Big Brother is Watching You

[rstrong]

:?: We don't like it, but we've been through this a bunch of times before. Mostly, they'll just try to sell us stuff, not use it for repression.

Possibly, but that view compares the most benign use of the marketing data with the most evil use of the NSA data, rather than the relative good and evil of each.

That's because there's little comparison.

First, if a company misuses customers' personal information they face very real legal penalties. And even where they don't they face penalties in the marketplace; bad press will send customers to their competitors.

The NSA faces no such penalties. They face no penalties for breaking the law. In fact when caught breaking the law, the law gets rewritten retroactively. They can lie outright to Congress without a hint of penalties. Nor do they face any market penalties.

Second, You can easily avoid Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. You can make few or no purchases by credit card. Those firms may can still collect a little data about you, but it'll be fragmentary. They won't get your email and phone call contents. SSL-Encrypt your communications, and the commercial world is effectively locked out.

The NSA gives you no such choice; there's no opting out of their collection. We now know that SSL encryption is largely irrelevant to them. Between their own monitoring and what they receive from those other companies, their profile of you is anything but fragmentary.

Third, It's not just us non-Americans who face no limits on NSA spying. While in theory there are limits for spying on Americans, in practice it's a different story:

Do foreigners communicate with you? The NSA can spy on you. Hint: I'm a foreigner. So are the folks sending you Chinese and Nigerian spam.

The NSA is allowed to travel "three hops" from its targets - They can spy on people who talk to people who talk to people who talk to you. Facebook, where the typical user has 190 friends, shows how three degrees of separation gets you to a network bigger than the population of Colorado.

Fourth, when a company collects your information - and finds that you happen to know someone who knows someone who they don't like - you don't face being kidnapped - from the US - and shipped another country for torture and beatings. Which does happen with the US government agencies.

[O Really]

Fourth, when a company collects your information - and finds that you happen to know someone who knows someone who they don't like - you don't face being kidnapped - from the US - and shipped another country for torture and beatings. Which does happen with the US government agencies.

Yeah, that's real likely. How many extraordinary renditions since mid-90-something? Best estimate from the opposition is fewer than 300. That's about 3% of the number of people estimated to be wrongfully convicted by US courts every year. In the last 20 years, there have been about 2,000 convicts exonerated for serious crimes after spending an average of 13 years in prison. I (or particularly if I'm black), am thousands times more likely to get tossed in a cell with Big Bubba because some "eye witness" thought I looked like the guy who raped them in the dark than because I email a foreigner who knows somebody who has a cousin in Syria. In fact, I'm way more likely to win a 4-ball lottery, find a pearl in an oyster, or (if I'm a woman) have quadruplets.

[rstrong]

Fourth, when a company collects your information - and finds that you happen to know someone who knows someone who they don't like - you don't face being kidnapped - from the US - and shipped another country for torture and beatings. Which does happen with the US government agencies.

Yeah, that's real likely.

Specifically, 100% likely. It's well documented that this has been happening.

How many extraordinary renditions since mid-90-something?

More than 150 between 2001 and 2005, including at least 100 from the EU.

You might ask "How many since 2006?" In other words, since they found out that their secret rendition program wasn't so secret. But does that mean it stopped, or that they learned from their mistakes and took better care to keep it secret?

You could ask "how many kidnappings and how much torture since Obama was elected?" But at best America's torture program isn't ended; it's on hold for the current administration:

- Before the 2004 election, it was already evident that the U.S. had gone to war on false pretenses. Before the 2004 election, the torture and in Iran and Afghanistan was already known. And people could see that the methods used were more than suspiciously similar. Before the 2004 election, the world knew that the U.S. was kidnapping people around the world, shipping people off to other countries to be tortured. Before the 2004 election, the world already knew about the U.S. detention/torture centers in Eastern Europe. Before the 2004 election, the world already knew about the Aug. 1, 2002 Office of Legal Counsel memo on torture that advised the CIA and White House that torture was just peachy keen. Before the 2004 election, the Washington Post had already confirmed that torture, extraordinary renditions, failure to register detainees with the Red Cross and other violations of the Geneva Conventions were official policy, approved by the White House.

- And yet the very people responsible were RELECTED, by an even greater margin than their first term.

- And yet those responsible have not been prosecuted, even under a Democrat administration, nor has there been any noticeable demand for it. Heck, far from being prosecuted under the law, John Yoo has gone back to teaching it. At Berkeley, no less. "Those who would repeat the past must control the teaching of history."

- In the 2012 election, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain all demanded a return to torture. With not a hint of backlash from EITHER party. (Presumably Ron Paul feels that torture is an issue that should be left to the states.)

In the last 20 years, there have been about 2,000 convicts exonerated for serious crimes after spending an average of 13 years in prison.

How often do wrongful convictions happen as government policy? How many of those prison rapes were government-ordered?

Would you defend a government decision to abolish the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so long as the government promised that violations of (former) rights would be, like, really rare? Or to use the NSA's defence, that such violations would be only a crime when people found out about it, and THAT would be really rare?

