Chomsky: Fight back against NSA spying or be 'complicit'

[Indi Guy]

Source: PC World

Now that the extent of the U.S. National Security Agency’s surveillance programs has been exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it’s beholden on the public to fight back or else find themselves “complicit” in the activities, according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguistics professor and philosopher Noam Chomsky.

The freedoms U.S. citizens have “weren’t granted by gifts from above,” Chomsky said during a panel discussion Friday at MIT. “They were won by popular struggle.” While U.S. officials have long cited national security as a rationale for domestic surveillance programs, that same argument has been used by the “most monstrous systems” in history, such as the Stasi secret police in the former East Germany, Chomsky said.

“The difference with the totalitarian states is the citizens couldn’t do a lot about it,” in contrast to the U.S., he added. “If we do not expose the plea of security and separate the parts that are valid from the parts that are not valid, then we are complicit.”

He cited the still-in-development Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which critics say could have far-reaching implications for Internet use and intellectual property. Wikileaks recently posted a draft of the treaty’s chapter on intellectual property. Now that the information is out there, “we can do something about [the proposed TPP],” Chomsky said...



Read more: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2064220/chomsky-fight-back-against-nsa-spying-or-be-complicit.html

[pothos]

1. very few people give a shit

noam is right on, but very few people actually care. they are more content to watch honey boo boo and upload their entire life into facebook.

[Indi Guy]

2. pothos, welcome to DU...

While I understand your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion. People are outraged by the lengths the spooks have gone to in gathering our "data."

Many of us still revere our Constitutionally (lawfully) guaranteed rights, and I believe that the momentum is on our side to see the unraveling of the Patriot Act and many of the excesses that followed -- including the wholesale dragnetting of our electronic communications.

[billhicks76]

3. The Plan

The plan has been to dumb down the population all along over time. Then they will give up their rights, freedom and success willingly.

[newfie11]

9. I agree with you

The folks I know are busy with their lives and for the most part have no idea what's going on with NSA. Their to busy with work and children AND the media is worthless.

[Ghost Dog]

18. ... And keep on taking the meds, so I understand;

the soma.

[ucrdem]

4. The guy from MIT is telling us to fight back against the NSA.

Hypocrisy thy name is Noamsky.

[ronnie624]

5. Can you elaborate? n/t

[Posteritatis]

25. Probably thinks anyone at MIT is a CS type and therefore The Man, or something equally dumb. (nt)

[carla]

10. That he is

a professor who actually knows of what he speaks invalidates your cynicism. What have you done in the struggle for our rights? Oh, nothing? What a surprise. Chomsky is right and you need to cogitate before posting, IMO.

[Ed Suspicious]

12. Universities are pretty big places. When a tenured professor with the stature of Chomsky calls out

a product of some of those who work for his employer it isn't hypocrisy, it's a blessing and a check & balance.

[LuckyLib]

28. And the fact that he is tenured means he can call out academe for its complicit contributions to

moving us toward the police state.

[FatBuddy]

13. heavens to betsy

how can you ever trust someone with all that fancy book learnin'?

[L0oniX]

15. Oh look ...someone on DU is defending the NSA. Well isn't that special.

[Indi Guy]

34. ...

Noam Chomsky - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

[ronnie624]

6. “We can be confident that any system of power

is going to try to use the best available technology to control and dominate and maximize their power,” Chomsky said. “We can also be confident ... that they want to do it in secret.”

Why is this simple, basic truth--borne out by thousands of years of recorded history--not obvious to more people?

[Titonwan]

11. Mass media propaganda

Josef knew this and other scum learned the tricks (Murdoch, Hearst et al).
Honey Boo Boo isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[Maedhros]

17. We didn't just steal rocket scientists from the collapsing Third Reich.

We also brought on board many of their propagandists as well. Helped streamline Madison Avenue's operations.

[Ghost Dog]

19. Not just propaganda; some elements of the political philosophy.

eg. via Schmitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Encounters_with_Schmitt_and_Koj.C3.A8ve

Writing to Schmitt in 1932, Strauss summarised Schmitt's political theology that "because man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against - against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."[20]

[reACTIONary]

21. Not only is it obvious to everyone, it is also...

... useful to everyone. The ability to keep secretes within a group or organization protects that group from others and gives them an advantage over others - creates a power differential.

Families keep secretes.

Companies keep trade secretes. And try to learn the secretes of other companies.

Countries, of course, keep secretes and attempt to learn those of other countries.

All to the benefit of the people of the group, organization, company or country.

“If we do not expose the plea of security and separate the parts that are valid from the parts that are not valid, then we are complicit.”

Note that Chomsky believes that there are VALID reasons for secrecy in support of security.

[Demo_Chris]

7. How?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Get your representatives to support the Leahy-Sensenbrenner bill, not the Feinstein one

Kevin Bankston, the director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said there are two main bills his group is watching at this point:

The first, from Leahy, would completely overhaul the NSA surveillance program, ending the practice of so-called “bulk collection” of communication records by requiring the government to justify the records’ relevance to terror investigations. Privacy groups like the bill and it’s received bipartisan support on the hill. (Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner, who wrote the Patriot Act, introduced the House version.) Bankston called the bill a “collection of very meaningful reforms,” and the tech industry is generally supportive as well.

The other bill, from Sen. Diane Feinstein, has received far fewer plaudits. Her bill would codify the NSA’s surveillance programs but attach some transparency provisions to it. Privacy and tech groups from the ACLU to the Electronic Frontier Foundation have slammed the bill, but the Senate Intelligence Committee approved it last month.

(The Washington Post put together a good story looking at the differences between these approaches, either signing off on the spying program or undoing it.)

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2013/11/franken-pushes-surveillance-transparency-bill-congress-weighs-its-options

[idwiyo]

8. k&r

[baldguy]

16. Sounds a little too much like "You're either with us, or you're against us."

Painting your friends & allies with the same broad brush you're painting your enemies with just helps your enemies.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.

[reACTIONary]

22. Note that Chomsky makes a significant qualification...

“If we do not expose the plea of security and separate the parts that are valid from the parts that are not valid, then we are complicit.”

Apparently Chomsky believes that there are VALID reasons for secrecy in support of security. And that, of course, is the case.

Of course, what is and is not a valid concern or a needed policy is a matter of judgment, opinion and debate. Don't be surprised if not everyone would draw the line where you do.

[Maedhros]

23. I don't think anyone is arguing that nothing should be secret.

What is alarming is that our country has drifted into a situation in which nearly everything the Government does is secret - Cheney's energy policy meetings, the TPP negotiations, the legal rationale for the drone wars - but the protections for the privacy of individuals are being systematically destroyed.

This has been the trend for decades, but since 2001 it has accelerated and it is currently at its most pronounced. The current Administration has classified far more documents than any had previously. The current Administration is attempting to criminalize adversarial journalism. The current Administration is pushing to fast-track the secretly-negotiated TPP. And there is no evidence to suggest that the next Administration, whether it is Democratic or Republican, will take any measures to reverse the trend.

There is room for an argument over what should and should not be kept secret by the Government, but the real problem is the big question: what is our Government becoming? What is it now?

[reACTIONary]

24. You ask very reasonable questions...

... and have a very reasonable perspective.

I don't think the administration is attempting to criminalize adversarial journalism. Holder just recently stated that Justice is not considering prosecution of Glenn Greenwald and doesn't think he committed a crime. The Justice department tapped the AP's phones, but did so to find and prosecute the government employee who divulged classified information, not to arrest and prosecute the reporters who published it. There is also serious consideration of a federal shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act, although I don't know what its current status is.

I'm as much in the dark about the content of the TPP as everyone else is, so I don't know to what extent I agree or disagree with it. I do, however, support the process that is being employed - this is basically because I support effective government, and unfortunately our government hasn't been very effective lately.

I consider this process to be an extension of representative government and majority rule. Nearly everyone realizes that it would be impossible to govern even a small country through direct democracy and universal consensus. Nothing would ever get done collectively. So we adopt majority rule, which means ignoring a lot of the dissenting voices, and representation, which means turning over decision making authority to a smallish group of experts and specialists. Even within the more restricted context of our legislative bodies, a division of labor is necessary, with committees focusing on narrow areas of expertise and making judgments about what the larger body even gets a chance to vote on.

And still it doesn't work!!!! Congress is not exactly a "can do, get 'er done" sort of institution.

Parliamentary governance seems to work more effectively, but we don't have that - instead, we have a deliberately adversarial system that doesn't work very effectively without a strong consensus across four different governing bodies. (I'm counting the house and the senate as two, and I'm including the SCOTUS even through its a bit weak and only gets a say after the fact.)

So, the solution has been to extend the "committee" idea further and further. A base-closing committee or a deficit reduction super committee followed by a general, but limited vote. The "fast track" procedure is a variant on this, and without it, we wouldn't have any trade agreements at all. Because we wouldn't be able to come to any agreement amongst ourselves.

[Maedhros]

26. The TPP is "effective government?"

From a certain perspective, I suppose.

[reACTIONary]

27. Sad. But basically true. (nt)

[Maedhros]

29. Efficient for the oppressor class. [n/t]

[reACTIONary]

30. And as those of us who are opressed and downtroden well know...

...it beats the alternative. Totally.

[Maedhros]

31. Just WTF are you talking about? Alternative to what?

The TPP is utter, complete bullshit no matter which party's president is pimping it.

[reACTIONary]

32. To liberal, democratic governence....

... and the processes necessary to its effective functioning. As you may be aware, there are more than a few self-styled "anarchists" here on DU who are opposed to liberal, democratic governance, as it actually exists and functions. Chomsky is a self-styled anarchist. And for the most part those of us who make up the oppressed masses are quite certain that our liberal, democratic oppressors are much, much more competent at practical management of the national interest and general welfare than whatever it is our would be "anarchist liberators" have in store for us.

[Maedhros]

33. I get it.

The TPP is "practical management of the national interest?"

I have no words that won't get me reported.

[reACTIONary]

35. Relax. As long as you are...

...cursing the TPP, and not a fellow DUer, no one will get very upset. Of course, I have my own opinion .

However, I was not advocating the TPP - I only brought it up because it is current and an example of the "Fast Track" procedure. Fast Track is useful for coming to "legislative closure," so to speak, but it may result in legislation that is both agreeable or disagreeable to those of any ideological perspective.

[woo me with science]

36. kick