should just be as personal as one's belongings at his home?
I would like to say that I was aware already of Venezuela's tactics, but I knew nothing until this article and the follow-up research I've done. Makes Snowden's choice seem rather odd/silly now.
This is only one story of the many, many times opponents to the Chavez and now Maduro government have been recorded, and exposed to public ridicule live on national TV by government sanctioned programs.
Hugo Chavez even used to call in and congratulate the guy that used to run La Hojilla. What more approval do you need than getting congratulated by the leader of the revolution!
During the last presidential election this guy even dragged out what he said was a statement by a former police officer that said the he caught Capriles (the opposing presidential candidate) fellating another guy in a car outside a house. I don't know if that statement was true or not, but it was constantly used to ridicule him live on TV.
My sister is friends with a girl who is married to a journalist. These guys hacked her e-mail and found some personal pictures of her in the beach with her husband and he showed them on national TV and exposed them to ridicule, saying that he was a cheapskate that wouldn't pay for his wife's boob job,etc.
Karma is a bitch though. The TV show is now cancelled because the guy used to report to his cuban minders in regular meetings that were recorded. Somehow one of these recordings was leaked and he was caught bad mouthing a ton of people in the government, including Cabello, the most powerful guy in the govt right now (even more than Maduro).
I found this article fascinating, more because of the background it gives on the current situation in Venezuela than because of suggestions of Snowden's possible exile there. It truly does sound like Venezuela is close to dystopia, exactly the sort of dystopia that Snowden (and many others before him) have warned about. The routine use of surveillance on television shows to discredit opponents at all levels of the system is terrifying. Who hasn't said something in private which could easily be taken out of context, and used to construct a plausible smear and destroy a career? Even the TV host who abused access to recordings, Mario Silva, was eventually hoist by his own petard - the whole story resembles the show trials and purges under Stalin, where no-one was safe, not even party members.
While this might be useful ammunition for the US administration to smear Snowden by association, and is probably darkly amusing for residents as they watch their government talk about asylum for a whistleblower on the very powers they abuse, I actually think it's far more interesting as an example of a surveillance state gone awry.
> While this might be useful ammunition for the US administration to smear Snowden by association
The U.S. won't even have to hardly mention all this. All they need to say is that Snowden fled to Hugo Chavez's native land, on purpose, and public opinion will be sealed in the U.S.
Perhaps I have more confidence in the perspicacity of the US public than you, and you should also note this is a global issue, not just a US one. To me this story says more about the dangers of a surveillance state than about Snowden.
Yes, his is incredibly bad stuff. But let me put it into context:
I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.
After the Cuban fiasco these actions became definitely less outrageous, but it seems save to assume that the US is not standing on the sidelines at election time in counties with a US critical government.
Morales' European grounding shows quite clearly what kind of globally coordinate hell the US services can create for countries unwilling to surrender. Consequently almost no democratic nation is able to withstand this kind of internal and external pressure politics - as demonstrated so vividly by the outcome of Snowden's asylum requests.
And it still remains a big question mark in how far these three nations are not just going to use him as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with the US.
I am wondering myself how a nation could theoretically withstand US pressure without having a well oiled internal spying and propaganda machine.
So because there is a "threat" from a foreign nation, the government is allowed to spy on its citizens critical of the government and expose them and ridicule them live on national TV?
Sounds very similar to the "terrorist threat" excuse another surveillance state is using.
I'm torn. Venezuela's government has had more than its fair share of real coup attempts in the recent past, so there is an actual non-imaginary threat there, instead of terrorist bogeymen.
The fact that Chavez and his boys did launch one of those coups originally, though, makes me less inclined to give benefit of the doubt. Why should I have to take sides between two groups of bad guys? There's an honor in condemning everyone who violates human rights.
I am not saying that it is right. But I just don't know how a non-US compliant government can stay in power without questionable tactics.
