The AP kerfuffle

[Pamela McCorduck]

Marcus, agreed. Though I'm at the annual AI meeting and think this kind of surveillance may be the new normal.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:34 PM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "I'd be much more interested in hearing what
> Snowden's co-workers and bosses think.  It's too bad he wasn't there long
> enough
> to develop any real relationships with them before he flew off to Hong Kong
> to
> break his oath."
>
> I recall there was an interview late-June with one of his colleagues that
> expressed roughly "I understand but wish he hadn't done it alone."
>
> Sorry I can't find the reference at the moment.  
>
> In any case, the media fixation on this guy's judgement, training, loyalty
> or whatever is moot at this point.  He's a person, so he's flawed.  This
> all may have just been a royal screw-up on his part.  So what?
>
> The issue should be what was disclosed (even if misguided or accidental)
> and how it relates to the constitution of the United States.  It's fine to
> dismiss him as weasel or a mole -- provided collective attention is given
> to these questionable moves at the highest levels of our government.  I'll
> be disappointed if the conclusion is just fascism:  "Do absolutely anything
> to protect U.S. economic interests from harm."
>
> Marcus
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"They feel like they must break the law
in the service of some higher justice.  That's the problem."

Is it that he believed he had to break the law (e.g. was mentally ill) or
that he had to break the law (because the government went off the
reservation).    

Both and neither?  ;-)

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

[hidden email] wrote at 07/15/2013 02:13 PM:
> Is it that he believed he had to break the law (e.g. was mentally ill) or
> that he had to break the law (because the government went off the
> reservation).    
>
> Both and neither?  ;-)

Both, of course.  A) It's a flaw in our ... what? ... in our educational system?
... our child rearing system? ... that we leave people like Snowden behind.  I
can say the same thing about several of the youth I've met over the years ...
very bright but with dullards for teachers and role models.  Ideally, Snowden is
capable enough to put his efforts into within-the-system reform.  If only such
paths were more canalized, more obvious, more clear as he made his various
decisions through his life.

But B) it doesn't matter how bright you are, or how genuine you are, or how
capable you are... in the system we have, one wrong move and you're tin-foil hat
insane or a criminal.  If/when "the law" gets you in their sights, it comes
crashing down on you.  And if you weren't a criminal when it started, you will
be one soon, as you learn to navigate our industrial prison system.  And even if
you navigate your way to a prestigious and relatively powerful position (e.g.
Obama or Wyden), you'll steadily accrue various restraints, be they golden
handcuffs or gray area oaths.

The various constituents of our justice system are too tightly coupled.  There's
not enough "play" or wiggle room for the average Joe to be part of the process.

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
The economic factors are no longer relevant


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"It's a flaw in our ... what? ... in our educational system?
... our child rearing system? ... that we leave people like Snowden behind."

And let loonies like Dick Cheney become vice president.  

As Doug would say, we get what we deserve.

Marcus


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

[hidden email] wrote at 07/15/2013 02:57 PM:
> "It's a flaw in our ... what? ... in our educational system?
> ... our child rearing system? ... that we leave people like Snowden behind."
>
> And let loonies like Dick Cheney become vice president.  

Naaaa.  Labeling Cheney that way is precisely the same thing as labeling Snowden
a traitor.  Cheney was _trained_ ... programmed, by his service with Nixon,
Ford, at Haliburton, etc.  He's no more loony than Snowden.  We groomed him to
become what he was.  It's useless to label him or place blame on him.  It would
be more useful to examine the system in which such a gamer would thrive.

Again, I say this regardless of the "slimy" feeling I get when I think about
Cheney. ;-)

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Somehow must reflect the truth we feel


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

``Labeling Cheney that way is precisely the same thing as labeling Snowden
a traitor.  Cheney was _trained_ ... programmed, by his service with Nixon,
Ford, at Haliburton, etc.  He's no more loony than Snowden.  We groomed him
to
become what he was.  It's useless to label him or place blame on him.''

True.

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen -
> Preamble:
> Politically, I've been interested in the (false?) dichotomy between
> individualism and collectivism.  Professionally, I'm forced to be interested in
> the dichotomy between fields vs. particles, as well as processes vs. objects.  I
> think it's interesting to study the boundary between special cases and general
> trends.  Individualists tend to argue that there is no such thing as "the
> average person", that every case is special.  Collectivists tend to argue that
> large scale patterns do exist and, if harnessed, can lead to economies of scale.
Well said (as usual).

