Secrecy and Privacy
Interesting article on the history of, and the relationship between, secrecy and privacy.
As a matter of historical analysis, the relationship between secrecy and privacy can be stated in an axiom: the defense of privacy follows, and never precedes, the emergence of new technologies for the exposure of secrets. In other words, the case for privacy always comes too late. The horse is out of the barn. The post office has opened your mail. Your photograph is on Facebook. Google already knows that, notwithstanding your demographic, you hate kale.
Carpe_Noctem • June 26, 2013 3:51 PM
“This, then, is the reasoning of the partisans of mystery,” Bentham wrote. “ ‘You are incapable of judging, because you are ignorant; and you shall remain ignorant, that you may be incapable of judging.’ ”
This is what it really boils down to. The public has been deemed too stupid to participate in it’s own governance, and is therefore being excluded. It is quite obvious to me that massively unconstitutional operations have become the status quo for longer than many of us are willing to realize.
Now, the one argument which has been touched upon by you Bruce, but I have yet to hear almost anywhere else, is that this pervasive privacy invading technology is inevitable, and that we are merely seeking to dominate the field before other entrants (such as China, or Russia). In the end though, I think the argument falls flat, for the simple reason that we COULD, if we so chose, spend all the efforts now put towards surveillance, backdoors and secret side-channel attacks, into plugging up those holes in order to create a more secure society.
Here is the rub though, the goal for those in power never was to secure society! We have to stop coming at it from this perspective. Those in power are seeking to amalgamate that power. For example, Sibel Edmonds recent reported that she knew an FBI insider who said his responsibility was to review potential judge appointees, and that he was instructed to remove from the list any judge who was “clean”, because dirty judges could be controlled. Russell Tice recently revealed that he held in his hands in 2004 the papers to tap a handful of numbers of a then potential senator… then one who now resides in the White House!
This massive shift in technology has allowed a shift in the speed in which power seeks to centralize itself. I truly believe this is THE conversation that needs to be had above all others, lest we be doomed to be pondering about “security” while, as a Bush aide put it, the powers will continue to act and we the public (and the security community) “will be left to just study what we [they] do.”
So what can we do? The three branches have effectively melded into one, and never seriously challenge each others powers. Congress is corrupt, and corporations are the peddlers of that corruption. Elections are a corrupt process, and every other process supposedly to be used for redress of grievance is completely ineffective. Petitions? A joke. Protest? Easily dispersed.
The most likely, but still unlikely way forward would be to have a massive shift in congress, throwing out incumbents and putting in place people not afraid of the system. I expect a few more assassinations on American soil…but even if we managed that, by the time it happened, would the Military Industrial Congressional Corporation Complex be too powerful to reign in?
From an objective realistic analysis, things are not looking good. Would really like some comment on this Bruce, if you have the time.