[governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk

Sun Jun 9 06:12:57 EDT 2013

Yes we can change this. On this list these matters are tangential for 
some of the active players here. If there is a denial of the problem, or 
obstructions in even seeking to discuss it then democracy or not, it 
does not matter.  Seems like much of the mainstream press and civil 
society is bought and paid for (by association or through 'ideology) 
which is why in even in finance bankers get away with stuff while 
homeowners are foreclosed upon on fraudulent documents. That too can be 
changed. Everything can be changed. Sometimes to keep things the same 
everything else needs to be changed.

Funny thing about this issue though is that there is bipartisan support 
(Foreign Intelligence Committee). There is consensus on this issue. And 
that is democratic too. How does it feel to be treated like Afghans, 
Iraqi's, Latino's, Africans and Asians? Good for the goose, good for the 
gander... as we used to say in our interminable arguments before... some 
counted on foreigners being treated differently, and so it was ok 
because 'they hate our freedoms'. Madison sought to dispel this myth.

Do you think one can work against the ruthlessness of the singlerooters 
and not be idealist? And, Idealism must be tempered by realism. The 
realism not to be hounded, for instance, on this list, for holding third 
worldist views. And when a change is made, then protests begin. And this 
is a non-binding forum :)

In short, you all in the N. America's are going to get your butts kicked 
(it has been happening but mandatory optimism seems to get in the way of 
feeling it, as EFF has been pointing out for a long time, and now the 
ACLU) and perhaps it is time for a change... let's see. As I said, I 
will not be holding my breadth, but I suspect that lots of people will 
be Swartzed.

This is just an outsider view, so may be coloured by all sorts of 
prejudices and unfocussed because of distance, but it seems (at rough 
approximation) that progressive forces are poorly organised on this 
issue (in collecting power terms) and in any event are characterised by 
sterling performers (like EFF) and others with coalitions that seem to 
have too many hypocrites.

Pity, so much of this is emancipatory.

Riaz

On 2013/06/08 06:50 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
> I’m still not sure if you agree or disagree with my contention that in 
> a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour 
> by those in power. I understand that historically things were 
> different. I understand that some people don’t think that we have a 
> chance to change this. I understand that many people have written or 
> spoken about this. What I don’t understand so far is if you agree or 
> disagree that in a modern democracy this can be changed. I’m not 
> saying it would be easy or even that the odds are good. All I’m saying 
> is the chance exists and I for one am working to making it happen. I 
> don’t believe that defeatism is useful in reality or as an argument 
> against working for change.
>
> Kerry Brown
>
> *From:*Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* June-08-13 8:06 AM
> *To:* Kerry Brown
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech 
> giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | 
> guardian.co.uk
>
> I believe in the reality of choice.
>
> To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily:
>
> 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. 
> Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of 
> people it strengthened in power.
>
> 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of 
> humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by 
> some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to 
> determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's 
> took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all 
> irrespective of property ownership).
>
> 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. 
> Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) 
> "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced 
> countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic 
> but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like.
>
> 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive 
> of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be 
> free men, including free to keep slaves.
>
> Riaz
>
> On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>     I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with
>     my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to
>     change this type of behaviour by those in power?
>
>     Kerry Brown
>
>     *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz
>     K Tayob
>     *Sent:* June-08-13 7:19 AM
>     *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech
>     giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news
>     | guardian.co.uk
>
>     In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly
>     given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War,
>     has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body.
>     *A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not
>     long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against
>     foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at
>     home.* Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war,
>     whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the
>     armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the
>     people.
>
>       * Speech, Constitutional Convention
>         <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention>
>         (1787-06-29
>         <http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=1787-06-29&action=edit&redlink=1>),
>         from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of
>         1787,/ vol. I [1]
>         <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=494&itemLink=D?hlaw:5:./temp/%7Eammem_kmli::%230010495&linkText=1>
>         (1911), p. 465
>
>     On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>         Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this?
>
>           
>
>         http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/
>
>           
>
>         We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible.
>
>           
>
>         Kerry Brown
>
>           
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/f11a3ea8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t