Philosophy Now Forum

...then you've nothing to worry about.

Wm Hague statement about GCHQ and the secret NSA operation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... hq-cartoon

http://xkcd.com/1223/

I intended to start a thread entitled 'Cartoons' in the Aesthetics forum,siimilar to the 'Music' one. No great need to think or discuss weighty issues. I had been thinking about comments made re use of images v words in the PN forum. Distasteful images v cartoons with content.

Also noted that nobody had posted anything - as far as I could see - on what would seem to be of high philo/politico/social interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... rveillance

Raising questions like : Who gets to define what is 'wrong' -

Wikileaks - Manning - Snowdon.
RE-Definitions of 'patriot' or 'traitor'. Who is betraying who, by what means?

Stuff like that...
And then thought - if our words are being monitored, then are we in danger of being too scared to say anything...so...then...pictures...coded messages...

Fear. Followed by an apathy attack - all this is known about anyway - why bother ?
What,if anything,should...could...be done.

Is philosophy hopeless in all of this...

Comic-book trial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/ju ... comic-book

Graphic artist recording trial of Bradley Manning - and 'truth' inside-out.

'The comic, The United States vs PFC Bradley Manning: A Graphic Account from Inside the Courtroom, will include drawings of events that illustrate the matters under discussion in the courtroom – for example, the war in Afghanistan – as well as text from the trial transcript...'

Different style capturing story and atmosphere...more potent than words alone.
...tracing the arguments in truth, or not? hturt.

http://www.channel4.com/news/data-spyin ... ruth-video

from 6 minutes in...the implications of Prism.
Is it the case that Americans are doing to us what they wouldn't do to themselves ?

The least untruthful answer please...

Who gets to define what is 'wrong' -

Politicians.

And then redefine...phrases like 'weapons of mass destruction'.
Now meaning a couple of backpacks filled with explosives...no wonder they couldn't find any...

If definitions of important concepts can change at the whim of a Patriot Act, then what ?

Does it still all boil down to the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality.
If you don't allow us to poke our noses into your affairs, then you must have something to hide. We will poke our noses in, whether or not you have something to hide...and then we will twist it to suit our agenda...

If potential limits to freedom are hidden in gobble-de-gook - who will be the ones to point out such travesties before it is too late...
...and then will they be hung out to dry for it...

You decide!?

http://www.nytimes.com/
Main article ?Chicago gangs?

Do the Americans even know or care about what is going on ?
There seems to be more hoo-hah in the Guardian...
More deliberation on Channel 4 news.

Our American contributors are quietly ignoring this?

A White House petition to give a full pardon to Edward Snowden received 30,000 electronic signatures the first day. The petition needs 100,000 signatures in 30 days for a White House response. It will probably receive 100,000 signatures within 3 days. The next petition should be to throw that Un-American bum Obama out of the White House and back to Africa where he belongs.

Can't help wondering why it took a whistleblower to get a serious debate going on about the interpretation of the laws in the Patriot Act:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... rveillance


...Wyden has long warned that the government possessed classified interpretations of surveillance laws that differ in material ways from the language of the law. His efforts at declassifying them, joined by Udall and Merkley over the past two years, have not succeeded...


''Americans have a right to know" how the government is defining its surveillance powers, Raad said.

And not only Americans...

Adversarial journalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... stigations

whistleblowing acts demonized - should they be?

...They did not act with any self-interest in mind. The opposite is true: they undertook great personal risk and sacrifice for one overarching reason: to make their fellow citizens aware of what their government is doing in the dark. Their objective is to educate, to democratize, to create accountability for those in power.

The people who do this are heroes..

Or traitors...

Whatever their motives - it seems that it takes extreme acts to highlight issues, the consequences of which we should already have pondered...

And even when the News does its job...cor blimey...the PN forum with all its wisdom...has virtually 'no comment'...
No wonder people complain that philo is a waste of time...
They should be involved from the get-go -
pleasant pedants picking and probing...potential problems.

or perhaps they were...

Political ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ethics

and thanks to henry quirk for this:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10546&start=15

‘my grinded gears’ – henry quirk – Wednesday 12th June 2013 4.34 pm

"Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong and don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't mind if the government takes a peek at emails, text messages, phone records, etc."

I've heard and read several permutations of the above. It's the end result of a specious line of thinking beginning with the idea 'secrecy' and 'privacy' are synonymous.

Forgive the vulgarity, but: there's nuthin' illegal, immoral, or unethical (nuthin' 'secret') about my bowl movements, but I still close the door when I have them.

The frequency of my movements, the length of time of my movements, the consistency of my movements, and the content of my movements, ain't no body's business but mine.

In the same light: if I am '*self-possessed', then I have a reasonable expectation my communications with another self-possessed individual are as private as I and the other choose to make them. That is: an intimate conversation (by text, e, or phone) will remain -- by definition -- private 'till I or the other choose otherwise.

Collecting records of when we communicate, how long we communicate, and (even though it is denied that such information is collected) the contents of our communications, implies my possession of 'me' (and that which issues from 'me') is somehow, 'not' mine.

If this is the case, then I do not own myself...a notion I have a rather LARGE problem with.



"But, Henry, such (meta)data collection is necessary, and, has led to ending at least one terrorist plot! Surely, you can't be against 'security'?!"

Well, some official claims a plot was foiled...I wanna see the evidence of this (which, of course, won't happen 'cause the plot, and all related information is, 'classified'...very convenient).

And: with such a depth and breadth of information 'necessarily' collected, one might think the whole Boston Marathon bombing could have been averted (if it, indeed, was a terrorist event with the enactors in contact with overseas cronies).

No doubt, collecting willy-nilly all manner of (meta)data 'can' improve security but, does the end justify the means?

Example: It is possible, well before labor, to accurately identify physical/neurological infirmities in the unborn. Since such assessments of the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever are possible, why not have pregnant women submit to testing and, if profound irregularities are found, have the 'whatever' terminated? Abortions for cause would -- in the long run -- save a god-awful amount of money (for everyone by way of lowering overall medical and health care costs) and the eugenic benefit (an increasingly healthy gene pool) would also benefit everyone.

The reason such a program doesn't exist (in America) is 'cause folks don't believe 'that' (cluster of) end(s) justifies the means.



"Henry, all this data collection is legal."

Embedded in 'it's legal' is an ass-backward idea, that being: because it's legal, it must be good. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but it seems to me sumthin' should be 'good' in practice prior to codification as 'law'.

Also: it seems naive to think because the powers that be promote sumthin' by way of legalizing it, this sumthin' is inherently 'good'. It's a naiveté born of dangerous, ill-founded, assumptions about the nature of power, and those who **seek it, hold it, and use it.



"Hey, corporations do this kind of information gathering all the time!"

Sure, but no corporation is empowered to jail me or kill me. At best (or worst), corporations can inundate me with tailored advertising, which I'm not obligated to pay attention to.



Fundamentally: what the powers that be do with (meta)data collection is no different than rifling through closets and underwear drawers. Beyond the fact the powers are peeking at your panties (or, reading your old love letters, or, judging your porn collection), they're in your home without permission.










*self-owned

**not a single person in the American system is 'in' power for any reason other than he or she sought it...every elected and appointed official wanted that position and worked to claim it...my point: these folks are not selfless types who only wanna 'do good' and 'serve'

Probably not on-topic as I've not read the thread through yet but I have to say what I admire about the US system is that the matter becomes a judicial one whereas over here it'll be safely swept away under the political carpet. We could learn from the US in this respect.

I have no great knowledge as to how the 2 systems compare.

What did strike me was the relative silence on here - from the usually vocal Americans. Also, from what I can gather from the media, people seem more concerned about categorising the whistleblower as 'hero' or 'traitor' ( neither, he says, he is American) than any effects on their freedom. Strange, given the almighty hoo-hah re gun restrictions.

Either way, the thread can go where it likes. Feel free...

"...what I admire about the US system is that the matter becomes a judicial one..."

Don't applaud us too quickly.

If the powers that be have their way, this whole nasty cluster of events will get swept under the rug and it'll be 'bizznizz as usual'.

#

"...the relative silence on here - from the usually vocal Americans..."

Mostly, from what I gather, the silence is ideologically based...a talking head was quite blatant about it: she said she wasn't worried about the surveillance because it was happening under a 'benign administration'.

That is: because the Executive Branch is Democrat and liberal she has no worries about abuses.

Naiveté in the extreme.

#

"whistleblower as 'hero' or 'traitor'"

A dink is what he is.

The information he disclosed stands on its own...that is: his identity adds nuthin' to the information disclosed.

So: why did Snowden out himself?

Self-aggrandizement: 15 minutes of fame.

Years and years in a federal prison is a hefty price to pay for gettin' on television.

.


In America, our strength, our pride, is patriotism...





..................................................................



It may also prove to be our Achilles heel.








.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Nowadays, patriotism seems less the last refuge and more the first strike.