>
> My (slightly facetious) Point:
> It seems to me that with populations of _thousands_ or more for most
> demographics, we're beyond individualism.  We can no longer consider
> individualism a pragmatic approach to any domain.  Choose any demographic...
> from professional gamblers to classic car enthusiasts and you get a
> statistically significant population.  Sure, there remain methodological
> problems like sampling.  But as long as the base population (6 billion?) is so
> high, aren't most special cases arbitrarily approachable with general trends?
>
> And if so, then do we still need/want things like jury trials?  Who cares about
> the specific details of the interactions between Zimmerman and Martin?  Can't we
> just say that Zimmerman is _enough_ like 80% of the upstanding citizens out
> there and Martin is _enough_ like 80% of the disenfranchised teens out there to
> rule without the jury?

I think that is precisely what the general public (and media and policy
people and ... virtually everyone except maybe the immediate family and
friends of Zimmerman and Martin(RIP)) do.  They evaluate the situation
based on their perception of the probabilities, the likelihoods, and the
implications to their specific word views...

I think ultimately this is all the legal system (in the large) can
do...   Perhaps a Jury trial can (it certainly is intended to?) reduce
this, but not eliminate it (especially in the context of media circusing?).

- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 7/15/13 7:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Who cares about the specific details of the interactions between
> Zimmerman and Martin?
Speaking of Zimmerman[n]'s, remember this fine piece of legislation?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102G8pREs:e30557:



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

> I doubt his motives would be consistent with mine.  I do admit that I may not
> know C++ as well as one might infer from my resume'. 8^)  But I would _never_
> (have never) claim(ed) to have attended a university that I didn't actually attend.
I don't know, I think I saw "School of Hard Knocks" listed and I can
attest I've been in that one for over 40 years and never saw you in
class once...   are you trying to say that there are multiple campuses?
<grin>
>


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

The query has expired!

"Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Speaking of Zimmerman[n]'s, remember this fine piece of legislation?
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102G8pREs:e30557:

--
=><= glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

I'm a particularly slow learner. So you're probably in the more advanced classes. I still haven't passed Social Etiquette 101.

Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>I don't know, I think I saw "School of Hard Knocks" listed and I can
>attest I've been in that one for over 40 years and never saw you in
>class once...   are you trying to say that there are multiple campuses?
>
><grin>


--
=><= glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 7/15/13 9:08 PM, glen wrote:
> The query has expired!
>
>
The Man obviously deleted the information out from under me.  :-)

Bill 266, 102nd Congress, Biden Sponsor.
(The terrorism bill that would have treated the free PGP encryption
software as arms trafficking.)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen -
> There need be no selfish upside.  His lies could easily be seen as motivated by
> a delusional disorder.  He may feel like a martyr.  He may feel his chances of
> surviving are greater than they actually are.  ... Whatever.  The point is that
> he saw lying to and about perfectly innocent people as his means to an end.
> Take my point as a comment on our byzantine "rule of law", where laws must be
> broken in order for justice to be done, or take it as naive rhetoric for "two
> wrongs don't make a right."  It doesn't change the fact that Snowden is a weasel.
I don't have enough data to validate or refute this last statement, but
the first interviews actually struck me that he was NOT such a
creature.  I expected him to be, but he did not present that way (though
perhaps that changed in later interviews/statements?).

>
> Now, I happen to be OK with weasels when their actions make our lives, our
> democracy better.  I don't expect people to have infinite foresight or even to
> be ideologically stable.  People make mistakes and, whenever possible, systemic
> causes should be sought before assigning blame to a pure, single cause.
> Persoally, I think Snowden should be welcomed back to the US as a hero, at least
> to some demographic, perhaps in the same way Ollie North is treated these days.
>
> But you can safely bet that I won't be telling any of my secrets to Snowden. 8^)
>   He'll have to steal them (which is not hard, given my lax security).

More to the point, he may already have them, as collected by the NSA.

>> It's intelligence arena; it's all about deception and manipulation. Children
>> need not apply.  It's fine if you think deception and manipulation cannot serve
>> the greater good of the democracy and promoting individual freedom.  But by that
>> standard every competent employee in the intelligence community would be guilty
>> of having that character flaw/feature.
> No, I don't think so.  I actually think the balance between empathy for those
> you've infiltrated and your original mission is a _difficult_ balance.  To paint
> the whole community of spies and undercover cops as having this particular
> character flaw/feature is too broad.  It does a disservice to those who think
> long and hard ... and get professional training regarding ... what it means to
> go undercover.

I met up with a friend from high school about 10 years ago... she had
gone into police science and joined up with a local law-enforcement
crowd after graduation, but eventually distinguished herself as a
"forensic specialist"  and took a job with the "Navy" (wink wink) DC but
her job was to debrief returning "Company" men (and women) while wired
up to her machines.  She spoke in all the veiled, thinly-mis-directed
terms I'd already come to understand about (the tip of the iceberg of)
the Intelligence world so that she wouldn't have to kill me and then off
herself with her cyanide tooth for having divulged state secrets to me.

