NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

[c1ue]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Both. Current. And familiarity across a number of western countries, companies, and OGAs.

What is yours?

Military contractors in the IT field? Booz, Allen Hamilton type military contractors?

I know people who do this stuff - from before they started the military portion.

Then we agree to disagree, but it is a pattern of yours that I am once again bringing to your attention to remedy.

Given that in no way I was referring to your intelligence or any other personal attribute - and furthermore that the idiot savant describes an extremely narrowly focused skill set person and is furthermore not directed at you but at a description of a prototypical sysadmin, I am still failing to see what you perceive as a negative comment on your own person.

So you're effectively saying it's impossible for effective user defined access and control measures and legitimate consequences for misuse.

Nothing is impossible. You can easily prevent all sysadmins from being able to carry out their work, for example. Ultimately, however, you have to have someone be the root access holder. This someone will also be the person who winds up resetting passwords because users forgot them, retrieving erroneously deleted material because somebody erased something by mistake or regret, training users on the same procedure for the 7th time because 'they swore it was different', trying to integrate the vice president's 15 year old Newton 'because it makes him more productive', etc etc.

And sure, technically you could get your top flight information security specialist trained as a sysadmin and have him do all the above on top of information security.

But in reality, it doesn't happen. In a military contractor, even the patriotism angle is muted. I'm not saying that all military contractors are venal, but it is much harder to clarify that you're doing the work for patriotism even while being paid a lot of money.

And that access comes with perfectly understandable expectations, obligations, and consequences for doing anything outside of your "lane".

Sounds very nice on paper. In reality, the hot shots aren't the ones doing the grunt work of support. Customer support is very much like making sausage.

We're not talking about T's and C's for a cell phone service agreement for $70 a month are we?

We're talking about NDAs regarding arguably the US's greatest asset besides it's fading global reserve currency.

We're talking about an unequalled SIGINT collection and analysis capability that may be partially compromised.

Granted, but then again, you're assuming that the objective for a military contractor is the same as for a military or national security operation. If in fact security was the primary concern, why pay big scads of money to private contractors?

I have lots of choices. For example, I chose to read the NDAs to which I am held accountable.

And how many NDAs have you refused to sign? How many Ts and Cs have you refused to sign? Do you refuse to use smartphones/software/hardware because you've read all the Ts and Cs and object to specific components?

I would bet a case of beer, based on Snowden's emerging background and commentary, that he acted in a premeditated fashion before signing his last set of NDAs as a contractor.

I'd say that once again, your belief that Snowden is a traitor is interfering with your reason. I'd bet the same case of beer that Snowden had no idea what he was getting into when he signed the NDA.

I can see it now: Mr. Snowden, you are offered a job where you will be directly contributing to the spying on all Americans and their internet communications. Please sign the NDA. /sarc

I don't begrudge so much WHAT Snowden did, but HOW. To me and others, that is a critically important distinction.

And WHAT he exactly did has not yet been determined.

He's a pawn amongst a number of competing and extremely powerful interests.

Fortunately the Founding Fathers didn't feel the same way. They chose outright rebellion over fulfilling of their duties as citizens of the British empire.

Perhaps you might re-read this quaint old document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

As a serving soldier I don't have just the right, but the responsibility, to NOT follow an unlawful order.

As a small unit commander, my responsibility is even greater to ensure an unlawful order or act is not committed.

As a national representative working in a remote area with limited oversight, I have a responsibility to ensure related actions by all parties did not violate stated ethical government policy. Which is a challenge when local actors/actions often do.

I'm aware that's the official policy, but Snowden is aware of what official practice is.

And official practice - as has been abundantly demonstrated in a previous post as well as elsewhere - is to ignore complaints in the chain of command and to mercilessly punish those who dare to provide information on illegal and immoral activities.

Another to add to the list: Katharine Gun

http://web.archive.org/web/200402030...905936,00.html

Oh, and this one involves the NSA too. Apparently UN contingents are also 'enemies' of the US.

M.I.C.E.

Money, Ideology, Coercion, Ego

Those are the 4 categories most people fall into.

Where's the money? He seems to be giving it up.

Coercion - if anything, not doing anything would be the outcome of coercion.

Ego - hard to see how Ego is being flattered in this case, unlike Assange

Ideology - this looks like the winner. The foolish and outdated ideology of the US Constitution and concept of civil rights.

