The AP kerfuffle
Locked
1234567
1234567
Re: fluid - network - molecules (was PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc)
 
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/background/index.html "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> 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) - -- glen ep ropella 971-255-2847 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.0.8 iHIEAREIADIFAlHkzHUrHGdsZW4gZS4gcC4gcm9wZWxsYSA8Z2VwckB0ZW1wdXNk aWN0dW0uY29tPgAKCRClUlkwegagz9rcAJ0ZHXDBZG9Frv25m9qt506rGOX3XQCf dvs+n9tINSPIwfHQeB93kBCdqzw= =zG4q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ 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 |
Re: fluid - network - molecules (was PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
> > 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. When I worked as a PI I was required to sit through worse... to be put on the stand and asked inane questions by both sides, then ignored, and told to "answer the question!" by the judge while nobody was interested in anything real, except me (and the defendant usually), and then only barely (after the first few hazings). I don't respect courtrooms much anymore. Add media and the zoo becomes a circus worthy of Roman spectacle. ============================================================ 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 |
Re: fluid - network - molecules (was PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
OK... I finally caught up... (I think)...
Who's the slow learner? > 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 7/15/13 9:59 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 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? No one is going to go on the record over a subjective concept like honor. They're probably afraid to respond if the question is posed in non-specific way and they aren't sure if its treatment would be clearly treated by classification rules; they don't want people to get the impression they don't take it seriously. 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Not to veer off subject, but it is a bit creepy the way the government and telecom companies are colluding to monitor everybodys communications. Do you think they would still be doing this if we the people were permitted to wire-tap government and corporate offices? Especially government offices since they are suposed to be public servants in the first place. I meen look at all of those nasty emails that came out of new mexico governors office during the email- gate scandal, and that was tiny, imagine if we were able to actually wiretap the pentagon or something.
Cody Smith On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: I'm a particularly slow learner. So you're probably in the more advanced classes. I still haven't passed Social Etiquette 101. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
> On 7/15/13 9:59 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> 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? > No one is going to go on the record over a subjective concept like > honor. They're probably afraid to respond if the question is posed in > non-specific way and they aren't sure if its treatment would be > clearly treated by classification rules; they don't want people to get > the impression they don't take it seriously. I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations for treason, and I am incriminating myself when I say that I once broke my oath and effectively told a moderately important (but obscure) nuclear secret. Our friend Steve Younger made me painfully aware of my transgression the next day in an all-hands speech (collective berating?) he gave. He reminded us (before Admiral Peter G. Nanos brought us butthead/cowboy) that to divulge (nuclear) secrets was punishable by death and that even to "confirm or deny" something stated in the open, among uncleared individuals (or even cleared? individuals without a need to know) was equal to telling the secret. I had been sitting in a hot tub the night before with some uncleared folks who had plenty of (uninformed) bones to pick with LANL, the DOE and pretty much all of science and maybe even logic itself. There was a totally uninformed, inane conversation, but at one point someone said something acutely inane and I couldn't help myself, I *SNORTED* and the tub went quiet. People knew I was in a position to potentially know the factuality of what they were talking about. Listening to Younger berate us for something we hadn't done, I realized I had just done exactly that. I had confirmed a nuclear secret by denying an inane comment about it in a totally informal setting. Factually, I don't think anyone else in the hot-tub had the background to have a clue of the import of my snort, only that I very viscerally and directly announced something that if they'd been clue-full in those ways, might have been meaningful if not particularly useful to "our enemies". This sobered me on several fronts. First, I realized I had thoughtlessly and frivolously betrayed my oath and honor (albeit unintentionally). Second, I realized that while I made a good salary, there was no "hazard pay" associated with the threat to my life (capital punishment) implied by my work. Third, the secret in question was pretty obscure and in some ways inane itself. All in all, I did not worry that in practice I would ever be held accountable. I knew that nobody there knew what I was snorting about really. I knew that nobody who cared knew that I'd snorted. I