Freedom of Internet Navigation and Privacy is a US National Interest.

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

45 Responses

  1. Avatar Jim Heffman
    Ignored
    says:

    “As the largest maritime power both in military terms and commercial terms, Great Britain had realized the importance of maintaining the seas as an open venue for trade.”

    That was due to naked self-interest. When you’re the biggest baddest boy in town, then who cares about rules? But once other guys–France, America, Germany–start getting big enough to fight back, then of course it’s important that we all agree on a neutral, objective, fair set of practices (Especially when you’re dependent on sea trade for survival.)Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Jim Heffman
      Ignored
      says:

      Nice of you to evidence the fact that well, you didn’t really bother to read or comprehend the point of the article.

      You’re more than welcome to get the hell out of this comment section and go troll someone else.

      Thanks.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Dude, whatever. You’re talking like there was some grand moral awakening in Great Britain that led to their movements to curtail raids on neutral shipping. What actually happened was that, all of a sudden, there were navies who could operate outside their nation’s coastal waters, who had the military potential to stand up to Great Britain, who could threaten British trade to a significant degree on a global scale. This is a bully suddenly realizing that he’s not the only game in town.

        And the threat to neutral shipping didn’t end because people signed treaties; it ended because the warships which threatened trade were specifically targeted, chased down, and either sunk or blockaded in port. Or because all the shipping in question was destroyed. Germany had no significant seaborne trade after the first year of World War I. Submarine warfare against British merchant trade was saved by sinking the submarines threatening it, not by signing treaties about it.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        So Jim is your point that treaties aren’t obeyed that well in a war. That is a real thunder clap of The Knowledge. I wonder, though, if treaties work better in peace…..must ponder that.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Heffman, let the grownups talk. Nob’s trying to make an important point here and you’re stinking up the joint with Facile Truisms about Naked Self Interest. The Big Guy’s problem isn’t making the rules. It’s keeping his own rules. America sits on its fat, dumb, arrogant ass and dares to lecture the Chinese on their lack of press freedoms, all the while indulging in every sort of imperial madness, using the same justifications every tyrant has made for his excesses through history.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        I don’t actually attribute the recognition of Free Ships, Free Trade to moral awakening, but rather as an issue of self-interest because relying on customary norms were hampering British interests in other arenas, INCLUDING moral causes like slave trade suppression. Further the period in which the British pushed for freedom of navigation customary norms was in the mid-part of the 19th century, circa 1850-1880 when they had unquestioned supremacy on the high seas. No comparable naval power would emerge in any appreciable number until the advent of the dreadnought era when sea power became concentrated in such large and expensive platforms where it was possible for a sufficiently powerful industrial state to build a qualitatively comparable navy (ie Imperial Germany and the US in the 1910s).

        The wars in which the British Empire’s maritime supremacy were nigh absolute in tactical terms, but vulnerable to commerce raiding (guerre de course) were in the 1750s and 1790s – 1810s. During those points the Royal Navy accounted for something like 60% of the world’s gross warship tonnage and nearly 3/4ths of the world’s merchant trade in terms of value. It was also where it was relatively easy to outfit a large swarm of commerce raiders to try and do widespread interdiction of trade as was attempted with the Linois expedition to the Indian ocean.

        They still stuck to the whole customary norms of ignoring neutrality of ship when it came to cargo, even if at times the admiralty courts conservatively ruled in favor of neutral ship captains. (I mean it’s not as if harassing neutral shipping didn’t start a war with the US or anything…oh wait)

        The broader point still remains that eventually the combination of self-interests added up to requiring that the British shift their position on freedom of navigation and advocate for its establishment as an international norm. The shift in internet paradigms is also happening, where the US needs to step up or lose its global edge here.Report

  2. Avatar BlaiseP
    Ignored
    says:

    Good stuff, Nob. Ganbatte. Presume you’ve seen this.

    Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff will call off her state visit to Washington next month in response to allegations of U.S. spying even after President Barack Obama reached out to her personally yesterday, according to two government officials. Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to BlaiseP
      Ignored
      says:

      Yeah. Also the whole thing with Brazil constructing its own new pipelines to avoid routing through the US. My long-term fear is a balkanized world network where nations stake out visible borders and so too, are national firms forced to do the same.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Brazil went batshit crazy when Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda was essentially mugged at Heathrow. Uncle Sam done stepped upon his Big Male Appendage, and more than once. Pain is a wonderful teacher, the most effective of all, I’m told.Report

  3. Avatar Russell Saunders
    Ignored
    says:

    Fantastic post, man. I don’t really have the history to comment much on your discussion of the parallels with shipping routes, but the merits of your argument about information technology alone are really cogent and well-presented.Report

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Russell Saunders
      Ignored
      says:

      I agree. And the part where it’s clear that the NSA (and God only knows who else in the US government ) are now known to have put God only knows how many back doors in US software is critical. Any country has to assume that all US software has a very large number of backdoors and bombs installed by the US government.