Because when it comes to privacy laws, you've done exactly that.

[rstrong]

...But at best America's torture program isn't ended; it's on hold for the current administration:...

Sort of, it's returned to the pre-Shrub status quo - frequently performed by proxies with our full assistance and approval.

I wouldn't go that far. Pre-Shrub any major presidential candidate demanding torture would have their campaign come to a sudden end. Pre-Shrub, torture wasn't acceptable US policy and was widely considered illegal.

[rstrong]

Pre-Shrub, torture wasn't acceptable US policy and it was and remains illegal, but that did not stop us from being complicit in its use by client states, just as we are now.

It "remains illegal" only with the provisos that "it's not torture if we say it it's not", and "it's not illegal if the President approves it." Illegal or not, it's what the US has been doing, it's been US policy, and if it stopped with Obama there's no reason to believe that it won't restart with the next President.

I have little doubt that pre-Shrub, the US occasionally shipped the occasional criminal or criminal back home knowing full well that they might be tortured. That's still a far cry from Shrub era doing it on a large scale, even to those they had only vaguest suspicions about, and doing it themselves without a client state involved.

[O Really]

...
Specifically, 100% likely. It's well documented that this has been happening.

How many extraordinary renditions since mid-90-something?

More than 150 between 2001 and 2005, including at least 100 from the EU.

You might ask "How many since 2006?" ...

You could ask "how many kidnappings and how much torture since Obama was elected?" ..

.

I like your statistics. You must work for Microsoft - factually correct but meaningless. Using that perspective it's 100% likely there will be a PowerBall winner, too, but that doesn't improve any individual's odds.

I could ask those questions, but what I would be more likely to ask is what evidence was used to pack these people off to wherever land. I might also ask how many of the less-than-300 were actually snatched for nothing and likely totally innocent.

[O Really]

Pre-Shrub, torture wasn't acceptable US policy and it was and remains illegal, but that did not stop us from being complicit in its use by client states, just as we are now.

Pre-Shrub, most Americans didn't know that there were a lot of people out there who would happily fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up.

[O Really]

Most of our sponsorship of torture had and has nothing to with terrorist threats to the US, and one could wonder how much our obscene acts have contributed to terrorism. Plus, you sound perilously close to justifying our torturing after 9/11.

Life would be easier if it were all black/white, right/wrong, cause/effect. I have no doubt US foreign policy and national behaviour have contributed to hatred and to terrorist attacks. From a philosophical and practical standpoint, I'm not in favor of torture.

However, taking a devil's advocate position (maybe literally, who knows), exactly what can you do gently to a guy who is perfectly willing to go chase his 72 virgins and who does not respect anything but force? Most of the significant threats now aren't from some Hitlerfied country declaring war and invading. Most of the people caught aren't drafted soldiers just wanting to get back home to their families. Most of the significant threats (not counting cyber attacks) are not from countries who are parties to the Geneva Convention. I'm not so confident in the effectiveness of attempted deterrence, but I'm pretty sure it would be less scary for someone to contemplate a clean cell, decent food and medical, and a free lawyer than for the word to get around if they're caught they'll have their nuts and beards cut off and have to eat bacon.

[O Really]

I don't think that penalties are much deterrence against terrorists. Most expect to die. However, I'm pretty sure that nuts and beards cutting off and force-fed bacon creates more terrorists than we'd otherwise have.

Yeah, probably so. That wasn't entirely serious. But the serious question still is, what do you do to a guy who expects, maybe hopes, maybe tries, to die?

And further, would we be able to make friends if we treated them nicely?

[O Really]

Same as always, model acceptable norms. It's not like they can't also point to outrages by us. What do you do to a nation who expects, maybe hopes, maybe tries, certainly has killed lots of people?

Making friends is hard, I'd settle for making fewer enemies.

Well, it's pretty easy to argue that modeling acceptable norms "might" work, since nobody has actually tried it, other than places like Switzerland, but not many countries are following their lead. I think a fundamental necessity for that strategy to work is that the modeler has to be held in some degree of esteem by the others. Opps. Here's a real-life example - if you're over in Berzerkistan somewhere and all you hear about the US is that it's the home of the devil, it's pretty reasonable to hate the US. Same thing as back in the cold war when the perception of Soviets of the US and vice versa was wildly inaccurate. Same as anyone who has a fear of "foreign" people. But take the guys who flew into WTC. They had lived in the US for several years. They had plenty of time and real-life experiences to know that Americans weren't necessarily all evil. But the reality of what they lived didn't overcome their belief.

[O Really]

I don't know if terrorists care if Americans aren't necessarily all evil, "evil" American policy is what they oppose.

Without regard as to whether US policy can affect (negatively or positively) foreign perception, I don't think there's any evidence that those constituting the greatest threats are policy-driven. Greater evidence seems to be that they are ideology-driven, much like the American talibanpartiers. They are generally not citizens, and they are not generally acting in a manner that would be covered by Geneva Convention or other international law. They are generally international criminals, not unlike the pirates and huns of old. They have no respect for what we would consider "law" and welcome being killed for their cause. Are you really going to argue that treating the ones we capture more gently will make them find us less of an enemy?