If you create enough internal fraction by pumping up a pro-US opposition and external through embargos and sanctions, even the most anti-US electorate will soon or later question their positions.
Venezuela has not received any embargoes or sanctions from the US. If anything, the biggest financing source this government has had to prop up the disastrous economy are oil prices and the income they get from the US as the first buyer of venezuelan oil.
I would say that having one of the highest criminal rates in the world, highest inflation in the world, constant blackouts, constant basic products scarcity should be enough to make the electorate question their positions.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States–incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela.
I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.
Do we really need to take sides here? Can't both states be doing bad things, just as other governments are also doing things that will lead down this path? The US has a reputation as a bully internationally for good reason, but that doesn't mean their enemies are without blame or are fighting them for purer motives. Most states use the same dirty tactics, it's just that some have more power than others.
I really don't think you should try to defend this outrageous violation of privacy and democracy by saying it is somehow linked to standing up to the US.
I am myself struggling with my post. But I just don't see how a nation can withstand US power in the long run without dirty tactics or becoming some outpost of another superpower.
It looks to me that even the Snowden case has shown so far little to no consequences for the US internal situation. But it has shown that a counter point to the US perspective is internationally needed.
> But I just don't see how a nation can withstand US power in the long run without dirty tactics or becoming some outpost of another superpower.
Robespierre also defended the Reign of Terror as being required to defeat the enemies of the Revolution.
And either way, you can see in Egypt the reaction that occurs when people perceive the U.S. to be backing whoever is in power. So at least in nations that are already predisposed to oppose the U.S. it doesn't seem like there's really that much to fear of U.S. involvement.
Maduro got elected, after all. So did Morsi before him, and Correa before him. If the U.S. is really omnipotent then they are a piss-poor excuse for an omnipotent superpower.
> I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.
It takes some time to make sense of this data. The funding agency and the implementing agency are usually the same. I personally am not familiar with some of the agencies, so I have to read about them on Wikipedia. The "funding account" seems illuminating. The "implementing partner" is I think who got the money in Venezuela, but all we get is the implementing partner "type".
All the same, it doesn't look to me as if any money is given to opposition political parties.
Snowden never claimed to be an idealistic saint. He's only human. He's facing the same, or worse, inhumane treatment as Bradley Manning [1]. I doubt he really cares at this point the politics of the country that keeps him safe. I know I wouldn't.
Besides, if this whole ordeal can even partially force the US to return to being the shining beacon of human rights it pretends to be, it'll be harder for countries like Venezuela to point to them and say "see? Look they're doing it too."
Snowden never claimed to be an idealistic saint. He's only human.
I agree, but I think a lot of people (a lot of HN's contributers included) are nonetheless beatifying him, and also taking the logical leap from "this country is willing to provide refuge for Edward Snowden" to "this country has a better stance on privacy issues than the United States."
Besides, if this whole ordeal can even partially force the US to return to being the shining beacon of human rights it pretends to be, it'll be harder for countries like Venezuela to point to them and say "see? Look they're doing it too."
I agree that I hope this entire thing puts pressure on the US, but I think comparing the situation in the US and the situation in Venezuela is difficult. The level of overt corruption in Venezuela (and Mexico, and many other countries, both those allied with the US and not) is still impossible to comprehend in the US.
An earlier article submitted here was by the the pentagon paper's guy (who decided not to go into exile), in which he said Snowden did the right thing and would have ended up like BM had he stayed.
While I understand that the authority that you're appealing to is considered canonical, it's still an appeal to authority. Ellsberg has no more actual insight into the treatment one should expect to receive in the civilian justice system than any other 2013 hacktivist. After all we have the existing example of the NSA whistleblowers who did stay, and while they were not treated kindly by the judicial system, they were not treated anywhere close to as badly as Pfc. Manning.
Besides which, if it's true what Ellsberg and Snowden claim about how there is apparently a class of civilian crime that is liable to having you receive Quantico-brig suicide-watch treatment without due process then that would already be a much larger problem than the NSA.
