Current Affairs Surveillance in the US reaches new levels

[Awol]

 

I haven't quoted the entire article as it's a bit long. Read the rest here

 

 

That was a very good read, thanks. While we are almost certainly under similar levels of surveillance in the UK, the most obvious and striking difference with the US is the additional layer of official intimidation and persecution described in that article - and others. If you publicly disagree with or question the actions of US authorities then they are coming after you, one way or another. 

 

I don't know what political label you'd put on the way the US is headed but it doesn't include "free" or "democratic" and if I was an American I'd be very worried for the future because the state is totally out of control. It also (imho) provides at least a degree of sympathy for the mantra: "from my cold, dead hand(s)". If you can't keep them honest, eventually you may have to make them so. 

[maqroll]

Yep, all those libertarian gun loons don't look that unreasonable when considering the size and scope of Big Brother, and the light that has been shed on the sinister nature of what they're doing. The people's paranoia has been justified. The constitution is dissolving before our eyes, civil rights are being suspended, police departments across the country have become militarized,  the DHS has bought millions of rounds of armor piercing bullets, domestic surveillance drones are being retrofitted with weaponry...the future is bleak.

[AVFCforever1991]

[tarjei]

 

 

I haven't quoted the entire article as it's a bit long. Read the rest here

 

 

If you publicly disagree with or question the actions of US authorities then they are coming after you, one way or another. 

 

I've suspected it was like this for a long time. Now that it's all being confirmed I should be really mad, but I just don't care. Maybe it's the misanthrope in me hoping it just all gets worse and it keeps on getting worse. I think the reason people in general aren't getting very mad about this is that they don't understand that it's not just terrorist and criminals that has or will come under the scope. They have nothing to hide and so there's nothing to worry about. But it seems anyone who get's on their wrong side will have their whole life scrutinized and be limited in travel and communication. Not many people will have the knowledge to avoid surveillance and the endurance to fight it that Poitras has.

[snowychap]

Maybe it's the misanthrope in me hoping it just all gets worse and it keeps on getting worse.

That'll be the Leninist in you, no?

[peterms]

I've suspected it was like this for a long time. Now that it's all being confirmed I should be really mad, but I just don't care.

You should care, about this more than almost anything else.

 

They are trying to take away everything that makes you an independent being, and tell you that trivia matters more.

 

"Watch the game on TV.  Have a burger.  It's time to go to the mall and do some shopping."  Stepford Wives.

 

Reject it.  Fight it.  Talk to others about it.  Encrypt your email.  Take to the streets at any opportunity, and convince others they should do the same.

 

Support insurrections against fascists, like in most of the Middle East.  Oppose Israeli expansionism.  Challenge MPs who fail to do the same.  Agitate against them.  Get rid of them.  Elect people of independent mind.

[tarjei]

I know I should! I'm wondering why I don't get mad. I used to be very active. I think at some point I just let it go... I am voting for the party that are most opposed to surveillance. Environmental politics are good as well and they are pro Palestine, etc. Pretty much spot on for everything I care about. The problem is they were in the latest coalition government for 8 years and got nothing done, and it's always like this. There's two big parties on either side, and although they claim to have different politics, whenever they rule they end up doing the same thing and ignoring everyone else, including their own promises. I.e all parties except the two biggest were against the new law to allow surveillance, yet it was passed due to everyone being pushed around by the them. Now it should be heavily in the news and in the run up to the election which is due less than a month from now, yet I have only seen it mentioned on IT-related news sites. The Snowden-case has not gotten much press here, compared to other countries, and no one seems to make the connection between that case and the law that was passed last year.

[leviramsey]

For so many years, political discourse about "rolling back the frontiers of the state" has meant "cutting levels of social security".  It's the encroachment of the secret state we should be worried about.  And that is far harder to roll back.

It's precisely because the self-proclaimed small-government Republicans completely and utterly failed to rein in middle-class entitlements like social security and Medicare (remember that the biggest expansion in Medicare was the result of Dubya and two GOP houses of Congress) that the secret state has been able to grow to the point that it has. You could almost say that passivity has been bought...

[peterms]

 

For so many years, political discourse about "rolling back the frontiers of the state" has meant "cutting levels of social security".  It's the encroachment of the secret state we should be worried about.  And that is far harder to roll back.

It's precisely because the self-proclaimed small-government Republicans completely and utterly failed to rein in middle-class entitlements like social security and Medicare (remember that the biggest expansion in Medicare was the result of Dubya and two GOP houses of Congress) that the secret state has been able to grow to the point that it has. You could almost say that passivity has been bought...

 

 

I really don't follow this at all.  You see a causal link between social security and state secrecy and oppression?  When oppressive states include those with more, less, and almost no social security provision?

 

It's not that I disagree with your argument - I don't even understand it to the point of knowing whether and why I would disagree, though I suspect I would.  Could you explain a bit more?

[NoelVilla]

Havent read a single post in this thread...so if u think that USA is a democracy then your past measurable stupid and I cant help you.

[AVFCforever1991]

Havent read a single post in this thread...so if u think that USA is a democracy then your past measurable stupid and I cant help you.

 

You're right, the US is not a democracy. It's a republic

 

Or use to be, I guess it's more of a Corporatocracy now...