trusted that if they did, they would recognize point 1) and that it was "innocent" on my part. I trusted that even if they got a little bent about it, it would be a reprimand, not even a loss of clearance much less job, liberty or life. Nevertheless, it made me acutely aware of where I was, what those things I knew meant, etc. I'm sure I wasn't the first or only one to do such a thing. I wonder what would have happened if I'd had to go under polygraph and I was asked if I'd ever divulged a secret? And I was *still* willing to ask the questions... (refer to my to-fro with Glen about "hard knocks"). I admit it is easier to answer (think about) if you in fact have not made such oaths (with such stakes involved). Maybe my willingness to talk (think?) about such things makes me a security risk. I gave up the job 5 years ago and the clearance 3... I don't miss either (well, that regular paycheck was kinda handy... but ...)... - 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 |
|
|
>>> 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? >> No one is going to go on the record over a subjective concept like >> honor. They're probably afraid to respond if the question is posed >> in non-specific way and they aren't sure if its treatment would be >> clearly treated by classification rules; they don't want people to >> get the impression they don't take it seriously. So... can anyone here give a hypothetical answer to my hypothetical question? Can honor ever trump oath? Using the Snowden case as an example (whose factual details may or may not apply, but in fact *might*). To make it less subjective or more specific: If you promised (took an oath) not to reveal anything declared "Secret" in the course of your employment for say ... Booz-Allen-Hamilton... while working on... say... NSA projects... and you find out that ... say.... the NSA is doing precisely something they are prohibited by law from doing which directly contradicts the Constitution (in the form of the 4th amendment), and they are doing it sweepingly and as a matter of agency-wide policy and apparently with the full knowledge of the rest of the Intelligence community as well as the entire staff in the White House, including and especially the President... My only excuses (to my conscience) for NOT speaking up might be: I am not sure I understand the entirety of the situation This fact, while technically dead-nuts wrong, is not really that important (everybody suspects and are not railing against it already?) I don't know Snowden's motives, but if I found myself in his shoes (pre-disclosure) I could very well be huddling in the Moscow Airport waiting for an offer of asylum and a mechanism to move into the care and protection of said government. Or more likely sitting in prison, listening to the wild hype being thrown around for/against me. I feel (now) like I dodged a bullet... I *was* careful what I exposed myself to (especially facts about specific current affairs, and controversial agency(s) policies) lest I end up in Snowden's Orange Jumpsuit. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by cody dooderson
Dooderson -
Right on the mark. It has been suggested that one's privacy might be made to be reciprocal to one's power... the more power you have, the less privacy, and vice-versa. I think this was fairly natural at one time in history. Peons had relatively private lives if for no other reason than nobody gave a flying flip about them. Technology seems to have helped in inverting that relationship. Celebrities feel this somewhat. When they speak, millions listen, and when they fart, or have a "wardrobe failure", we all hear about it within hours. The bulk of the Manning/Assange disclosures (that I'm interested in) did just that, they exposed the "secret" communications to/from/between US Embassies which were more *embarassing* than actionable. It was both highly responsible and disengenous at the same time to release *only* those which were primarily embarassing. And yet we have candidates for the highest office in the land who avoid sharing their tax returns with us. I can't refinance my house without sharing my tax returns! Yes, things are a bit askew. - 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 |
Re: PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 7/15/13 11:32 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> My only excuses (to my conscience) for NOT speaking up might be: > [..] > This fact, while technically dead-nuts wrong, is not really that > important > (everybody suspects and are not railing against it already?) The paradox: A conscience is a security risk. It's absence is a security risk. 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 |
|
|
