Chomsky: NSA surveillance is an attack on U.S citizens
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... am-chomsky
NSA surveillance is an attack on American citizens, says Noam Chomsky
Governments will use whatever technology is available to combat their primary enemy – their own population, says critic
Fiona Harvey in Bonn
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 June 2013
The actions of the US government in spying on its and other countries' citizens has been sharply cricitised by Noam Chomsky, the prominent political thinker, as attacks on democracy and the people.
"Governments should not have this capacity. But governments will use whatever technology is available to them to combat their primary enemy – which is their own population," he told the Guardian.
In his first public comment on the scandal that has enveloped the US, UK and other governments, as well as internet companies such as Google and Microsoft, Chomsky said he was not overly surprised technology and corporations were being used in this way.
"This is obviously something that should not be done. But it is a little difficult to be too surprised by it," he said. "They [governments and corporations] take whatever is available, and in no time it is being used against us, the population. Governments are not representative. They have their own power, serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich."
Chomsky, who has strongly supported the Occupy movement and spoken out against the Obama administration's use of drones, warned that young people were much less shocked at being spied on and did not view it as such a problem.
"Polls in the US indicate there is a generational issue here that someone ought to look into – my impression is that younger people are less offended by this than the older generation. It may have to do with the exhibitionist character of the internet culture, with Facebook and so on," he said. "On the internet, you think everything is going to be public."
Other technologies could also come to be used to spy more effectively on people, he added. "They don't want people to know what they're doing. They want to be able to use [new technology] against their own people.
"Take a look at drones, and what is developing. You will find new drone technology being used in 10 or 12 years from now. They are looking at [trying to make] tiny drones that can go in your living room, like a fly on the wall."
He praised the Guardian's revelations about the activities of the National Security Agency, and the whistleblower Ed Snowden, who has been taking refuge in Hong Kong. "We need this kind [of journalism]," he said. "We ought to know about it."
Chomsky, a much-lauded academic and professor of linguistics, gained renown as a political critic when he vocally opposed the Vietnam war. Since then, he has written dozens of books on political power, capitalism and democracy and espoused a variety of activist campaigns, most recently the Occupy movement.
NSA surveillance is an attack on American citizens, says Noam Chomsky
Governments will use whatever technology is available to combat their primary enemy – their own population, says critic
Fiona Harvey in Bonn
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 June 2013
The actions of the US government in spying on its and other countries' citizens has been sharply cricitised by Noam Chomsky, the prominent political thinker, as attacks on democracy and the people.
"Governments should not have this capacity. But governments will use whatever technology is available to them to combat their primary enemy – which is their own population," he told the Guardian.
In his first public comment on the scandal that has enveloped the US, UK and other governments, as well as internet companies such as Google and Microsoft, Chomsky said he was not overly surprised technology and corporations were being used in this way.
"This is obviously something that should not be done. But it is a little difficult to be too surprised by it," he said. "They [governments and corporations] take whatever is available, and in no time it is being used against us, the population. Governments are not representative. They have their own power, serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich."
Chomsky, who has strongly supported the Occupy movement and spoken out against the Obama administration's use of drones, warned that young people were much less shocked at being spied on and did not view it as such a problem.
"Polls in the US indicate there is a generational issue here that someone ought to look into – my impression is that younger people are less offended by this than the older generation. It may have to do with the exhibitionist character of the internet culture, with Facebook and so on," he said. "On the internet, you think everything is going to be public."
Other technologies could also come to be used to spy more effectively on people, he added. "They don't want people to know what they're doing. They want to be able to use [new technology] against their own people.
"Take a look at drones, and what is developing. You will find new drone technology being used in 10 or 12 years from now. They are looking at [trying to make] tiny drones that can go in your living room, like a fly on the wall."
He praised the Guardian's revelations about the activities of the National Security Agency, and the whistleblower Ed Snowden, who has been taking refuge in Hong Kong. "We need this kind [of journalism]," he said. "We ought to know about it."
Chomsky, a much-lauded academic and professor of linguistics, gained renown as a political critic when he vocally opposed the Vietnam war. Since then, he has written dozens of books on political power, capitalism and democracy and espoused a variety of activist campaigns, most recently the Occupy movement.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
but isn't the accessibility and marketing of said technology encouraging kids to share everything? I mean kids don't have a filter in 'real' life so they live their online lives as an extension of their 'real' lives. without the targeting of kids to sell this technology, itd be dead in the water.. so we encourage them whilst discouraging them . its a mixed message... but typical of how the media and advertising works these days.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
At this moment, I'm not sure where I sit with such a development.