      In addition, given the power of the military-industrial complex, the energy complex and Wall St, it is likely to guaranteed that corporations with clout can exploit at least some of these, whether directly or through contacts. And there have got to be a large number of people with knowledge of these built-into-the-foundations exploits, who like money.Report

  4. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Nob,
    I sincerely doubt that the US gov’t is going to do anything you suggest.

    Data ownership, opting out/in, etc. aren’t synced to a lot of euroland’s policies.
    Open audits of classifed stuff? How much push back do you think you’d see? There would be squeeling from everywhere.

    “The strength of US global leadership will depend as much on the ability to convince the world it can still be a responsible custodian of data and its infrastructure” That’s a lot of work to do to convince everyone else that “we promise to be good now”.

    I think your long term fear is justified, but I also like to think that a lot more folks will decide to use more “unconventional” ways to use the interweb: using stuff similar to what criminals and freedom advocates use to shield themselves from the prying eyes. That I think is good long term.Report

  5. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    BlaiseP

    “Brazil went batshit crazy when Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda was essentially mugged at Heathrow. Uncle Sam done stepped upon his Big Male Appendage, and more than once. Pain is a wonderful teacher, the most effective of all, I’m told.”

    I wish. Uncle Same can step on his d*ck time and time again, and nobody seems to learn.Report

  6. Avatar J@m3z Aitch
    Ignored
    says:

    Excellent post, but who the hell is this Hanley guy, and why would anyone listen to him?

    To go big, the fundamental problem is that every state becomes an end unto itself, rather than functioning only in the more limited capacity of a means to an end. I don’t know what to do about that except parrot Jefferson’s dictum about frequent revolutions, but that’s much too facile.

    All the points you make are well-argued and persuasive, but is there anything we can do about it? I’ve lost almost my last shred of hope that the U.S. can retreat from, or even slow its forward progress toward, becoming democratically authoritarian. We’ll have more social freedoms than ever–smoke what you want, fuck who you want, watch hardcore sex on broadcast TV, but those will be our bread and circuses, as our entire social presence is digitized and automatically reviewed, and having a sense of humor is outlawed for public safety and security.

    But don’t let my pessimism obscure my agreement.Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to J@m3z Aitch
      Ignored
      says:

      Perhaps being too pithy, I’m not sure if freedoms in the US and Western Europe are the issue here. A surveillance state that’s primarily about watching rather than enforcement is a far more benign tool than the ability for totalitarian or less socially liberal states to crack down on people’s access to information. The propaganda and nationalist value of a segregated and balkanized internet is more powerful in the long run, I think, than any access to information issues.

      What I fear, essentially is having cyberspace turn into the equivalent of the international system where states end up sovereign. The long term chilling effect on human freedom and even dignity will be dangerous, and one can imagine, too, that the eventual repressionary measures taken in authoritarian or even developing democratic states (Brazil, in fact, comes to mind as a potential offender here, as does Turkey, or India) going into public censorship of embarrassing facts or exposes in the interest of Public Security, or Child Protection or Moral protection.Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        “A surveillance state that’s primarily about watching rather than enforcement is a far more benign tool than the ability for totalitarian or less socially liberal states to crack down on people’s access to information. ”

        Such a state can switch to authoritarian very, very easily.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Blackmailing our elected representatives isn’t worse than balkanization?Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Chiming in to support Barry here.

        I don’t think there’s any real doubt that a surveillance state that merely watches is better than one that enforces. But the crucial question is, is that first state a stable equilibrium? I have a hard time seeing that. As I said below, the state pursues its own interests, and I think its interest lies more in control than simple voyeurism.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        The natural world is full of just such benign interrogation. Leukocytes operate in hierarchy: the famous Helper T cell, the cell AIDS goes after, is an organiser, publishing wanted posters, well, literally, chunks of the cell walls of foreign or rogue cells it’s encountered, to inform the other leukocytes of what sort of trouble is currently afoot.

        Kaposi’s Sarcoma is the signature cancer of HIV/AIDS. A normal immune system can routinely destroy such cancers. That’s the disturbingly horrible aspect of AIDS, that its victims literally die of everything at once as the immune system collapses.

        Autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis arise when the immune system starts destroying its own cells. Something goes haywire in the interrogation process. We’re just now coming to terms with this process and we’re still very much in the dark. We might compare this to a sort of tyranny.

