Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

  On 7/1/2013 at 8:49 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

You guys continually impress me by always managing to find a 'different perspective' that somehow always takes the blame away from the US military and government. The Pentagon would pay good money to have both of you create like 100 sock puppet accounts to defend them across the net. Have you considered that type of employment? I mean you're already doing the work for free might as well start getting paid

This had crossed my mind too, have to say

  On 7/1/2013 at 8:49 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  Quote

Quote

 

Imo, this seems like a case of hating the player, where it should be more about hating the game itself. There arent many countries which havent done things worthy of being some sort of evil empire. So if you want to discuss why you hate the game, by all means do so. But if you want to stick to hating on the US... Well you have every right to. But don't call people stupid for approaching this from another perspective

 

 

I obviously don't tolerate denial well, although i just want to point out I never called anyone stupid. It was Eugene who repeatedly did that. It's also not a matter of a 'different perspective'. Did you also just totally ignore what I wrote? It's been admitted that the US and Israel made Stuxnet....did you see that? Or can you somehow find a way to deflect that as well as some kind of 'different perspective' ?

 

You guys continually impress me by always managing to find a 'different perspective' that somehow always takes the blame away from the US military and government. The Pentagon would pay good money to have both of you create like 100 sock puppet accounts to defend them across the net. Have you considered that type of employment? I mean you're already doing the work for free might as well start getting paid

 

 

  Quote

 

 

I don't see why the US needs to be singled out, here.

odd, once again either you totally ignored everything i said about Stuxnet or you literally didn't read it.

 

anyone who cares to take the time, scroll above to see what I wrote about Stuxnet, where it has been widely regarded as the most dangerous computer virus in the world simply because of the unintentional damage it could cause when it spreads to unintended targets. It can inadvertently shut down entire factories and power grids.

 

So maybe i didnt make myself clear enough but no other country in the world has made a cyber weapon this powerful or expensive that is capable of creating this much damage in it's wake. Do you understand why I'm singling the US out now? Or do i need to copy and paste all the text from my stuxnet posts

 

some hazy admittance by some "anonymous officials" can't count as an official admission of particular state, why can't you understand it ? at most at gives some room for plausibility.

there is no sufficient info or understanding about how stuxnet works and therefore it's impossible to conclude whether it's irresponsible or dangerous at all. how did you jump to "widely regarded as" exactly ?

also, why do you think that what your wrote automatically makes it true ? bring some proper sources.

wait, aren't you the guy who thought snowden was trying to capitalize on his fame as a whistleblower? and now "anonymous officials" is a bad thing too? you're generally against conspiracy theories as you see them -- so why try to introduce this "well maybe it wasn't really anonymous officials, it was some media blackmail against the US and Israel!" type bull mess? i mean really, wtf? or should i say, are you capable of understanding that this is totally an unwarranted explanation and you have no sources to credit this theory ?

im just going to say godwin's theory and Hitler's justification of invasion of Poland in Sept. 1939.

Eugene has been known to debate false goal posts, goDel has taken this up rather recently which is surprising. But I suppose the glory of being a contrarian is too much to withhold from what should have been a pretty narrowed debate. Only 18 pages or so in have we switched the discussion from surveillance methods to Stuxnet to "well you can't just blame the U.S.", as if this was a worldly condemnation of surveillance and cyber-tactics in its own right.

  On 7/1/2013 at 8:49 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

...

anyone who cares to take the time, scroll above to see what I wrote about Stuxnet, where it has been widely regarded as the most dangerous computer virus in the world simply because of the unintentional damage it could cause when it spreads to unintended targets. It can inadvertently shut down entire factories and power grids.

So maybe i didnt make myself clear enough but no other country in the world has made a cyber weapon this powerful or expensive that is capable of creating this much damage in it's wake. Do you understand why I'm singling the US out now? Or do i need to copy and paste all the text from my stuxnet posts

Easy there. The biggest difference is that I'm leaving room for other options in the story, imo. That's different to denying. I just see enough room for open ends and I personally like to keep it that way. Especially when it comes to anything what happened behind some curtains, we're most of the time in a "we dont know what we don't know" kind of situation. (This is exactly why those wikileaks were so damned interesting, btw) If this makes me sound like I'm one of Cheneys wingmen, so be it. I think it's healthy. And yes, that's just my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned I actually think we're pretty much on the same page here. I did agree your account was close to reality.

The thing I think is a bit silly, is that there are points which seem like unauthorized territory to even have the slightest bit of disagreement on. So even though I agreed your account was close to reality, the act of looking for some outs and not just accepting the statement that Stuxnet is the most dangerous virus to date as fact by itself (despite a number of professionals calling it that way) is already a game over situation where I'm basically being called some pentagon payroll monkey who's in denial. That's a bit rough, imo. But apparently that is how this game is being played.

Game on.

  On 7/2/2013 at 6:59 AM, goDel said:

 

Game on.

 

Godwins theory of the gogurt is still a bit rough around the edges, it seems. It's more like an anti- hitler.

  On 7/2/2013 at 3:14 AM, luke viia said:

wait, aren't you the guy who thought snowden was trying to capitalize on his fame as a whistleblower? and now "anonymous officials" is a bad thing too? you're generally against conspiracy theories as you see them -- so why try to introduce this "well maybe it wasn't really anonymous officials, it was some media blackmail against the US and Israel!" type bull mess? i mean really, wtf? or should i say, are you capable of understanding that this is totally an unwarranted explanation and you have no sources to credit this theory ?

no i wasn't saying anything like that at all about snowden, thought i made it clear already.