Instead it looks awfully convenient that Snowden was the world's biggest fan of U.S. judicial oversight right up until it became possible he might himself have to answer to that same judicial system, whereupon it suddenly turned into banana republic justice...
Since we're both fans of logic, I'll make small nitpicks:
I wasn't appealing to authority because I wasn't making an argument -- just making sure you knew of the articles existence. Also, in reference to "it's still an appeal...": You shouldn't imply that an appeal to authority is always wrong (It's only wrong if the authority is not appropriate; and it's never implied that authorities are infallible). However, you rightly went on to attack the authorities arguments -- but like I said, nitpick for fun.
One thing that's not clear to me is your last paragraph. Why was Snowden approving of judicial oversight? My understanding was that he had faith that a broken system might repair itself, then upon realize it was only getting worse, leaked the info to the public. Escaping this system afterwards wouldn't be hypocrisy.
Very useful article. This is nothing less to be expected from a Communist bloc nation. Public media smearing is just one facet of oppression.
If we are talking about Snowden as a beacon for freedom of speech and basic human rights, his move would seem like an unwise one. However, he is but flesh and blood like any of us so running to an oppressive state for relative safety is just fine. Survival comes before ideal.
...a man who is now in disgrace himself because, in a weird twist of fate, a recording of him was leaked and broadcast on TV.
The irony!
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
NSA = Nothing Sacred Anymore
One would think that with the past experiences of US President's wiretapping enemies and the resulting scandals, that the current administration would seek that fabled "moral high ground" and not stoop to such low levels.
However, at this point, Snowden doesn't really have too many options...
With regards to interpretation, which is clearly slanted in one direction here, just because Venezuala's government haven't yet secured their rule to the point where doing the surveillance in secret and neglecting the potential popular effect of leaking interceptions is politically viable, doesn't mean they're necessarily more of a surveillance state than the US, UK, or many others.
Perhaps it just makes them a more playful, immature and open version of a surveillance state. Sort of like the NSA's cutesie two year old puppy. (Meanwhile the US, Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and China gnash rabid teeth in the dog house proper - the sign above the door reading: "for grownups only".)
Don't go to Venezuela! I suspect that Maduro will use Snowden for political gain (contra el imperialismo, yada yada yada), technological expansion (how does US intelligence operate, can I mimic their tech?), any other intel secrets, and leverage for any international trade agreements. After the Venezuelan government is done with Snowden, what's to stop them from selling him away for money/resources/diplomatic deals?
Examine the Venezuelan government's political history since 1999 and try to not get sick to your stomach (personal fav is Chavez doing a khrushchev impersonation with a shoe at the UN). Their government is horribly totalitarian (even if it is "elected") and repeatedly makes rash political decisions.
Venezuela is possibly the worst country to go to. Hold out a bit more for another location!
One thing I haven't noticed in any discussion is how the Founding Fathers of the U.S. turned to France (then a monarchy, and one less free than Britain) for help during the Revolutionary War. That Snowden might need to flee to one of these Latin American countries may be ironic, but it is the best practical option, just as accepting French aid was the best option back then.
It seems plainly obvious to me that Snowden's only option will be to reside at the leisure of a state that is a natural enemy of the US.
Any country that is a friend to the US is not safe to Snowden. However, I cannot think of a single stable democracy that would risk the wrath of the United States.
Snowden has a secondary problem with countries such as Venezuela, is that they are inherently unstable. Should the current Venezuelan government fall and switch to a pro-US government, then I assume he has a rather big problem on his hands.
> I have a deep and abiding faith in the masses of ordinary people.
Why? Didn't a mass of ordinary people once support Hitler? Didn't a mass of ordinary American people once own slaves? Don't a mass of ordinary American people now become riled upon like monkeys over the words 'socialism' and 'Muslims'? Isn't there another rising tide of racism towards black youth (because of the social unrest in their communities -- with the flash mobs and all: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/112807564.html?page=1
I think you're also underestimating the gov't's ability to shape public opinion, subtly through both propaganda and surveillance. Hollywood has been in bed with American gov't for a long long time as was pointed out by another user:
"The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations."