        America has real enemies. We’ve always had spies, many of whom operate within the USA, doing counterintelligence work. Abuse of this process is an ongoing issue, as troublesome now as ever. The FBI under Hoover, the concentration camps for the Japanese ( and a few Germans and Italians ) during WW2, Guantanamo, we’ve made plenty of excuses for tyranny over time. But we’ve also made plenty of facile excuses and complaints about an entirely necessary process.

        League is mostly intelligent, thoughtful people, let’s start there. Cyberspace must have rules. It cannot be an entirely lawless place and nobody’s arguing for a completely hands-off position. All technology has warmaking potential. We must not fear the possibility of such an evolution: everything’s a Dual Purpose Technology — it’s inevitable and the process can be controlled. War can be prevented by statecraft. Tyranny can be quelled by freedom of the press. No lie goes unexposed for long, no secret remains so forever.

        The era of the nation state is coming to an end. They’ve lived out their usefulness. As the Kingdom gave way to the Republic, so will the Republic give way to something akin to the colonies of Phoenicia and Greece, trading outposts, more governed by merchants than generals. As the Statesmen have declined, a new Merchant Class has arisen to take its place. They will not tolerate disruptions in the Net. Far too much depends upon those connections.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        is that first state a stable equilibrium?

        I think this is a good question – maybe the most important question – but I’m curious how it gets answered. Modeling? Game theory? A priori from first principles? Empirically?

        If we believe that the state of Watching, Not Enforcing! is unstable, why do we believe that?

        {{For my part, I tend to think it’s unstable. I’m just not sure why.}}Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Modeling? Game theory? A priori from first principles? Empirically?

        Probably any of these, as long as we adhere to the definition of a stable equilibrium, which does in fact come from game theory. I.e., the definition for Nash Equilibrium can be stated as:
        a stable state of a system involving the interaction of different participants, in which no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged.

        The key there is that no participant can gain by a unilateral change in their own choices. If we think the government could gain (in the subjective valuation of those individuals in government who are in position to make such a change), then we have to hypothesize that the state is not in equilibrium.

        More frighteningly, it may be the case that the enforcing surveillance state is itself an equilibrium, if it’s the case that no participant can gain by a unilateral change in their strategy (choices of action). Of course equilibria are not necessarily permanent–changes in values or collective agreement can change them. But it requires that kind of exogenous change (values) or non-individual (collective) action in order to subvert an equilibrium, and that’s a much tougher task than a single individual making a change in strategy to achieve an existing value preference.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        There is an aspect of Simple Voyeurism to the Surveillance State. With tech, there’s all this Freedom. Then someone abuses those freedoms. Thus arise speed limits and firewalls and Corporate Policy Has Established This Site is Forbidden And You Will Be Reported sorts of things.

        Government is a big ol’ problem. I fear other entities more. Government’s powers might seem enormous but — on whose behalf does government operate? Largely, it’s we the people, the corporations, that’s what government is thinking. But other entities have fewer scruples, who attenuates their evil influences, if not government? Do we really want to handle all this ourselves?

        Control systems arise when they’re needed, when lack of control produces trouble in the larger systems. Overcontrol is bad, leads to paralysing hysteresis. But undercontrol — as fast as this technology is moving, there’s no equilibrium. We need new rules and better.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        The key there is that no participant can gain by a unilateral change in their own choices. If we think the government could gain

        Are we correct to think of government as a single participant in this scenario? Does the scenario require us to think of government as an individual actor?

        Or do we go finer grained, as you suggest in the parenthesis: that individual actors within government may be able to gain from a unilateral change in their actions? If that’s right – that we should focus on individual actors within government, then wouldn’t the formal constraints imposed on individuals by government itself (laws and such) act to re-establish an equilibrium? Formally anyway?

        it seems to me that the breakdown of a stable equilibrium arises because the formal properties of government are often insufficient to prevent substantive abuse. Especially when that abuse is perpetrated by the branch of government tasked with enforcing compliance with already imposed constraints.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Though government might be composed of many individuals, each individual derives his mandate from the single entity. We would hope the courts would provide enough oversight to keep abuses to a minimum but I’ve concluded this process is broken — because it’s secret. That’s why we have civilian oversight of the military, where the loop closes, where justice is out of sight, it can’t really be justice any more.Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        @stillwater

        Are we correct to think of government as a single participant in this scenario? Does the scenario require us to think of government as an individual actor?

