DoJ to Snowden: Hope your 15 minutes were worth it, pal

[Iormlund]

You had me going a bit until you mentioned "illness".  Collectively, those things you mentioned get billions more spent on them that the "Fight against Terrorism" does. You took hyperbole a little too far there.

Take a second to consider the amount of victims of terrorism. Then the amount of public money spent preventing it.
Now compare the same ratio for, say, cancer research.

[Iormlund]

But were you poor?

No

[Neil]

Spain never panics about terror.  Until some trains blow up and they elect their surrender party.

[Neil]

But were you poor?

No

Why are you ashamed about that?

[Iormlund]

It seems really important around here.

[Syt]

elaborate how it is different.

It's not tapping the phone of every person in the US.  It's looking to see if someone makes a bunch of calls to Taliban Central HR in North Waziristan then getting a warrant to tap their phone based on that.

The phone part, yes. You are, however, conveniently ignoring the part where they have billions upon billions of MONTHLY log entries of net traffic from and through the States.

Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

[Agelastus]

You had me going a bit until you mentioned "illness".  Collectively, those things you mentioned get billions more spent on them that the "Fight against Terrorism" does. You took hyperbole a little too far there.

Take a second to consider the amount of victims of terrorism. Then the amount of public money spent preventing it.
Now compare the same ratio for, say, cancer research.

Actual victims or potential victims? Would you be saying something similar if one of the "worst case" scenarios involving biological or nuclear terrorism occurred?

Anyway, the UK spends at least £5 billion per year on Cancer treatment and research, far more than the portion of the police, defence and security services budget spent directly on or solely because of terrorism. Now, given the actual victims of terrorism that is, indeed a very skewed looking ratio; when you consider the potential victims however it's nowhere near as bad.

[Admiral Yi]

There's also the notion that providing security is the one indispensible service the state provides.

[Tamas]

There's also the notion that providing security is the one indispensible service the state provides.

The Stalinist, or even milder authocratic systems provide swift and decisive punishment on petty crimes, not to mention the prevention involved thanks to the wide-ranging powers the police has for harassing people who, say, dress funny, or appear like a potential thief or anything.

That doesn't mean we are okay with dictatorship.

[Admiral Yi]

That doesn't mean we are okay with dictatorship.

Agreed.  But you missed my point.  I was comparing security with cancer research as an effective use of public funds.

[Tamas]

That doesn't mean we are okay with dictatorship.

Agreed.  But you missed my point.  I was comparing security with cancer research as an effective use of public funds.

Ah, right.

But hyperbole aside Iorm's point stands. Government-led public discussion has terrorism as the most engrossing danger an individual can face in modern society, and thus it is okay to build 1984 on it. And it works marvelously, just look at how everybody is fine with what has been leaked.

However, reality is, that while terrorism is something that should be contained and certainly the geopolitical challenge of our generation, it is an extremely unlikely threat to any given individual.

[crazy canuck]

But hyperbole aside Iorm's point stands. Government-led public discussion has terrorism as the most engrossing danger an individual can face in modern society, and thus it is okay to build 1984 on it.

You put hyperbole aside and then engaged in it yourself.

[Valmy]

Funny (and sad) to see how utterly successful it has been to steer public discussion away from the hideous facts he published to his person.

It is hard not to be cynical about it.  I mean the cry before was that the wikileaks stuff was all irresponsible and it would be alright if somebody just gave the stuff to a responsible mainstream news source...well it seems even if you do that you still have to attain a level of absolute purity.  It is an impossible standard, which is exactly the point.  Fortunately there are plenty of right thinking people left in this country and now I wait to see how the coming legal action goes and how the politics work themselves out.

Not all that hopeful, good news for the good guys is hard to find these days.

[Valmy]

Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

Well that really is the thing isn't it?  Even if the US government rolls this stuff back there will be plenty of other people doing it for them, both in the private sector and other governments.  Ah hello to the brave new world.

[CountDeMoney]

Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

Well that really is the thing isn't it?  Even if the US government rolls this stuff back there will be plenty of other people doing it for them, both in the private sector and other governments.  Ah hello to the brave new world.

People are acting like this is some sort of new development, simply because of the technology.