[O Really]

It may be a distinction of my own making, but I see policy-driven opposition to be an objection to a particular action, and the opposition can be expected to change if the action and its underlying policy is changed. Ideological-driven opposition, however, is an objection to who you are, and will not change no matter what you do. Put another way, it's the difference in being seen as doing evil things vs. being evil.

[O Really]

So - let's say you've caught a guy you have reason to believe is a part of a group plotting to blow up a bunch of school buses. He's not a citizen, and he's not directly affiliated with any recognized government. You give him a cup of coffee and say, "I'm sorry to disturb you, sir, but we'd like for our kids not to get blown up. Could you tell us who your colleagues are, and where we might find them?" He says something like, "Not in a thousand lifetimes, infidel pig!" You say, "Look, it's really important that we protect these kids. Is there something we could offer you that would entice you to share your knowledge with us?" He goes, "I fart in your general direction - get out of my face or I will taunt you again." You say, "well, sir, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to keep you in our guest house unless we get some help from you. BTW, dinner is served at 7." He goes, "I piss in your guest house, will kill anybody I can reach, and will starve myself instead of eating your infidel slop." Where do you take the interview from there?

[O Really]

We did torture, it was illegal and provided little of value while doing enormous harm to the US. That's your answer.

Not really. That may be one answer as to what is not effective, but the question is, what do you do to him (them) that will get you information to save the kids on buses?

There are several good reasons why torture doesn't work very well, if at all. But I'm inclined to think that excepting the naturally sadistic and those made sadistic by their environment (like at Abu Gharib for example), that torture isn't at the top of the preference list. I'd guess that if they could get information easier, they would do it - ask nice, promise good stuff, threaten (legal) bad stuff, offer money, offer deals on getting loose, plane fare back home, whatever. If they could get them to turn voluntarily, they'd be more likely to get better information and possibly an asset for the future. So, bad boy - whatchagonna do?

[O Really]

All those things that make humanity better off in the long run, even if it means losing a school bus now and then.

Ooffda! That's not one of the answers I would have anticipated.
OK, we'll just tell our suspect, "Thank you, sir, I have no further questions. You're excused to return to your colleagues."

[O Really]

...OK, we'll just tell our suspect, "Thank you, sir, I have no further questions. You're excused to return to your colleagues."

That's not the answer I gave you.

I think you did. I asked what would you do after you've exhausted the positive incentives, the bribes, and the (legal) threats. You said, and I quote, "All those things that make humanity better off in the long run, even if it means losing a school bus now and then." How is that not interpreted as "give up and let them go"?

If, however, that is not a correct interpretation, I'll ask again, what are you going to do with them after they have farted in your general direction on all attempts to gain voluntary cooperation?

[O Really]

If a school bus is at stake no one is ever going to give up and no one is going to be let go just because torture is off the table. You're being silly.

I don't mind being silly, but this isn't one of those occasions. My question remains - you've gotten nothing from positive persuasion, and torture is off the table - whatcha gonna do with this guy you really believe has useful information?

(Or did I take it you find torture acceptable if it's not on a table? Now that's silly)

[O Really]

You extrapolated my opposition to torture to "give up and let them go". That was silly.

We will do what decent societies have always done - keep trying to save those hypothetical kids while respecting the law and human rights and not justifying future terrorism against us by sinking to their level. Your rationale justifies the Inquisition, slave beatings, the Dirty War, Abu Ghraib, SAVAK, Cabanatuan, etc.

I ally myself with the Torture Abolition and Survivor Support Coalition, you ally yourself with Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez.

Explaining is not the same as justifying; understanding is not the same as excusing.

Interesting, though, that the US public seems to find some level of torture or threatened torture to be acceptable in some contexts. There's quite a lot of it on "Scandal" and it's not unusual for TV cops to try to beat or scare information out of suspects. Sure, we know they'd get sued IRL, but still...

[Wneglia]

Yes, I've noticed how many shows and movies justify torture. Sad. Generally, it's presented as being detestable when "bad guys" do it, peachy when "good guys" do it.

Your "the US public" is a bit more mixed than that:

...The 41 percent of respondents who said torture is rarely or never justified are outnumbered by the 47 percent who said it is always or sometimes justified...

JACK IS BACK !

[O Really]

Yes, I've noticed how many shows and movies justify torture. Sad. Generally, it's presented as being detestable when "bad guys" do it, peachy when "good guys" do it.

Your "the US public" is a bit more mixed than that:

...The 41 percent of respondents who said torture is rarely or never justified are outnumbered by the 47 percent who said it is always or sometimes justified...

Nobody ever said a generic reference to "US public" was synonymous with unanimous, or was homogeneous. I'd say though that with only 28% of those polled saying no torture anywhere anytime, that my original observation was correct.