"anonymous officials" just points to one possibility. other than that you're putting words in my mouth. my default position is is of extreme skepticism, so i'm not proposing some alternative conspiratorial explanation, just pointing at the fact that there's a gaping hole of possible alternative explanations which are not being addressed at all and the difficulty of obtaining legit information in a field like that that's defined by secrecy and deceit.

man, I thought I was the most emotionally invested in this thread. But you guys have done a good job of making it seem like a bronies convention, nice jorb ;-)

You know the world's gone teats up when arguably the most sane and humane voice in all this is the President of Venezuela... and yeah it's from an article about Snowden but whaevs bronies

  Quote

Meanwhile Mr Hollande denied that France had received a specific asylum request from Mr Snowden.

 

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who is on a visit to Moscow, said the same, but added that Mr Snowden had "done something very important for humanity" and "deserved the world's protection".

 

"The world's conscience should react, the world youth should react, the decent people who want a peaceful world should react, everyone should react and find solidarity with this young man who has denounced and altered the world that they [the US] pretend to control," he told the BBC.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887

  On 7/2/2013 at 1:01 AM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 7/1/2013 at 8:49 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

You guys continually impress me by always managing to find a 'different perspective' that somehow always takes the blame away from the US military and government. The Pentagon would pay good money to have both of you create like 100 sock puppet accounts to defend them across the net. Have you considered that type of employment? I mean you're already doing the work for free might as well start getting paid

 

This had crossed my mind too, have to say

 

  On 7/2/2013 at 6:59 AM, goDel said:

is already a game over situation where I'm basically being called some pentagon payroll monkey who's in denial.

Game on.

 

games been on since you've been nothing but an Obama administration apologist ever since I've encountered you on this forum. It's what I live for politically to encounter someone who finds it in themselves to do that. Especially someone who seems more liberal like yourself and also educated. the FUD comment was a bullshit faux intellectual way to say that if we are angry at the NSA we all must be experiencing 'fear uncertainty and doubt' just absolute crap. sorry. I don't think you deserve 'fair' treatment after that analysis you attempted.

and you're wrong, i never accused you of being a Pentagon employee, I said you *should* be one because you'd be a decent one. I just want you to get paid for your efforts.

Regarding having Internet behaviour monitored. This TED talk of a year or so ago had quite a few people talking about a somewhat related issue of how when algorithms tailor links to your interests, you become less exposed to opposing view points:

Not all websites require you to log in of course and if you are using a shared computer, how will it know you are you (now has everyone got post it notes over their cameras ;)? For sites that do require you to log in to get the most out of them though (and isn't that increasingly nearly all of them?) an obvious way to fool the detector ;) is to share passwords amongst your friends. I don't suggest anyone does this with their bank account but for sites where you don't care about possibly being misrepresented, this would be a way to scramble the data somewhat.

  On 7/2/2013 at 9:14 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 7/2/2013 at 6:59 AM, goDel said:

is already a game over situation where I'm basically being called some pentagon payroll monkey who's in denial.

Game on.

 

games been on since you've been nothing but an Obama administration apologist ever since I've encountered you on this forum. It's what I live for politically to encounter someone who finds it in themselves to do that. Especially someone who seems more liberal like yourself and also educated. the FUD comment was a bullshit faux intellectual way to say that if we are angry at the NSA we all must be experiencing 'fear uncertainty and doubt' just absolute crap. sorry. I don't think you deserve 'fair' treatment after that analysis you attempted.

 

and you're wrong, i never accused you of being a Pentagon employee, I said you *should* be one because you'd be a decent one. I just want you to get paid for your efforts.

What analysis? That FUD is being widely used as a sales tactic in the news media (and that these tactics can trickle down to arguments used on online massageboards like watmm)? Yes, it's a tactic, not an experience or an emotional state. If you like to distort my analysis that way as a means to prove that I'm talking bullshit, be my guest.

I don't deserve a 'fair' treatment? Why the apostrophes, btw? You don't think I deserve a treatment which appears fair but in reality isn't fair? Awww a covert way of being nice. Thanks man.

Here's an 'idea': why not change your name to John 'McCarthy'? Yes, with the apostrophes.

Yours truly,

Watmm's number one goghurt slurping Obama apologist

other people from the Guardian interviewed about the Snowden leak

OK, so we are all sitting here arguing about the circumstances when really what we need to be doing is helping to repair the country. Where does one begin? Can we do anything at all? Are there organizations for which one could volunteer? Are their people we could be supporting? It is obvious laws need to be changed and a regime removed, but what are our options? How to we provide help to ensure that our American brothers and sisters don't have their rights infringed upon, and that this ever increasing police state be reversed. How do we do something? Does anyone even have a clue?

Good interview. Thanks for posting. But why are you giving these Obama apologists a stage? Doesn't Charlie Rose fit the stamp? Not a single "Obama is bad", or " the Obama administration are the worst thing since sliced bread" anywhere to be seen.

It needs to quickly accelerate out of control. I don't think you can gain enough momentum to change anything as long as people are comfortable.

godel are you being sarcasm

Democracies, how do they work?

  On 7/8/2013 at 8:09 AM, MisterE said:

godel are you being sarcasm

I'm oddly aroused by having stuck goghurts up my ass all night. I thought you knew. You were force feeding them. Or was that someone else I gave a blindfolded bj?

godel r u having anguish

frustrations

going nuclear

what is it godel

just let it all out

No. Only if I get a 'fair' treatment. I think I deserve one. Just for shits and giggles.

godel r u ok

Assburgers?

Or in my case, assghurts