        No, which complicates things. A handful of people in the NSA can move use from non-surveillance to surveillance, and with the coordination of a handful of people in other agencies can move use from non-enforcement to enforcement. That, cetris paribus, is destabilizing to the potential for a non-coercion equilibrium. But then there is Congress, which potentially (although not certainly) provides for a counter-force in government to support a non-coercion equilibrium (and of course even Congress is an aggregate, but since it acts or doesn’t as a body, we can usefully treat it here as a single actor). And then of course there are the Courts and the media and the public.

        Two player games are so much more elegant, so much easier to analyze.

        then wouldn’t the formal constraints imposed on individuals by government itself (laws and such) act to re-establish an equilibrium? Formally anyway?
        Formally? Sure. But there are forms and there is reality. That sounds Platonic, and in a sense it is. Real power comes not from formal authority but from capacity to achieve your goals, whether legitimately authorized or not. As Blaise has said frequently, real leadership is by example. I.e., it’s not the formal authority of a leader that gets people to follow, and people without any formal authority may be adept leaders despite that.

        We can’t ignore the forms for the sake of analysis. I’m not saying they’re meaningless. They provide a tool for others to use against those acting without formal authority. Whether the tool will prove effective in any given case or not…well, that’s necessarily a case-by-case analysis. So, not meaningless at all, but also not a guarantee.

        it seems to me that the breakdown of a stable equilibrium arises because the formal properties of government are often insufficient to prevent substantive abuse.

        Agreed. But I don’t think creating formal properties that are sufficient to prevent substantive abuse–in general, not simply in this case–is not within the realm of human possibilities. We create those formal rules/properties/authorities/constraints/countervailing pressures in order to mitigate and limit the potential for substantive abuse (as well as to promote and enhance the potential for substantive gains), but mitigation and limitation are not absolute. And when the principle that is at least nominally the purpose of the abuse is itself compelling–and national security seems to be a really compelling issue–the effective range of limitations shrinks.

        We can’t get perfect structures, but we can get better or worse ones (as measured against what our goals are (political structures are machines, and different purposes require different types of machines). It’s my view (emphasizing the subjective here) that we are currently trending in the worse direction. In the area of national security, broadly understood, the formal barriers stand mostly as ghostly ruins, echoes of what we strived to achieve, but with ever less substantive effect.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        I plan on a new post to follow up with the point of “How” as much as the “what”, but I think to some degree the internal government arguments present a greater protection from aggregated use of gathered data than say how corporate entities might behave. Specifically the bureaucratic conflicts and pathologies inherent in government agencies tends to discourage cooperation a lot more than profit motives do for private entities. That is to say, information sharing is often blocked on the basis of turf battles and retaining control rather than selling to the highest bidder. There’s little interest for NSA for example to give out more data than it absolutely has to to an agency like CIA or FBI, insofar as the less monopoly it has over its capabilities, the more likely it is to face budgetary challenges.

        To some extent already the FISA “Wall” of separating law enforcement from military sigint applications works to curtail the worst possible uses of the data NSA gathers. It’s certainly not sufficient, and I’m not making that argument, but I do think viewing government as a monolith in this case is likely to lead to more problems than less.Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to J@m3z Aitch
      Ignored
      says:

      More broadly speaking, it seems to me, that social norms on acceptability of certain state behaviors have a substantially greater effect on curtailing the use of gathered information more than laws or regulations. Now, capabilities are a problem, but I think trying to attack through them is a problem in that states will never, ever reduce their capabilities if they can help it. The only way you can convince a state to do this is to point out how it’s more important to them to curtail the capabilities of others than to invest in their own capabilities. Nuclear detente is the closest example I can think of, and perhaps the naval race treaties of the 20s. Those aren’t perfect examples, of course, but I think there’s still enough world desire for a free and open internet that a “web surveillance non-proliferation treaty” might have a chance at survival, especially if enough industry weight is thrown behind it.

      Security of corporate secrets, security of communications, protecting R&D and intellectual property/data are hallmarks of things that would interest very large, very rich MNCs today. The trick here I think is 1. getting them to help displace the entrenched legacy industry lobby groups and 2. get them to unite on the issue.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Shorter Nob:
        Get Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to feel sufficiently threatened and put together a multi-billion dollar lobbying effort.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        I think part of the problem with the social norm issue is that the people in high security positions are of significantly advanced age. Old is what the kids call it i think. Old folks tend to be more suspicious of the Internet and don’t really see how it can develop as a positive thing and source of LOLCATS. Of course many of the yutes of today such as Zuckerberg are probably more dangerous in their own way what with their whole ” privacy….haha…screw that crap” attitude.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        Nob,
        How much you want to bet that US companies were helping Snowden?Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Nob Akimoto
        Ignored
        says:

        More broadly speaking, it seems to me, that social norms on acceptability of certain state behaviors have a substantially greater effect on curtailing the use of gathered information more than laws or regulations.