Edited August 17, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[leviramsey]

It's precisely because the self-proclaimed small-government Republicans completely and utterly failed to rein in middle-class entitlements like social security and Medicare (remember that the biggest expansion in Medicare was the result of Dubya and two GOP houses of Congress) that the secret state has been able to grow to the point that it has. You could almost say that passivity has been bought...

 

I really don't follow this at all.  You see a causal link between social security and state secrecy and oppression?  When oppressive states include those with more, less, and almost no social security provision?

 

It's not that I disagree with your argument - I don't even understand it to the point of knowing whether and why I would disagree, though I suspect I would.  Could you explain a bit more?

I'm not arguing it's universal (thus the extremely US-specific verbiage), but the crosstabs on polling about the surveillance state are interesting. A majority of 65-plus's think it should be expanded, while at the same time support is pretty well inversely correlated with income. Those employed by government also support the surveillance state more than those employed in the private sector. It's not unreasonable to suspect that those who believe that their livelihoods depend on the state (whether through social welfare spending of whatever stripe, being an employee of the state, or through profiting from the state, etc.) place a higher value on and are more susceptible to arguments invoking the security of that state and the need for committees to ensure the same.

[maqroll]

It'll be interesting to see how my generation responds to the Social Security well having run dry by the time we reach the age to collect. I've been paying into SS for 28 years, and will continue for another 20, at the very least. Imagine thousands of 60 year olds rioting in the streets 

[Awol]

Imagine thousands of 60 year olds rioting in the streets 

Without laughing?

[maqroll]

 

Havent read a single post in this thread...so if u think that USA is a democracy then your past measurable stupid and I cant help you.

 

You're right, the US is not a democracy. It's a republic

 

Or use to be, I guess it's more of a Corporatocracy now...

 

Yep, and it's only going to get worse. In 25 years, the middle class will be completely destroyed, with a massive underclass and exploding Hispanic immigrant population fighting each other for basic service type jobs while the elites marvel at their handiwork. 

[Davkaus]

By that time, the lower class will have a tonne of manufacturing jobs for the mass-exports being sent to China.

[AVFCforever1991]

And being replaced by machines.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Yep, and it's only going to get worse. In 25 years, the middle class will be completely destroyed, with a massive underclass and exploding Hispanic immigrant population fighting each other for basic service type jobs while the elites marvel at their handiwork. 

 

 

Is it just me, or does the word "elite" suggest some kind of innate superiority, and yet it's increasingly being used to describe people who exert power and influence by means of a combination of inherited wealth, cynicism and like-minded crony "friends".

[snowychap]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.

While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian.

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities."

A spokesperson for Scotland Yard said: "At 08:05 on Sunday, 18 August a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00."

Scotland Yard refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers which enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports.

There was no comment from the Home Office in relation to the detention. However, there was surprise last night in political circles and elsewhere. Labour MP Tom Watson said that he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention.

He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect.

"I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it."

"The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way."

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.

Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.

Last month the UK government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7 amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station.

Hand in glove or a dog doing its masters bidding? Either way, piss poor.

[peterms]

 

 

It's precisely because the self-proclaimed small-government Republicans completely and utterly failed to rein in middle-class entitlements like social security and Medicare (remember that the biggest expansion in Medicare was the result of Dubya and two GOP houses of Congress) that the secret state has been able to grow to the point that it has. You could almost say that passivity has been bought...

 

I really don't follow this at all.  You see a causal link between social security and state secrecy and oppression?  When oppressive states include those with more, less, and almost no social security provision?

 

It's not that I disagree with your argument - I don't even understand it to the point of knowing whether and why I would disagree, though I suspect I would.  Could you explain a bit more?

 

I'm not arguing it's universal (thus the extremely US-specific verbiage), but the crosstabs on polling about the surveillance state are interesting. A majority of 65-plus's think it should be expanded, while at the same time support is pretty well inversely correlated with income. Those employed by government also support the surveillance state more than those employed in the private sector. It's not unreasonable to suspect that those who believe that their livelihoods depend on the state (whether through social welfare spending of whatever stripe, being an employee of the state, or through profiting from the state, etc.) place a higher value on and are more susceptible to arguments invoking the security of that state and the need for committees to ensure the same.

 

 

I can find a poll reported in this article, though it may not be what you're referring to.

 

Some interesting results, not least for black households.

 

But as for your argument, I don't follow your linkage between being employed by the state, receiving state benefits or contracts, and supporting surveillance.  The people who benefit most from the exercise of state power are those with most property, as I suppose everyone would agree.  Where surveillance is about furthering existing property rights, as it mostly is, then the biggest beneficiaries will be those who apparently have less dependence on the state.  Where it closes down political dissent, then it's the same thing at one remove.

 

Perhaps one factor to look at is the role of the media in persuading people that they are all at risk from some terrible threat, which can only be countered by allowing the state to act like big brother.  The generation of false consciousness, as an apparatus of state control.

 

There was an interesting piece on the radio today by John Simpson, comparing China today with China at the time of Tiananmen.  He interviewed one person who was rebelling back then, but now speaks of the cultural need of the Chinese for a "big brother" to protect their interests.  I didn't get the impression he was being ironic.  At the same time, he would only utter the word for "Tiananmen" in hushed tones, from a long habit of not wanting to be heard in public talking about it.

 

Similar things are happening in Egypt, with the army desperate to construct an idea that only they stand between the public and chaos, and some liberties may need to be sacrificed for that.