Food for thought: A quick Google search tells me that there have been 165,068 murders in America (not including Florida) between 2000-2010. Murder isn't the only violent crime that manifests itself in the US making the 'incident' number significantly higher if one was inclined to research more. As well, throw in the increasing number of white collar crimes that have wide reaching effects on many people (not to mention the people plotting at this very moment to build bombs and set them off in public) and it's safe to say that there are problems that need to be addressed and potentially could be to some degree with such technology.
The article seems to suggest that the NSA surveillance will be used to the advantage of the elite: serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich. I suppose this could be the case, but aside from the inevitable and likely isolated cases of abusing the technology, for some reason, I'm slightly sceptical of this scenario.
This can be viewed as an attack... but it can also be viewed as defense depending on how one wishes to perceive it.
Source: http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg= ... j#view=all
fast forward 30 years, and we are still at war. he now has a bazooka.
do I still use a stick?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -australia
'...fatalities from terrorism remain vanishingly rare, at least in wealthy nations. You have four times the chance of being struck by lightning as you do from being killed by a terror attack. You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit; you are eight times more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than a terrorist. You are also something like a thousand times more likely to lose your life in a car crash than from a terror plot. Traffic accidents constitute a genuine threat; we all know someone who has died on the roads. Yet no-one would consider giving traffic officers anything like the powers accorded to security agencies, even though a far more intrusive policing of drunk driving would, without question, save hundreds of lives.
...Amazingly, between 1968 and 1973, terrorist incidents involving the seizure of commercial jets took place at a rate of nearly one a week, a sequence of skyjackings now almost totally forgotten. The attacks were taken seriously, of course – but no-one suggested they posed an existential threat, nor claimed the world had somehow changed forever.'
People didn't have telephones 30 years ago?
When it becomes an act of terrorism (I.e, 'aiding and abetting the enemy', or 'giving comfort to the enemy') to criticize the government, or to criticize Israel, then things will get interesting. But by then it will be too late. And by the that stage, the Constitution will be toilet paper.
I'm not saying I agree with 360 surveillance. I'm saying the tools of defense have no choice but to evolve with the tools of offense. what should be done in lieu of this? I personally don't have any ideas. do you?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you truly believe first world governments are going to become 1984, don't you?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not too scared about terrorism. I'm just saying that the technology does offer some interesting opportunities for law officers. This is less about invading the bedroom space of a married couple as it is monitoring the behaviour of people of suspicion to either validate or dismiss information that has been received.
My father-in-law was a police officer for 25 years. It was very frustrating trying to put cases together for crimes where they knew who did it... but needed to piece together the evidence to prove it: especially when that evidence was difficult to ascertain. I see the potential for such technology to assist with this difficult task they perform for us and, at the same time, perhaps assist in keeping innocents from being wrongfully convicted- something I know you care deeply about.
I'm just not convinced the man is trying to keep tabs on everyone and monitor the behaviour of millions of people as they go through their day. Whether I'm too trusting or not... this type of paranoia seems to be in line with the paranoia associated with the gun lovers who suggest they need to be heavily armed for when the man comes to get them.
This technology could be put to good use. This is all I am saying.
THIS
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself."
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”
'Going to' become? how about used it as a god damn manual
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Freaky, man.
You obviously haven't been over in the Death Penalty thread or the Greyhound Bus Killer thread!
Bitter opponents... now teammates... yeah, Hugh (fist bump... high 5... knowing nod).
I think you are referring to our outspoken views on the gun control debate that tends to rage on this forum periodically. But look at it this way: anyone who can read Dr. Seuss or tie their shoes is capable of understanding the logic behind seeking reform. So, I guess what I am saying is that we are really not all that unique or similar... it just seems that way.
I think this is a poor point. I happen to be anti-gun but very concerned with this type of government surveillance.
Labeling people as paranoid is very dismissive and reflect from the real issues.
It's not as poor as you think- it's legitimate and hardly dismissive. My point, as expressed in a couple of posts, was that such technology could be put to very good use. I fully understand how it could be misused, but I'm not inclined to fear such scenarios.
yeah, you might want to check some of our most recent exchanges.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014