And, you know, there's also something very oddly circular about the parent's claims of being comforted by a "deep and abiding faith" in the masses of ordinary people.
For one, on other posts, he has been really adamant about declaring that the masses don't care about NSA-surveillance. So, why does he have such a deep abiding faith? I mean, at what point does he think the masses will be moved to action? In a sense, he's saying that because they haven't yet been moved to action, the offenses don't rise to a level of real concern. But, that's completely circular. It could just as well be taken as evidence that there is no reason to have such faith.
The other thing is that all of this is done in secret. So, how on earth will the masses even know that we've reached the point at which it's time to exercise their power? We caught a break with the Snowden leak. But, there's certainly no guarantee of such in the future, not to mention that even now we have no idea what else is going on beyond what Snowden revealed.
In total, it seems an extremely disingenuous argument to respond to the NSA scandal with a nonchalant, "oh, none of what is feared will likely come to pass. We'll just magically discover other secrets and at just the right time, the masses will spring into action and save the day. So, let's all ignore it for now."
"Killer robot-wielding billionaires on the other hand..."
60 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadSeeking asylum isn't an endorsement of Venezuela. It's a last-ditch-effort to stay free against government oppression.
It's not clear that jumping out of the pan and into the fire is the best option though.
I think Snowden would do a lot for his cause if he faced the Obama administration in court.
However, it's cheap to ask others to be martyrs. Can't really blame him for saying "Okay I risked a lot by leaking this but I am not going to spend the next 20 years in a cell if I can avoid it!"
I'm personally in the latter camp. I think that a generation of millennials, who don't particularly value privacy and don't see much wrong with the government monitoring certain communications when they voluntarily post every little detail of their lives on Facebook for hundreds or thousands of people to see, are still nonetheless rational people who will stand up against any infringement of the things they really care about: house and home, family, their means of making a living, etc.
My bigger concern is actually with regards to automation and robots. Despotic regimes depend on having military force. That is they only way they can suppress the will of the majority. But soldiers are just people, and pitting soldiers against their own countrymen is an unstable equilibrium in the long term. It's not sustainable in the face of actual public opposition. But automation and robots changes that equation. It makes it possible for a few to rule the many without relying on the inherently unstable situation of trying to keep hundreds of thousands or millions of soldiers loyal to the despots against their own families. To the extent that dystopia keeps me up at night, that's what I worry about, not surveillance.
But you cannot be accused of being uninteresting.
I mean, you spend so much time here smacking down people's concerns about very real things that are happening in the news as we speak. NSA-spying, growing government power, curtailed liberties, etc. You have a tendency to characterize people on the other side of that argument as conspiracy theorists, or otherwise irrational and on the fringe.
But, what keeps you up at night is the possibility of an army of killer robots controlled by a couple of multi-billionaire megalomaniacs holed up in a subterranean fortress.
Wow.
I mean, if you believe that there are people with such an intent as to dominate us with technology, then why is it such a stretch to imagine that it's exactly what's happening now with the NSA? It would seem a little more practical for those megalomaniac billionaires to use something like the super-secret TIA, NSA-spying, etc. than to build an army of robots.
Does the government literally need to create a killer robot and stamp "USA" on it for you to be concerned? Because, you know they've done that also. They call them drones.
Again, I find it odd that you think it's more likely that the crazy billionaires will unleash an army of killer robots on the population. I think more of the public is concerned about what's actually happening right now with NSA-spying, etc. than you assert, and certainly it's a more pressing concern for many more reasonable people than your killer robot army.
It just boggles the mind that a person who is concerned about the potential for a wild, sci-fi future of killer robot armies is at the same time so nonchalant about his government's recently confirmed, actually occurring, secret mass-spying campaign on innocent citizens.
It takes very little creativity to imagine this being abused. Choose a few keywords, and you can easily identify everyone in the U.S. with any significant civil libertarian.
Once you've got the list, all you have to do is prevent these people from getting political power, and voila, 1984.
The robot thing definitely takes more creativity to think of than that.
More generally, I tend to think that all Brute Force methods are the most crude, and a last resort even in a tyranny.
A recent Pew poll said 6% of Americans use Reddit. Reddit is overwhelmingly used by millennials, so just from there you get some idea of where millennials stand on this: and I think it's pretty clear (there's almost certainly some NSA-related post on frontpage any given day nowadays), they're not happy with their privacy being violated.
There are a lot of millennials who plainly did not realize this. Whether it was willful ignorance or whatever else, I don't know, but I can tell you that a good bunch of them now are not happy that this is so. They just feel powerless in being able to change or challenge the status quo, which I guess they actually are. They could stop using Facebook, but that decision comes at the expense of losing out in other important parts of life.
I think a public post is public, so it's fair game as concerns the gov't trying to use it in whatever way they wish.
On a tangentially related note: you have said much about what constitutes an 'unreasonable' search as the founders may have meant it: that, e.g., one's personal e-mail contents, private Facebook posts, etc. are not as "personal" as one's personal belongings in a home (like a diary). I had a diary when I was young (teenage years), in it I wrote fairly personal things. I guarded it with all my might, and I think I was successful: I don't think anyone in my family ever even knew about the diary's existence. But yet I did not write things highly highly personal, because I was acutely aware that it was just a physical grab away from anyone. When I started using the Internet circa 2001 I finally felt and experienced a liberty that I never had had before. If you had access to my google searches you would have insight to my most personal being: what kind of porn I liked, my trying to find out ways to commit suicide (teenange angst phase), and so on -- things that I would never write in my diary. That is, I felt more confident about my privacy on the Internet than I did about a personal belonging in my own house. Now, that might have been the result of being afraid of a religious helicoptering mother and so not everyone's like me in this regard... but don't you think the founders would rather empathize with my situation and see things my way than yours? That one's Internet belongings should just be as personal as one's belongings at his home?
I would like to say that I was aware already of Venezuela's tactics, but I knew nothing until this article and the follow-up research I've done. Makes Snowden's choice seem rather odd/silly now.
Like, Obama could just order the jury to convict him and order the judge to sentence him to prison? Neat system, that.
If so that would be a far graver threat to liberty than mere surveillance. Where's the outrage over that then?
Hugo Chavez even used to call in and congratulate the guy that used to run La Hojilla. What more approval do you need than getting congratulated by the leader of the revolution!
During the last presidential election this guy even dragged out what he said was a statement by a former police officer that said the he caught Capriles (the opposing presidential candidate) fellating another guy in a car outside a house. I don't know if that statement was true or not, but it was constantly used to ridicule him live on TV.
My sister is friends with a girl who is married to a journalist. These guys hacked her e-mail and found some personal pictures of her in the beach with her husband and he showed them on national TV and exposed them to ridicule, saying that he was a cheapskate that wouldn't pay for his wife's boob job,etc.
Karma is a bitch though. The TV show is now cancelled because the guy used to report to his cuban minders in regular meetings that were recorded. Somehow one of these recordings was leaked and he was caught bad mouthing a ton of people in the government, including Cabello, the most powerful guy in the govt right now (even more than Maduro).
While this might be useful ammunition for the US administration to smear Snowden by association, and is probably darkly amusing for residents as they watch their government talk about asylum for a whistleblower on the very powers they abuse, I actually think it's far more interesting as an example of a surveillance state gone awry.
The U.S. won't even have to hardly mention all this. All they need to say is that Snowden fled to Hugo Chavez's native land, on purpose, and public opinion will be sealed in the U.S.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-ins...