I've used exactly the same words regarding Assange

The difference is, I don't see Bradley Manning as being a traitor - while you almost certainly do.

Completely incorrect. See above on "unlawful order"

Snowden did have whistleblower/feedback loop options available. Layers of them.

Their likely levels of effectiveness and personal risk certainly vary.

Where I believe he failed was in not finding someone in Congress(like just 1 in the minority who voted against Patriot Act type legislation and looking for some media exposure would suffice) as his final/highest level of internal/legal/sanctioned whistleblower options.

Meh. As I showed very clearly with a prior post - other people have tried this channel. They've been hounded out of employment, and more importantly nothing has changed.

Given the extensive prior results, I cannot say that Snowden has made the wrong choice thus far.

I believe he should have contacted a single member of Congress by cutout(lawyer) likely to be supportive of a whistleblower investigation.

A member of Congress who voted against some of the key pieces of legislation such as the Patriot Act. Or someone new, likely to be quite supportive/sympathetic, and looking for national limelight such as Senator Rand Paul.

Concurrently coordinate Member of Congress via cutout with Media(domestic/international like what Snowden DID do well).

Been tried before - didn't work.

Retain small legal/PR team.

Li'l ole sysadmin, retain a small legal/PR team? He wasn't paid that much.

Request official whistleblower status.

Been tried before - almost always fails.

Fly to NZ/Canada/Australia/UK for short-term safety/security and launch coordinated Congressional and Media/Public Relations effort.

See Katharine Gun. Being even a UK citizen doesn't save you, hard to see how being a foreigner in these compliant nations will.

Hope you're accepted as whistleblower and not charged with crimes.

Hope - just like Obama promised. I can see why he would choose not to do so.

Congressional Sponsor immediately launches investigation and subpoena's Snowden as witness.

Prepare for Congressional appearance and if necessary, take your lumps.

You're making several huge assumptions here:

1) That you'll be able to establish contact
2) That you'll be able to establish contact and act before getting nailed by the FBI/NSA
3) That the Congress person in question can be trusted, as well as all the cutouts in between that you'll have to go through
4) That the Congress person will care

Be blunt and honest about background....because to date he has not, OR he has failed to ensure journalists portray his background story accurately.

And finally, having dealt with media in and out of uniform in several capacities, I'd suggest he get himself some media management training before he executes and rabbits in a fashion more acceptable in the court of public opinion.

All of the above sounds nice in theory. In practice, not so much. Thomas Drake, as I noted before, went through the 'process' including testifying before Congress. He failed to get any change enacted, was prosecuted for 10 counts of criminal activity and went through a 18 month long trial, was acquitted (hence not guilty) of all but 'improper use of laptop' or some silly crap, and he was both in the NSA and not a grunt.

Katharine Gun, as a allude to above, was not a US citizen and equally got the mushroom treatment.

So I can't say that your proposed alternative is in any way realistic or effective, though obviously you think differently.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Wow. The petition to pardon Snowden is really taking off:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

The EFF also has a "stop surveillance" letter that can be sent on one's behalf to one's representatives with just a few clicks here:

https://www.eff.org/

Thanks Astonas. I am very sympathetic to Snowden. To me, a basic question is , do Americans want the government monitoring all their communications. I think they do not.
Therefore, Snowden has performed a great public service, whether he broke laws or not.

[jk]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

i want to thank both lakedaemonian and c1ue for their discussion here. i think, for me at least, it really brought into focus the issues snowden faced in deciding to act, and how to act. at the moment, i am more persuaded by c1ue's position that "working within the system" would have been a doomed strategy. i say that with regret, though, because i wish i could believe that there WAS a way to work within the system. the system, however, is constructed to suppress dissent and criticism, and punish those who express such ideas. the system does not, in theory, have to be that way. but i think that's the way it is.

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

how do you ensure journalists portray something "accurately"? in my few interactions with journalists, i've never been able to achieve that goal.

Well, I assume that they (journalists) are NOT on your payroll.

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

All these men are on The List.

Traitors. All of them.

The time will come. Wait for it.

Well, they've been getting away with it for centuries. So, not sure what's going to change now. I mean, there seems to be little understanding of what is being done, and there is no plan assembled to successfully combat what is being done because the target is not even understood, and finally, there is no organization or network assembled with the capability to uncover and accurately assess the threat, let aone combat it.

