Comments

OmarJune 21, 2013 3:03 PM

Bruce, you make solid points, and they sail right over Lou's head. Lou praises you for your good analogy, but then asks about the motives of this "identifiable" group he doesn't identify. You show the importance of cost/benefits and transparency, and Lou wants to know more about the motives of this unnamed group. Lou invites you back, but never listens to your point to begin with.

You're too smart for cable news.

FionaJune 21, 2013 3:42 PM

I wish I could say I was surprised. Lou Dobbs is kind of a bad journalist / person.

SimonJune 21, 2013 3:53 PM

They didn't allocate enough time for more than a few sound bytes. I didn't get the impression they/he intended to shut you down.

Dobb's is asking a huge question around the 4min mark that could easily expand into an hour.

For example, why are people so upset the gov't is intercepting all their info online, when commercial providers are doing the same? Well, because they are getting some benefit from the latter and because being misclassified by a provider results in perhaps nothing worse than a poorly targeted ad, but misclassified by the former may result in being improperly investigated. So OK, but isn't there but a relatively infinitesimal chance of being misclassified by the gov't on a day when millions are receiving a poorly targeted ad?

I was disappointed the discussion didn't turn to the "refuse to be terrorized" issue, because I don't hear anyone framing overreach in terms of paranoia, only abuse of power. This is unfortunate and you also risk being tuned out when people hear this over and over again without any response to arguments the gov't is not overreaching - they're doing what they must. Besides, if you consider overreach in terms of paranoia it answers far more questions and also serves better to predict what comes next.

JTJune 21, 2013 4:34 PM

The corporation's intent is a whole lot different than the governments. People willingly give their data to a corporation because they have no threat of being persecuted, imprisoned, or killed by those corporations. Well, at least directly.

BruceJune 21, 2013 7:37 PM

Twice, the response should have been to Lou, "Was there a question in there somewhere?"

DaleJune 22, 2013 6:15 AM

wow - he didn't even have the decency to allow you to give a full response to his last "question"....

I'm sure afterwards he went and returned his head to the sand.

I admire those of you who speak and and try to educate the world not content to watch people and their values turn to product.

Clive RobinsonJune 22, 2013 10:02 AM

Hmm, although there is a button for a transcript it appears to be a broken link (It's Fox what do I expect ;-)

But importantly the title was very very loaded,

    Consumer Benefits in Lack of Privacy

I know this trick is older than the legal proffession (ie "Do you still beat your wife?"). But usually most people try to be atleast a little subtal about it...

But if the program is made for what Fox perceives as it's viewer demographic, again what do I expect... After all Fox usually get things badly wrong and as the saying goes "They could not find their ass if they were sitting on their hands".

So judging by what I've seen and some of the comments above I will not bother downloading the video.

After all as some of you will have no doubt seen the UK's GCHQ has tapped the fiber optic back bone at ingress/egress points to the UK. The UK "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) indicates that not just GCHQ, the M.I.s, Police, and any central Government Dept can do this legaly but also even "local councils".

Thus if I did download it some half baked computer algorithm or brain dead office clerk with a fancy job title might mark me down as being politicaly even "further right" than the "Swivel Eyed Loons" who makes the "far right blue rinse nut jobs" in the Tory Party look only slightly worse than rabid dogs and I'd be afraid of receiving invites to Tea...

G van GrijnenJune 22, 2013 2:42 PM

Somehow Lou seems to know that only a very small percentage out of the gigantic database of the NSA is being investigated.

The fact that the NSA has a gigantic database doesn't scare him at all.

G van GrijnenJune 22, 2013 5:21 PM

Somehow I think Lou wants a quiet chat by the fireside to convince Bruce that whatever the US Governmnent does, is for our own good.

MikeAJune 23, 2013 11:11 AM

@Clive

I had a Casablanca Moment around the "Shock" that the GCHQ had tapped the fibers. Are all the folks who have heard of the Zimmerman Telegram too busy tending their roses these days to point out the bleeding obvious?

Dirk PraetJune 23, 2013 7:44 PM

@ Bruce

Over here, we call a condescending TV show host who prefers to do the talking himself instead of letting his guest speak, an entertainer - or a politician - , but definitely not a journalist. It's a chilling reminder of how low US mainstream media have sunk. I'm surprised Dobbs didn't invite Kim Kardashian to give her undoubtedly well-informed opinion on the issue too.

Bob TJune 24, 2013 2:47 PM

It's obvious that Lou had bought into the government narrative that the NSA needs to do this to protect us from terrorists. Sorry Lou, terrorists aren't making their plans on Facebook. The data dragnet is aimed squarely at the American public at large.

fuchikomaJune 24, 2013 3:17 PM

It's sad how most of these pundits just want to have experts on their shows to make them seem more credible and informed, even when they don't listen to a thing their guests say.

Classy move, claiming that private business was way more invasive than government and ending the interview before another word could be said. I guess in his world, government doesn't collect everything the businesses have, and more, or if they do it's to give us "the convenience of not being dead."

If the man hates his freedoms so much, then let him surrender them, but not all of ours as well...

Dirk PraetJune 24, 2013 7:03 PM

@ Bob T

The data dragnet is aimed squarely at the American public at large.

Make that the public at large. Although Alexander, Clapper et all are at least still pretending there is some form of oversight Americans cannot be targeted at random, the rest of the world - including their allies - in their eyes seem to be nothing more than cattle the USG has full jurisdiction over and according to which they have zero rights.

Rest assured that there are many folks in Europe that in the wake of the Snowden revelations are starting to view in a brand new perspective the nation that once delivered us from the nazis and protected us from the Soviets. It's really "Animal Farm" revisited.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..