She told me stories that would raise the hairs on your whole body,
especially the short ones where the electrodes go when they are
torturing, not merely interrogating.     Whe was completely repulsed by
the guys (and maybe a few gals, mostly guys) who came back from
mission...  and could only barely acknowledge that they were *selected
for* their strong wills and nearly (or even fully?) sociopathic
natures... and that *of course* they tried to lie to her about things
they might have seen or done that was "maybe" not their employer's
business.   It isn't hard to imagine that some of these characters live
a pretty depraved life while wielding the power vested in them by their
role (and their sociopathic natures?).

I've also worked with more than a few of these folks after they have
retired from "active field duty" and most of them showed a pretty
sketchy idea of honor and integrity (tended to be biased toward arrogant
militaristic nationalism, and self-serving xenophobia). Of course, that
sample was biased by self-selection (who would work with the likes of me
and mine).

That is not to say that *none* of the field agents in our intelligence
(especially overseas) are highly competent boyscout/choirboys... I'm
sure we have a few who were born with red/white/blue birthmarks,
diapered in the flag, lost their virginity to the statue of liberty, etc...
> O'Keefe and Snowden seem particularly cavalier to me.  They seem very
> agenda-driven and don't have much respect for the humanity of their targets.
I'm not seeing that, but I generally respect your opinion enough to look
a little harder...

I admit to a bias of believing (not without some evidence of my own)
that the US government (and especially the Intell world) is pretty
cavalier about lots of things, and when someone stands up in the middle
of the street and blows a shrill whistle and points at them, I tend to
assume that at least *some* of what they are whistling shrilly at is
real and if they are standing in front of a bus as they do it (Bradley
Manning?) at the time, I tend to discount the accusations that they are
"traitors"... at worst, I think they may be unstable or misguided.

Assange is a grandstander, but that doesn't mean his work is entirely
bogus.  Manning may have been responding partly to his perception of
abuse by the military when he gave Assange & Co the stolen materials he
did, but I think he was doing it with best intentions (whistleblower,
not traitor).  Snowden... I don't have as much data on (haven't kept up
with this one NOR the circus in Florida) yet...  seemed to me to be an
honest whistleblower, even if he does have some delusions of grandeur.  
He *might* be peddling secrets to our enemies (or planning to), but my
intuitino is that he is *not*.

Time will tell.

Or not.

- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen/Marcus

> [hidden email] wrote at 07/15/2013 01:34 PM:
>> In any case, the media fixation on this guy's judgement, training, loyalty
>> or whatever is moot at this point.  He's a person, so he's flawed.  This
>> all may have just been a royal screw-up on his part.  So what?
>>
>> The issue should be what was disclosed (even if misguided or accidental)
>> and how it relates to the constitution of the United States.  It's fine to
>> dismiss him as weasel or a mole -- provided collective attention is given
>> to these questionable moves at the highest levels of our government.
> I disagree.  I think the circumstances surrounding his judgement, training,
> loyalty, etc. is _primary_ at this point.  I have this opinion because I already
> "knew" the government was (or intended to) spy(ing) on my every behavior prior
> to Snowden's actions.  And, frankly, I don't much care.  When my government
> decides to put me in prison or kill me, it will find a way to do it.  Such is life.

I happen to have a hugely split personality, one of which completely
embraces this position.  I find it of high survival for (or reduced
threat to) my ego(2) to think this way.  The other personality is
completely offended by this idea.  Yes, I "knew" the US Gov't was up to
these tricks and I didn't like it *before* Snowden released what he did,
and I have no more reason to like it now.  To whatever extent I believe
that the US Gov't is of/by/for me and the rest of "we the people", this
offends the crap out of me.

> What I do care about, however, is whether or not our government is of/by/for the
> people or not.  The fact that we need people like Snowden (and Manning and
> Swartz) is an indicator that it's not.  And the fact that we label all these
> guys as traitors, terrorists, or criminals for doing the work of the "fourth
> estate" is what's wrong.  Snowden was encouraged to do what he did, in the way
> he did it, by our system of laws and the way we enforce them.  The same can be
> said of lots of do-gooder law breakers (e.g. filming animal abuse at industrial
> farms, medical marijuana growers, etc.). These people feel like they _cannot_
> achieve anything from within the system.  They feel like they must break the law
> in the service of some higher justice.  That's the problem.

That is the problem, but in your own words, "such is life"... I think
maybe there simply cannot be a government (collection of rules and
interpretations and policies for enforcing said rules) that fits the
criteria you imply.  But both Ego(1) and Ego(2) tend to agree with the
sentiment of what you are saying here.
> What Snowden revealed is trivial.  The fact that he had to sacrifice his life to
> reveal it is non-trivial.
Emind me which side of the argument you are on?  Wait, as usual, you
have reframed the arguement so that you can not have to be on both sides
at the same time...  I think this might be more healthy than my own
Ego(n) response.
>> I'll be disappointed if the conclusion is just fascism:  "Do absolutely
>> anything to protect U.S. economic interests from harm."
> Me too.
I'll be smug.  But also disappointed.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

On 7/15/13 9:12 PM, glen wrote:

I'm a particularly slow learner. So you're probably in the more advanced classes. I still haven't passed Social Etiquette 101.

At least once a year I take the remedial courses titled:

Always Lead With your Chin
Telegraph Your Moves to your Opponent.

Maybe you were home schooled or did those by correspondence?

Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:

I don't know, I think I saw "School of Hard Knocks" listed and I can 
attest I've been in that one for over 40 years and never saw you in 
class once...   are you trying to say that there are multiple campuses?

<grin>

--
=><= glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

On 7/15/13 7:44 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 7/15/13 7:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> Who cares about the specific details of the interactions between
>> Zimmerman and Martin?
> Speaking of Zimmerman[n]'s, remember this fine piece of legislation?
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102G8pREs:e30557:
Thanks for giving us the longer-living link, but I don't get the
relevance to Z?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 7/15/13 9:50 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Thanks for giving us the longer-living link, but I don't get the
> relevance to Z?
No relevance to the insufferable Zimmerman topic, in favor of the
Zimmermann history related to the other thread.  (never mind)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Kerfluffling the kerfluffle:

I have tried to ask this in meat-space of numerous people who seem to *need* to condemn Snowden out of hand, generally for not upholding his oath, and usually painting him with the "grandstanding" or "martyr" brush:

How can you promise to keep a secret absolutely until you have heard it?

Once you have promised to keep a secret with best intentions, honor, integrity, what kind of discovery would make you dishonor that promise?

Even if he is grandstanding or martyring, was he exposing secrets that needed/deserved exposing?  Would we all be better off if the (trivial and generally assumed) secret was still held secret?

As I've said before here, this is not academic for me.  I have given oaths of this type and I have been exposed to secrets, some of which offended me more than mildly.  I chose not to let that offense overrule my promise but can easily imagine an escalation to the point where I would rather risk torture and death than keep the secret.  The same honor that allowed me to make the promise seriously and to keep it even when it was uncomfortable would compel me to break it.

Does this make any sense to anyone but me?   Or is this just another example of me having signed up for the School of Hard Knocks?   Nobody I ever worked with who had various high clearances seemed to be able to acknowledge that their honor might *require* them to break their oath?   Is it that hard of a concept or did they not understand the nature of "honor" in the first place?

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

On 7/15/13 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 7/15/13 9:50 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> Thanks for giving us the longer-living link, but I don't get the
>> relevance to Z?
> No relevance to the insufferable Zimmerman topic, in favor of the
> Zimmermann history related to the other thread.  (never mind)
Got it...  I thought maybe.

I remember enduring the OJ trial and I'm afraid this feels the same.

My sympathies lie toward believing that Zimmerman(n?) was an overzealous
jerk who put himself in an untenable situation and got away with it by a
quirk of the legal and media systems.  I suspect that Martin was not
without blame in the situation (responding to an overly agressive
self-appointed vigilante with violence?) but not deserving to lose his
life over it.   I also have sympathy for the post-trial Zimmermann...
he's the one who will have to live with knowing his part in the thing,
and knowing that he pulled a fast one on the public/system to some
extent.   The stories of his getting back his handgun (and concealed
carry permit) because he is in "more danger than" ever smacks of poetic
justice.

If I'm wrong and Zimmermann was just an honest, caring citizen of his
neighborhood, protecting them against real threats and he walked into a
situation he wasn't fully prepared for and was forced to use deadly
force against a dangerous foe who would have killed him (and continued
on to do whatever violent or antisocial act he was in process of acting
out when stopped by him), then Zimmermann is the martyr and will at
least live out his life of newly paranoia-inducing circumstances
righteously.   Somehow I don't think so.



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 7/15/13 10:05 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> On 7/15/13 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
>> On 7/15/13 9:50 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>> Thanks for giving us the longer-living link, but I don't get the
>>> relevance to Z?
>> No relevance to the insufferable Zimmerman topic, in favor of the
>> Zimmermann history related to the other thread.  (never mind)
> Got it...  I thought maybe.
>
For others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann

As far as I'm concerned GZ's case is not worthy of national coverage.  
CNN or Huffington Post have `human interest' stories interleaved with
their copied AP stories.  Dogs that ride bicycles, etc.   It's  that.  
Sit in the municipal court waiting room for a while and you'll hear worse.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com