Forums like this become lightening rods to diffuse public outrage while their participants engage in irrelevant ego battles while senselessly posting the latest media "analysis" that does nothing to decipher the threat, further adding to confusion and outrage.

So, be prepared to wait a very very long time.

As far as the NSA goes, one of its primary roles is SIGINT, or Signals Intelligence. The NSA explains SIGINT as...

SIGINT is intelligence derived from electronic signals and systems used by foreign targets, such as communications systems, radars, and weapons systems. SIGINT provides a vital window for our nation into foreign adversaries' capabilities, actions, and intentions.

NSA's SIGINT mission is specifically limited to gathering information about international terrorists and foreign powers, organizations, or persons. NSA produces intelligence in response to formal requirements levied by those who have an official need for intelligence, including all departments of the Executive Branch of the United States Government.

So, questions to explore is how one might best perform signals intelligence on a global scale. For example, what data is required, what type of analysis can be feasibly achieved, and how these analysis may best be used. While the registered users here seem to be involved in far more important dialog, perhaps some of the Guest readers will begin an exercise to think about these questions, and then to ask themselves if the current media reports are consistent with such an exploration. Good luck.

Hint: One of the NSA's primary operations is societal modelling.

[jk]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Hint: One of the NSA's primary operations is societal modelling.

1. what is your evidence for this?
2. what is "sicietal modeling"? is this just political/social/economic analysis, or do you mean something different? if that is what you mean, isn't that the role of the cia, not nsa?
3. if your statement is true, are you asserting that they model not just foreign, but also u.s. society? if so, what is your evidence that the information they gather is used for this purpose?

ps i read all of bateson in the 1970's, and aside from quoting his pithy definition of information, i don't see how you've used any of his work.

[LazyBoy]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Just when you hoped someone might care...


Senators skip classified briefing on NSA snooping to catch flights home

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...h-flights-home

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

1. what is your evidence for this?
2. what is "sicietal modeling"? is this just political/social/economic analysis, or do you mean something different? if that is what you mean, isn't that the role of the cia, not nsa?
3. if your statement is true, are you asserting that they model not just foreign, but also u.s. society? if so, what is your evidence that the information they gather is used for this purpose?

ps i read all of bateson in the 1970's, and aside from quoting his pithy definition of information, i don't see how you've used any of his work.

1. what is your evidence for this?

100 yrs of academic papers, speeches, talks, military documents

2. what is "sicietal modeling"? is this just political/social/economic analysis, or do you mean something different? if that is what you mean, isn't that the role of the cia, not nsa?

First, as the Net was designed as a global system the modelling is global because all of the sensors are. CIA manages societal actors in order to carry out system feedback, in the form of Hollywood movies (ie. actors, producers, directors, studios, etc.), tv media, news media talking heads (incl. radio, tv, alt media & online), and anti-establishment groups (ie non-profit organization, "terrorists", gun groups, religious zealots, etc.).

Second, "societal modelling" is the creation & operation of a software simulation that proposes key societal inputs and measures the change to the state of society. Do this repeatedly and a cybernetic, or feedback-control, simulation is created. The NSA is the only one with the horsepower ( in terms of systems and talent) to implement such a systtem.


3. if your statement is true, are you asserting that they model not just foreign, but also u.s. society? if so, what is your evidence that the information they gather is used for this purpose?

Well, the history of all of the discussions leading up to our technocratic society leads one to this as an obvious conclusion, not to mention that the architecture of the resulting system reveals its purpose, which is to maintain control the mechanization of the mind. The work and discussions at the Macy conferences spell much of this out, but there are also numerous other data points.

ps i read all of bateson in the 1970's, and aside from quoting his pithy definition of information, i don't see how you've used any of his work

Well, Bateson was a contributor to a larger effort to define and develop Cybernetics, specifically helping to extend cybernetics to the social/behavioral sciences. More importantly, he was part of the founding group of the Macy Conferences, where much of what we're seeing now was hatched. So, he was a instrumental figure. But yes, I've only referred to him explicitly in terms of this little quote.

[Woodsman]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

First, I've been following this conversation closely and want to thank each of you for vigorously advancing your viewpoint while maintaining a sense of collegiality about things.

The evidence that these systems of monitoring are employed as sensors in a vast cybernetic control mechanism is by necessity circumstantial. We're likely not to encounter a document that spells it out in any meaningful sense. This is the nature of the business. As such, I don't believe it's entirely fair to demand evidence with the expectation that what is proffered has the verisimilitude of a legal brief or peer-reviewed paper.