        Social norms on acceptability of gathering personal data has to include corporations, not just governments; and that’s where the argument of having corporations force the norm becomes problematic; for I see no reason to think corporations want limits on their data collection; it’s their treasure trove.

        In Florida right now, they’re all twitterpated over ACA navigators helping people find the best health insurance because the people would have to reveal private information to the ACA Navigators. I’ve yet to hear a single complaint on the personal data about these same citizens held by insurance companies; yet to hear a single questions about how those same insurance companies might or might not be compiling other data not in medical records on those people. (Note: I’m not suggesting they are or aren’t, I just think it an important question to ask if you’re going around worrying about people’s private information.)Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to J@m3z Aitch
      Ignored
      says:

      That link is crazy stupid but i’m a bit more optimistic than you. Certainly based on that story the kid is getting royally screwed. But on the bright side there are million other viscous, nasty things that can be said that get no police attention. I’m not really joking about that since people can threaten murder, rape, general mayhem and such without getting much attention. Also there is plenty of crack pot political expression that is free as can be. Raging nutball Larry Klayman is calling for a popular march/coup on the prez. Nobody is going after him since its mostly easier just to laugh and facepalm.Report

    • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch
      Ignored
      says:

      Nob,

      I suspect Hanley’s point on being a technocrat was not so much a dig at your focus on the details of the processes (I hear that the same day you published this he spent an hour and a half enthusiastically explaining to stunned enviro policy students how the policy process actually works, and got only halway through), but more of a critique that often you seem, perhaps, to focus on the interests of the government nearly to the exclusion of considering the interests of the governed.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        That Hanley fellow reminds me of that bit in the Book of the Kings:

        Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not yet a prophet of the LORD here that we may inquire of him?” The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

        This Hanley dude and Al Gore. Both bearers of Inconvenient Truths.Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        Blaise,
        It’s funny that you should say that. Back when I was a Bible-Believing Christian, I was given a book about the gifts of the Spirit (or maybe it was for one of my religion courses; it’s been a long time). I remember how most of it made no sense in relation to me personally; I couldn’t identify with most of it. But the chapter on the gift of prophecy…wow, it felt like they were writing about me.

        Now I don’t believe in such mystical things, and I sure don’t believe anyone can really foretell the future. But I do believe that there are people who have particular talents, or gifts if we prefer that term, and that there are probably a reasonably consistent set of character/personality traits that go along with those talent–perhaps it’s those traits that actually make that talent.

        So it’s not hard for me to believe–albeit on little real evidence–that there’s some set of character traits that cause some folks to be labeled prophets, or that are frequently found among those who get labeled that way. So it’s entirely possible that I have some of those character traits.

        My favorite definition of a prophet does away with the foretelling of the future (which is not really the main role of the prophets in the OT, anyway) and says they “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Whether I actually manage do that or not, it’s a definition that just feels intuitively right to me.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
      Ignored
      says:

      Donate to Wikileaks?
      Join Anonymous?

      Donate to EFF?

      I have perhaps more hope than you do,
      as I’ve seen people roll boulders uphill.Report

  7. Avatar Bo dam
    Ignored
    says:

    These are nice templates, i like themes. Thanks’Report

  8. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Kim

    “Nob,
    How much you want to bet that US companies were helping Snowden?”

    A lot. The risks involved for the people at or near the top of those companies would be severe. Possibly the odd tech guy down in the bowels of the company, but nobody anywhere near the top.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Barry
      Ignored
      says:

      There’s always ways to create plausible deniability…
      Companies have had people murdered, and gone
      without consequences for the act. Snowden is
      a lot less risky than murder (particularly if the
      survival of your corporation is at stake,
      which you might could argue was the case).Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        I disagree. Companies have gotten away with murder war, torture, theft on a global scale…….as part of the military-industrial complex.

        This would be going *against* the military-industrial complex. All of those resources for oppression would now be brought against those people, and Quite personally. The goal wouldn’t be to trash the company, but to destroy the people. And ‘plausible deiniability’ doesn’t cut it if the other party doesn’t want to believe what you’ve done.Report

  9. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Sorry – And ‘plausible deiniability’ doesn’t cut it if the other party doesn’t want to believe the denial of what you’ve done.Report

  10. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Nob Akimoto

    “Shorter Nob:
    Get Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to feel sufficiently threatened and put together a multi-billion dollar lobbying effort.”

    The problem is that they seem to have (a) been fully aware of these programs years ago and (b) made their decision to be on the inside.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *