more on Who they're spying on

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie () frontiernet net>
Date: June 11, 2006 10:35:22 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: titus () caltech edu
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they're spying on

Thanks for assuming that I wasn't *completely* talking past everyone ;-)

Actually, I think the answers to your questions are relatively
straightforward.

Nuclear proliferation: Easy. Do nothing. Controls are practically
worthless anyhow. Our greatest adversary during the Cold War,
the Soviet Union, was provided with war-making technology from
Western companies for more than half a century. This was a
dirty little secret until Sutton and others documented this in the
1970s. Capitalism always trumps diplomacy, democracy, et al.
More recently, countries like Pakistan have given nuclear secrets
to practically anyone that wanted them and the U.S. did nothing.

So, if controls don't stop countries from pursuing nuclear programs
and there is no punishment for ignoring these controls, then why
have them?

Iraq: Not so easy, at least if you're an Iraqi. However, we can still
follow the advice of the "experts" in the field (i.e., NOT anyone in
the current administration) and create a governmental structure
and a power-sharing agreement that gives each major party a
slice of the oil revenues, a say in the federal government, and a
diplomatic challenge to work on going forward. It's also about time
that we invited the UN back into the mix. If nothing works, then
I have no problems leaving and letting them work it out. History
shows that it's practically impossible to deliver democracy at the
barrel of a gun.

Killing Americans: Has anyone noticed that America has always
been the country that most people want to move to? We have
historically had the most opportunities and the most freedom to
pursue them. However, our track record overseas has not been
so great and our reputation is simply catching up as global
communication increases. Now, people around the world know
exactly what we've sowed in our quest to destabilize it. Thus,
the answer, both short- and long-term, is to demonstrate that
our ulterior motive is not our primary one; that we truly do seek
to better the world, even if its betterment happens to increase
our wealth.

So what does "better" mean? Well, how about using our troops
to actually stop genocide before it earns that term? How about
giving fresh water and the technology to produce it to those
who need it? How about promoting human rights that aren't
explicitly and inextricably tied to Christian dogma? How about
*paying* Afghanistan to build a pipeline through it and then
helping them use this revenue to build schools and local economies
along the pipeline? Etc., etc. This isn't rocket science, but captains
of industry have long been concerned with profit more than investment.

Eavesdropping: How about a plan that isn't illegal for starters?
I think all of the data mining going on is not only illegal, but also
against the grain of our society and its underpinnings. However,
this is also a naive view, since our government has been violating
our rights for longer than I've been around. The education of our
politicians starts when we vote against them, as that is the only
thing they truly listen to. Of course, if anyone wants to fund my
efforts, I will be happy to start a PAC that will educate them further.

Tom Fairlie


Begin forwarded message:
From: Titus Brown <titus () caltech edu>
Date: June 10, 2006 6:49:29 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: h_bray () globe com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they're spying on
Reply-To: titus () idyll org

-> Some members of this list seem more eager to engage in bitter
-> denunciation
-> of the present administration, than to offer ideas about how best to
-> reconcile the conflicting interests of freedom and security.

Dave -- for IP if you wish...

Mr. Bray and the others are talking past each other in an eerily
familiar way.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are people who would like
nothing more than to kill as many Americans as possible, e.g. by
setting off a nuclear weapon in the middle of New York City.  I'd
really like this not to happen.

There's also little doubt in my mind that the current administration
is using this kind of threat -- which is a real, rational threat -- to
justify the use of a sweeping set of surveillance tactics.  Some (or
even many) of these tactics, as currently employed, are probably
unconstitutional.  They're also prone to abuse, especially without
oversight.

So there are at least three items for discussion --

  1) what is the real nature of the threat to the US, both here and
     abroad?

  2) what is an effective way to prevent terrorist attacks that involve
     WMDs or large loss of life, both here and abroad?

  3) what is an effective way to safeguard civil liberties in the
process,
     and a good set of tradeoffs?

I bet Mr. Bray is tired of hearing *only* about #3 and not about #1 or
#2; I bet others are equally tired of hearing only about #2.  I don't
think it's possible to have a useful discussion that doesn't include
all three.

My reason for opposing pretty much everything Bush has done in the
"War on Terror" is that I don't think it's *effective*, and there
is clearly no *oversight* -- that is, it provides no solution to either
#2 or #3.

The war in Iraq has done nothing to make us safer; if anything, Iraq
is now an excellent training and recruiting ground for anti-American
terrorists.  I have no doubts that the NSA wiretapping is hideously
ineffective due to too many false positives.  Our DHS has become a
pork subsidy program.  Our interrogation tactics are not only against
the Geneva convention, but are brutal, inhumane, and violate the
"innocent until proven guilty" clause that is at the very heart of our
justice system.

And there's no oversight of any of it, and no evidence that it's
remotely effective or anything other than a colossal waste of money.

Even worse, the single biggest short-term threat (IMO) -- a
nuclear-armed terrorist, with nuclear material swiped from or donated
by Russia, NK, Pakistan, or Iran -- receives essentially no attention
from this administration.  Nuclear proliferation by (currently)
friendly countries is unopposed, and in some cases is even encouraged
(India).

Down the line, biological WMDs are going to become easy to manufacture
in the lab.  What should we do about that?

My challenge to Mr. Bray and like-minded Administration supporters is
this: do you have any positive evidence that this Administration has
been effective at preventing terrorism?  If not, why do you support
these efforts, especially if many smart people think that they are
technically flawed and unlikely to work?  And what is the appropriate
oversight structure that should be put in place, regardless?

My challenge to the rest of us (including me ;;): is there an
effective (and maybe even politically viable!) alternative that we
should think about and support?  I'd be very interested in pointers to
information that discusses or suggests answers to questions like:

  * how can we effectively stop nuclear proliferation?

  * how can we help to leave Iraq a stable country?

  * what is a *short-term* solution to the strong desire of many, many
    people in the Middle East and elsewhere to kill as many Americans
    as possible?

  * since most of us believe that technological eavesdropping is
generally
    ineffective, how can we educate our political servants about this?
    Heck, who's telling them that they're *effective*, anyway?   
(Heck^2,
    maybe they actually *are* effective!)

I'd also be very interested in hearing a discussion -- here or
elsewhere -- about any of these issues.  The last one might even
be appropriate for this list ;).

cheers,
--titus

p.s. As an aside, I don't think the sort of motive-removal that
Mr. Fairlie supports is effective in the short term.  I agree
education and trade are the only plausible long-term strategies --
we're never going to kill every Islamic fundamentalist on the planet,
and conflict doesn't usually work well as a way to change people's
minds -- but we have to deal with issues here and now, as well.  Eyes
have been poked, and are not going to be "unpoked" anytime soon...


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as tfairlie () frontiernet net
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/





-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/