I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.
After the Cuban fiasco these actions became definitely less outrageous, but it seems save to assume that the US is not standing on the sidelines at election time in counties with a US critical government.
Morales' European grounding shows quite clearly what kind of globally coordinate hell the US services can create for countries unwilling to surrender. Consequently almost no democratic nation is able to withstand this kind of internal and external pressure politics - as demonstrated so vividly by the outcome of Snowden's asylum requests.
And it still remains a big question mark in how far these three nations are not just going to use him as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with the US.
I am wondering myself how a nation could theoretically withstand US pressure without having a well oiled internal spying and propaganda machine.
Sounds very similar to the "terrorist threat" excuse another surveillance state is using.
The fact that Chavez and his boys did launch one of those coups originally, though, makes me less inclined to give benefit of the doubt. Why should I have to take sides between two groups of bad guys? There's an honor in condemning everyone who violates human rights.
Security is NEVER a valid excuse for a surveillance state.
If you create enough internal fraction by pumping up a pro-US opposition and external through embargos and sanctions, even the most anti-US electorate will soon or later question their positions.
I would say that having one of the highest criminal rates in the world, highest inflation in the world, constant blackouts, constant basic products scarcity should be enough to make the electorate question their positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo
Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States–incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela.
Do we really need to take sides here? Can't both states be doing bad things, just as other governments are also doing things that will lead down this path? The US has a reputation as a bully internationally for good reason, but that doesn't mean their enemies are without blame or are fighting them for purer motives. Most states use the same dirty tactics, it's just that some have more power than others.
I really don't think you should try to defend this outrageous violation of privacy and democracy by saying it is somehow linked to standing up to the US.
It looks to me that even the Snowden case has shown so far little to no consequences for the US internal situation. But it has shown that a counter point to the US perspective is internationally needed.
Robespierre also defended the Reign of Terror as being required to defeat the enemies of the Revolution.
And either way, you can see in Egypt the reaction that occurs when people perceive the U.S. to be backing whoever is in power. So at least in nations that are already predisposed to oppose the U.S. it doesn't seem like there's really that much to fear of U.S. involvement.
Maduro got elected, after all. So did Morsi before him, and Correa before him. If the U.S. is really omnipotent then they are a piss-poor excuse for an omnipotent superpower.
How much money is given to Venezuela is public.
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do?_program=/eads/gbk/...
It takes some time to make sense of this data. The funding agency and the implementing agency are usually the same. I personally am not familiar with some of the agencies, so I have to read about them on Wikipedia. The "funding account" seems illuminating. The "implementing partner" is I think who got the money in Venezuela, but all we get is the implementing partner "type".
All the same, it doesn't look to me as if any money is given to opposition political parties.
Besides, if this whole ordeal can even partially force the US to return to being the shining beacon of human rights it pretends to be, it'll be harder for countries like Venezuela to point to them and say "see? Look they're doing it too."
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-...
I agree, but I think a lot of people (a lot of HN's contributers included) are nonetheless beatifying him, and also taking the logical leap from "this country is willing to provide refuge for Edward Snowden" to "this country has a better stance on privacy issues than the United States."
Besides, if this whole ordeal can even partially force the US to return to being the shining beacon of human rights it pretends to be, it'll be harder for countries like Venezuela to point to them and say "see? Look they're doing it too."
I agree that I hope this entire thing puts pressure on the US, but I think comparing the situation in the US and the situation in Venezuela is difficult. The level of overt corruption in Venezuela (and Mexico, and many other countries, both those allied with the US and not) is still impossible to comprehend in the US.
Besides which, if it's true what Ellsberg and Snowden claim about how there is apparently a class of civilian crime that is liable to having you receive Quantico-brig suicide-watch treatment without due process then that would already be a much larger problem than the NSA.
Instead it looks awfully convenient that Snowden was the world's biggest fan of U.S. judicial oversight right up until it became possible he might himself have to answer to that same judicial system, whereupon it suddenly turned into banana republic justice...
I wasn't appealing to authority because I wasn't making an argument -- just making sure you knew of the articles existence. Also, in reference to "it's still an appeal...": You shouldn't imply that an appeal to authority is always wrong (It's only wrong if the authority is not appropriate; and it's never implied that authorities are infallible). However, you rightly went on to attack the authorities arguments -- but like I said, nitpick for fun.
One thing that's not clear to me is your last paragraph. Why was Snowden approving of judicial oversight? My understanding was that he had faith that a broken system might repair itself, then upon realize it was only getting worse, leaked the info to the public. Escaping this system afterwards wouldn't be hypocrisy.
If we are talking about Snowden as a beacon for freedom of speech and basic human rights, his move would seem like an unwise one. However, he is but flesh and blood like any of us so running to an oppressive state for relative safety is just fine. Survival comes before ideal.
NSA = Nothing Sacred Anymore
One would think that with the past experiences of US President's wiretapping enemies and the resulting scandals, that the current administration would seek that fabled "moral high ground" and not stoop to such low levels.
However, at this point, Snowden doesn't really have too many options...
Perhaps it just makes them a more playful, immature and open version of a surveillance state. Sort of like the NSA's cutesie two year old puppy. (Meanwhile the US, Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and China gnash rabid teeth in the dog house proper - the sign above the door reading: "for grownups only".)
Examine the Venezuelan government's political history since 1999 and try to not get sick to your stomach (personal fav is Chavez doing a khrushchev impersonation with a shoe at the UN). Their government is horribly totalitarian (even if it is "elected") and repeatedly makes rash political decisions.
Venezuela is possibly the worst country to go to. Hold out a bit more for another location!
Any country that is a friend to the US is not safe to Snowden. However, I cannot think of a single stable democracy that would risk the wrath of the United States.
Snowden has a secondary problem with countries such as Venezuela, is that they are inherently unstable. Should the current Venezuelan government fall and switch to a pro-US government, then I assume he has a rather big problem on his hands.
Why? Didn't a mass of ordinary people once support Hitler? Didn't a mass of ordinary American people once own slaves? Don't a mass of ordinary American people now become riled upon like monkeys over the words 'socialism' and 'Muslims'? Isn't there another rising tide of racism towards black youth (because of the social unrest in their communities -- with the flash mobs and all: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/112807564.html?page=1
I think you're also underestimating the gov't's ability to shape public opinion, subtly through both propaganda and surveillance. Hollywood has been in bed with American gov't for a long long time as was pointed out by another user:
"The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’ but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the... http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag...
Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that painted America's military in a non-positive light? I don't.
And re: current surveillance, hasn't the gov't now practically established a Panopticon? http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2120141/why-the-...
And, you know, there's also something very oddly circular about the parent's claims of being comforted by a "deep and abiding faith" in the masses of ordinary people.
For one, on other posts, he has been really adamant about declaring that the masses don't care about NSA-surveillance. So, why does he have such a deep abiding faith? I mean, at what point does he think the masses will be moved to action? In a sense, he's saying that because they haven't yet been moved to action, the offenses don't rise to a level of real concern. But, that's completely circular. It could just as well be taken as evidence that there is no reason to have such faith.
The other thing is that all of this is done in secret. So, how on earth will the masses even know that we've reached the point at which it's time to exercise their power? We caught a break with the Snowden leak. But, there's certainly no guarantee of such in the future, not to mention that even now we have no idea what else is going on beyond what Snowden revealed.
In total, it seems an extremely disingenuous argument to respond to the NSA scandal with a nonchalant, "oh, none of what is feared will likely come to pass. We'll just magically discover other secrets and at just the right time, the masses will spring into action and save the day. So, let's all ignore it for now."
"Killer robot-wielding billionaires on the other hand..."
Sorry. Had to throw that last bit in there.