However, it's important to note that mountains of such evidence exists for past operations. The picture these paint are of an environment where conventional morality does not apply and where all manner of activities normally considered repugnant are described in bland terms of policy and procedure. The facts of these documented events and the curious mindset and worldview of the historical actors should inform our present discussions.

One should also note that of all the agencies of government, the intelligence services seem to be the most dedicated to long range planning and "outside the box" thinking. They have since their inception shown a remarkable openness to entertaining novel and unconventional ideas and a willingness to employ and develop exotic technologies and practices. Consider the testimony of Richard Bissell, CIA's Deputy Director for Plans from 1958 to 1962: "It was the normal practice in the Agency and an important part of its mission to create various kinds of capability long before there was any reason to be certain whether those would be used or where or how or for what purpose."

[jk]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

1. what is your evidence for this?

100 yrs of academic papers, speeches, talks, military documents

i'll have to catch up on those

2. what is "sicietal modeling"? is this just political/social/economic analysis, or do you mean something different? if that is what you mean, isn't that the role of the cia, not nsa?

First, as the Net was designed as a global system the modelling is global because all of the sensors are. CIA manages societal actors in order to carry out system feedback, in the form of Hollywood movies (ie. actors, producers, directors, studios, etc.), tv media, news media talking heads (incl. radio, tv, alt media & online), and anti-establishment groups (ie non-profit organization, "terrorists", gun groups, religious zealots, etc.).

this kind of vast conspiracy sounds like a paranoid fantasy in the absence of documentation. i know you've referred me to "100 years of etc" but i don't find that reference specific enough to be useful.


Second, "societal modelling" is the creation & operation of a software simulation that proposes key societal inputs and measures the change to the state of society. Do this repeatedly and a cybernetic, or feedback-control, simulation is created. The NSA is the only one with the horsepower ( in terms of systems and talent) to implement such a systtem.

it is not clear to me that even the nsa has the "horsepower" to run such a model, nor the human resources to create it. again, you have no documentation.


3. if your statement is true, are you asserting that they model not just foreign, but also u.s. society? if so, what is your evidence that the information they gather is used for this purpose?

Well, the history of all of the discussions leading up to our technocratic society leads one to this as an obvious conclusion, not to mention that the architecture of the resulting system reveals its purpose, which is to maintain control the mechanization of the mind. The work and discussions at the Macy conferences spell much of this out, but there are also numerous other data points.

not "obvious" to me, unfortunately. you'd have to spell it out a bit more to be convincing.

ps i read all of bateson in the 1970's, and aside from quoting his pithy definition of information, i don't see how you've used any of his work

Well, Bateson was a contributor to a larger effort to define and develop Cybernetics, specifically helping to extend cybernetics to the social/behavioral sciences. More importantly, he was part of the founding group of the Macy Conferences, where much of what we're seeing now was hatched. So, he was a instrumental figure. But yes, I've only referred to him explicitly in terms of this little quote.

....

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

....

Well, you could always start with Dupuy's work, which was based upon the 1940's- 50's Macy Conferences...

On the Origins of Cognitive Science:
The Mechanization of the Mind
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=iPgMAQAAMAAJ

The conceptual history of cognitive science remains for the most part unwritten. In this groundbreaking book, Jean-Pierre Dupuy--one of the principal architects of cognitive science in France--provides an important chapter: the legacy of cybernetics. Contrary to popular belief, Dupuy argues, cybernetics represented not the anthropomorphization of the machine but the mechanization of the human. The founding fathers of cybernetics--some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, including John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, Warren McCulloch, and Walter Pitts--intended to construct a materialist and mechanistic science of mental behavior that would make it possible at last to resolve the ancient philosophical problem of mind and matter. The importance of cybernetics to cognitive science, Dupuy argues, lies not in its daring conception of the human mind in terms of the functioning of a machine but in the way the strengths and weaknesses of the cybernetics approach can illuminate controversies that rage today--between cognitivists and connectionists, eliminative materialists and Wittgensteinians, functionalists and anti-reductionists. Dupuy brings to life the intellectual excitement that attended the birth of cognitive science sixty years ago. He separates the promise of cybernetic ideas from the disappointment that followed as cybernetics was rejected and consigned to intellectual oblivion. The mechanization of the mind has reemerged today as an all-encompassing paradigm in the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. The tensions, contradictions, paradoxes, and confusions Dupuy discerns in cybernetics offer a cautionary tale for future developments in cognitive science.

Book review: The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of
Cognitive Science
Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001) 291–295
dupuy.pdf


Or, you could go back and review one of Bateson's works...

Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences).
Bateson, G. (1979).
Hampton Press
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1572734345

Of course, these are just a few data points. If you want more, I'll provide. But you're gong to have to be willing to do some research on your own. They don't teach these systems in their proper social historial context at major universities, where the aim is merely to produce technocrats who buy into the system and advance it (see Adorno's work on Dialectic of Enlightenment).

Bottom line, we have 1st Order Cybernetic systems attempting to control 2nd Order Cybernetic systems (ie human minds). What's frightening is that the system seems to be working, just ask someone "Why" the US fought the Vietnam War and you'll either receive media propagandistic dribble or nonresponse. This is a sign of a 1st Order Cybernetics - not being able to cognitively process the question "why". That's what the system is achieving. Understand the diff between 1st & 2nd order cybernetics, and you'll start to see why Bateson's work in applying cybernetics onto social behavior was so key and so very important to the Macy Conference objectives.

[jk]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Well, you could always start with Dupuy's work, which was based upon the 1940's- 50's Macy Conferences...

On the Origins of Cognitive Science:
The Mechanization of the Mind
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=iPgMAQAAMAAJ



Book review: The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of
Cognitive Science
Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001) 291–295
[ATTACH]4893[/ATTACH]


Or, you could go back and review one of Bateson's works...

Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences).
Bateson, G. (1979).
Hampton Press
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1572734345

Of course, these are just a few data points. If you want more, I'll provide. But you're gong to have to be willing to do some research on your own. They don't teach these systems in their proper social historial context at major universities, where the aim is merely to produce technocrats who buy into the system and advance it (see Adorno's work on Dialectic of Enlightenment).

Bottom line, we have 1st Order Cybernetic systems attempting to control 2nd Order Cybernetic systems (ie human minds). What's frightening is that the system seems to be working, just ask someone "Why" the US fought the Vietnam War and you'll either receive media propagandistic dribble or nonresponse. This is a sign of a 1st Order Cybernetics - not being able to cognitively process the question "why". That's what the system is achieving. Understand the diff between 1st & 2nd order cybernetics, and you'll start to see why Bateson's work in applying cybernetics onto social behavior was so key and so very important to the Macy Conference objectives.

as i said, i read all of bateson long ago and feel no need to reread it. i also read norbert weiner's work on cybernetics [at least one of his books, anyway] when i was in high school, and later did a bunch of reading in automata theory, as well as taking a graduate seminar in learning theory, doing a bunch of reading in cognitive psychology [i especially liked ulrich neisser's work] and did both reading and lab work in neurophysiology. since then i've also dipped into some behavioral neurology [ramachandran] as well as some of the philosophical stuff [bouncing off hoffstadter's work]. so i feel fairly well exposed to the areas of interest.

in sum, i don't see this work as a conspiracy to mechanize or control our minds. i don't see "the system" working in the directed manner which you describe. instead i see emergent phenomena, systemic phenomena produced by lower level components interacting. the "conspiracy", if you will, is unconscious and self-organizing, not externally directed. i think that's all i have to say on the topic. i was just curious to see where you were coming from intellectually. regretfully, to my eyes, you've twisted interesting matters into a conspiratorial fantasy. this is unfortunate because it prevents you from delighting in the complexity and beauty of emergent system phenomena.

[jk]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Well, you could always start with Dupuy's work, which was based upon the 1940's- 50's Macy Conferences...

On the Origins of Cognitive Science:
The Mechanization of the Mind
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=iPgMAQAAMAAJ



Book review: The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of
Cognitive Science
Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001) 291–295
[ATTACH]4893[/ATTACH]


Or, you could go back and review one of Bateson's works...

Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences).
Bateson, G. (1979).
Hampton Press
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1572734345

Of course, these are just a few data points. If you want more, I'll provide. But you're gong to have to be willing to do some research on your own. They don't teach these systems in their proper social historial context at major universities, where the aim is merely to produce technocrats who buy into the system and advance it (see Adorno's work on Dialectic of Enlightenment).

Bottom line, we have 1st Order Cybernetic systems attempting to control 2nd Order Cybernetic systems (ie human minds). What's frightening is that the system seems to be working, just ask someone "Why" the US fought the Vietnam War and you'll either receive media propagandistic dribble or nonresponse. This is a sign of a 1st Order Cybernetics - not being able to cognitively process the question "why". That's what the system is achieving. Understand the diff between 1st & 2nd order cybernetics, and you'll start to see why Bateson's work in applying cybernetics onto social behavior was so key and so very important to the Macy Conference objectives.

as i said, i read all of bateson long ago and feel no need to reread it. i also read norbert weiner's work on cybernetics [at least one of his books, anyway] when i was in high school, and later did a bunch of reading in automata theory, as well as taking a graduate seminar in learning theory, doing a bunch of reading in cognitive psychology [i especially liked ulrich neisser's work] and did both reading and lab work in neurophysiology. since then i've also dipped into some behavioral neurology [ramachandran] as well as some of the philosophical stuff [bouncing off hoffstadter's work]. so i feel fairly well exposed to the areas of interest.

in sum, i don't see this work as a conspiracy to mechanize or control our minds. i don't see "the system" working in the directed manner which you describe. instead i see emergent phenomena, systemic phenomena produced by lower level components interacting. the "conspiracy", if you will, is unconscious and self-organizing, not externally directed. i think that's all i have to say on the topic. i was just curious to see where you were coming from intellectually. regretfully, to my eyes, you've twisted interesting matters into a conspiratorial fantasy. this is unfortunate because it prevents you from delighting in the complexity and beauty of emergent system phenomena.

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

sorry, dup post

[reggie]

Re: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

as i said, i read all of bateson long ago and feel no need to reread it. i also read norbert weiner's work on cybernetics [at least one of his books, anyway] when i was in high school, and later did a bunch of reading in automata theory, as well as taking a graduate seminar in learning theory, doing a bunch of reading in cognitive psychology [i especially liked ulrich neisser's work] and did both reading and lab work in neurophysiology. since then i've also dipped into some behavioral neurology [ramachandran] as well as some of the philosophical stuff [bouncing off hoffstadter's work]. so i feel fairly well exposed to the areas of interest.

in sum, i don't see this work as a conspiracy to mechanize or control our minds. i don't see "the system" working in the directed manner which you describe. instead i see emergent phenomena, systemic phenomena produced by lower level components interacting. the "conspiracy", if you will, is unconscious and self-organizing, not externally directed. i think that's all i have to say on the topic. i was just curious to see where you were coming from intellectually. regretfully, to my eyes, you've twisted interesting matters into a conspiratorial fantasy. this is unfortunate because it prevents you from delighting in the complexity and beauty of emergent system phenomena.

So, your argument is that the feedback-control apparatus has no impact on emergence within the target [2nd order cybernetic] system? If that's the case, then where in nature does such a phenomena exist? Where is emergence independent of the environment that it exists within?

Further, the trajectory of emergence is based upon the target 2nd Order Cybernetic system, no? Hence, how can I dismiss the developments on cognition and brain science, such as that published by Joseph Ladeaux showing that human perception is based upon the patterns of our synaptical networks, which are dependent upon our sensory perceptions, which are dependent upon the environment that we exist. Given that so much of our sensory inputs now come from digital media, in all its forms, wouldn't the trajectory of any emergence in a complex system be dependent upon the masses synaptical patterns of similarity? Certainly, desired behaviors can be "rewarded" and undesireable behaviors "punished", impacting emergence.

Lastly, if we're talking emergence within society then we also have to be talking Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), no? And we know that a CAS based society requires little hierarchical framework, or institutional support, as patterns emergence organically (but can be gamed) from the bottom up. So, if you're arguement is that what we are witnessing is not conspiratorial, how is it that we are simultaneously witnessing wholesale destruction of institutions across all aspects of soceity? Is this coincidental? Is the destruction only a result of the rise of the CAS system? If the latter, why would the military industrial complex invest so heavily in a system that would lead to its own loss of control?

PS. I would really really appreciate it we can refrain from chest beating about any previous readings during ones academice and/or professional career. If there is relevant material that I need to research, please let me know what it is and why I should pursue it. I'm always up for the expansion of my synaptical networks.


And just a side note, I've always found it interesting that the scientist went to visibly public with their sentiments about society's future when they published this compendium, via the Federation of American Scientists in 1946.

http://www.fas.org/oneworld/