My only excuses (to my conscience) for NOT speaking up might be:The paradox: A conscience is a security risk. It's absence is a security risk. Well said... ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 07/15/2013 10:32 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Can honor ever trump oath? I think your question is unanswerable, not because of lack of context, but because both "honor" and "oaths" are ideals, not real things. And the answers to questions about ideals are always just as idealistic as the questions ... which means they're ultimately meaningless. What matters more, I think are the expected outcomes of potential actions. In the Snowden example, what outcomes are possible then probable if you leak? What outcomes are possible then probable if you don't leak. Once you've got a decent handle on that tree, then you can prioritize those outcomes. The highest priority, most probable outcome is the one you should work toward. And if that means you leak, then you leak. One thing I think is missing from the Snowden case that might have been present in other cases is that our military industrial complex has plenty of _experts_ in such "what if" methods. And that's part of why I classify Snowden with O'Keefe. I see no evidence Snowden engaged in any significant effort to explore the outcomes tree. If I saw that evidence, I would likely change my mind about him. But, as it stands, I see an agenda-driven child who lies to get a position, then almost _immediately_ grabs the documents and runs. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella But my fuse gets shorter every day ============================================================ 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 |
Re: PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"If I saw that
evidence, I would likely change my mind about him. But, as it stands, I see an agenda-driven child who lies to get a position, then almost _immediately_ grabs the documents and runs." What does "agenda-driven" add to your point? It seems to me if you substitute "purposeless" it would be more damning. 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 |
|
|
[hidden email] wrote at 07/16/2013 08:30 AM:
> What does "agenda-driven" add to your point? It seems to me if you > substitute "purposeless" it would be more damning. It's an indicator that I think he purposefully sought the BAH job just so that he could gain access to evidence of PRISM, and just so that he could then quit the job and leak the evidence. I use the term merely for emphasis, to make an assertion that he intended to find and leak this data all along. I assert he never had any intention of fulfilling any duty to BAH or its contractors. I couldn't use "purposeless". Nobody I've ever known is ever purposeless. But most people are driven by a dynamic complex of competing agendas, including the kinds of conflict Steve asks about in his honor/oath question. Snowden, like O'Keefe, _seems_ to me to be absent any interesting complex of agendas. I will be happy if/when I learn of his other agendas. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella They teach us how to wiggle ============================================================ 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 |
Re: PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"But most people are driven by a dynamic complex of competing agendas, including the kinds of conflict Steve asks about in his honor/oath question. Snowden, like O'Keefe, _seems_ to me to be absent any interesting complex of agendas." A contrary view is that only young people have a clear enough view of things to act this way. Old timers like me rationalize their fears, inhibitions, constraints, and coping strategies as a proxy for wisdom. Worse, we may point to the collective wisdom as better than an informed individual's analysis. Same thing as authoritarianism. 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 |
|
|
Marcus -
> "But most people are driven by a dynamic complex of competing agendas, > including the kinds of conflict Steve asks about in his honor/oath > question. Snowden, like > O'Keefe, _seems_ to me to be absent any interesting complex of agendas." > > A contrary view is that only young people have a clear enough view of > things to act this way. Old timers like me rationalize their fears, > inhibitions, constraints, and coping strategies as a proxy for wisdom. > Worse, we may point to the collective wisdom as better than an informed > individual's analysis. Same thing as authoritarianism. > > Marcus No, seriously, this back and forth between you and Glen is very illuminating from my perspective. It is probably precisely what drove some folks from the list, but it warms my dark old soul to hear this kind of relative perspective being bandied about so deftly. - 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
> [hidden email] wrote at 07/16/2013 08:30 AM: >> What does "agenda-driven" add to your point? It seems to me if you >> substitute "purposeless" it would be more damning. > It's an indicator that I think he purposefully sought the BAH job just so that > he could gain access to evidence of PRISM, and just so that he could then quit > the job and leak the evidence. I use the term merely for emphasis, to make an > assertion that he intended to find and leak this data all along. I assert he > never had any intention of fulfilling any duty to BAH or its contractors. > > I couldn't use "purposeless". Nobody I've ever known is ever purposeless. But > most people are driven by a dynamic complex of competing agendas, including the > kinds of conflict Steve asks about in his honor/oath question. Snowden, like > O'Keefe, _seems_ to me to be absent any interesting complex of agendas. I will > be happy if/when I learn of his other agendas. didn't follow the myriad announcements and interviews as they rolled out and going through them after the fact has some specific charms (according to Clemens who professed to read the newspaper two weeks late) but I haven't gotten down to it yet. Disclaimer aside, I still don't hear Snowden as being *that* pre-meditated. He *may* in his self-aggrandizement suggest he was, but I'm hearing something else... I hear your (Glen's) behaviourist bent (especially when confronted with my idealist one), and defer to it partway. I think Ideals (honor, oath) are very *real* if only in the minds of those who idealize them. Those two things mean something very specific and strong to me and they are where "the buck stops" for me in some situations. While I may be very pragmatic about the fine grain organization of my priorities, I am not particularly pragmatic at all when it comes to the large grain stuff, and I would submit to you as Exhibit A, One Glen Ropella who can't (by his own declaration) seem to get through Social Ettiquete 101 in the OldSkool of hard knocking around. What is that about? It is certainly not (or not obvious to me) about careful evaluation of consequence trees... It looks a lot like the adherence to an ideal (and/or aspect of self-image?). My rear-view mirror is littered with the wreckage of where my "Ideals" (which you contend don't exist?) defined my actions, running over "pragmatism" (another ideal?) over and over. You could say that I never broke my oath (except in that one unfortunate faux pas in the hot tub) because I knew the (external) consequences and chose to avoid them by avoiding taking that fork in the path. I grant you that I did evaluate the (internal) consequences. "Who would I be, if I broke this oath?" was at least as important as "what would they do to me if I broke this oath?" of course I didn't want to be charged with felony treason nor did I want to see the global balance of superpower get tweaked off it's precessing axes, nor see some upstart (think Kim Jong) get any tiny advantage. But first and foremost, I didn't want to step off the side of that slippery slope of thinking that I could say one thing and do another on a whim. Perhaps I project too much, but I have a hard time NOT imagining Snowden thinking the same thing "who would I be if I did not take this one trivial almost non-fact from below the table and put it above the table?" From what little I know about it all, I suspect *I* would NOT have spoken up, the truth he exposed feels a bit too trivial to be worth the consequences (external and internal) but he and I are clearly very different people. Do you deny that people (egos) operate strongly on maintaining the integrity of their feedback loop of their self-image? Some people do this by soliciting reinforcing feedback from others. Some do it by talking out loud to themselves a lot (like I do here, pretending I'm talking to the rest of you). And some do it by picking an idealized spot (or set of spots) on the idealism horizon and keeping their compass trained on them as they navigate the heavy weather of modern life. Or all three? I don't mean this as argumentative as much as provocative... I find your (Glen) view of human nature very interesting and it often helps to fill out some of the holes in my own, and sometimes even shifts my own a little. And I'm finding Marcus' counterpoint equally useful here. - 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 |
|
|
What I don't understand is why Snowden went public using his real identity. Why not just be the "Deep Throat" of the intelligence community? Surely he could have divulged just enough to whet the appetite of the some select journalists without being the only one to have access to the information, thus giving himself deniability.
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 7/16/13 11:18 AM, Gary Schiltz
wrote:
Gary -What I don't understand is why Snowden went public using his real identity. Why not just be the "Deep Throat" of the intelligence community? Surely he could have divulged just enough to whet the appetite of the some select journalists without being the only one to have access to the information, thus giving himself deniability. I too have contemplated this. My answer is complicated:
- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
[hidden email] wrote at 07/16/2013 09:21 AM:
> A contrary view is that only young people have a clear enough view of > things to act this way. That's possible. It takes a certain _lack_ of general intelligence to jump ahead, willy nilly, into some series of actions. The lulzsec guys come to mind, here. Yet, there is definitely a specific intelligence at work. If Snowden's focus was limited as I assert, then, on the one hand, I laud him in his achievement. I wasn't that conscious, purposeful, or even that conscientious when I was his age. And there's no way I could have been that _fast_, even had I wanted to do what he did. I'm not smart enough (generally or specifically). On the other hand, if what they say about his life is true, he shows a remarkable _inability_ to complete anything he starts. He seems to be a serial quitter, to me. Now, I admit, that's my drill sergeant dad yapping through me from the grave. But, taken together with the other information, it seems more likely that he simply acts rashly and impulsively, rather than according to some kind of "clear view of things". I suspect that had he not seen a clear and easy path to the PRISM evidence, or had some difficult hurdles been placed in front of him, he would have simply moved on to whatever next sparkly object caught his eye. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella International Business Machine ============================================================ 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 |
Re: PRISM/AP kerfluffle, etc
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"4. Other stuff" The giant dragnet that would be underway for months at the NSA, torturing everyone he worked with. 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |