Joanne Susan Hosea
Peter Maass: Would you rather be a journalist or a “blog spy”???
Here’s an example. I told Socrates, in our phone call, that I had read
his blog. I assumed that once our conversation was finished he would go online
and take down the blog, scrupulously doing what a smart surveiller would do
once he realized he was the target rather than targeter — try to scrub the
public domain of his existence to inhibit surveillance of him.
Yet the blog stayed up. In fact, he continued posting — once about a
blockbuster movie series he disliked, another time about a short story he
generally liked. I asked McNeill, the research editor, what she made of this,
and she was surprised, too. Although I could not spy on Socrates in the way the
NSA spies on its targets, I had done a lot and thought I understood him.
Randall Rose
Looking at the record of the original Socrates (the one from ancient
Greece), it’s actually pretty neutral on surveillance issues. I don’t think the
Intercept’s Peter Maass should have assumed the original Socrates would object
to surveillance of the innocent. Socrates’s political philosophy seems to lack
some of the ideas developed in later millennia. He might well have opposed some
of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable searches — and the idea of freedom of the press was so foreign to
ancient Greece that it’s hard to guess his position on it.
To give another example of Socrates’s political views, when a
dictatorial government wanted to execute a man named Leon without trial and
ordered Socrates and others to fetch him, Socrates ignored the order. Socrates
knew that his disobedience would become known to the government and would
probably result in Socrates himself being placed on the kill list; he avoided
death only because the government collapsed shortly afterwards. This episode
should have led Socrates to conclude that governments shouldn’t have the power
to gather information on who is and isn’t willing to go along with their abuses
of power. But that wasn’t the conclusion Socrates drew. Instead, Socrates
thought he was able to live as long as he did because a god had sent him to
help his fellow citizens, and the god didn’t want him to die too early. The
American idea of having constitutional protection for liberty, rather than
relying only on divine protection, is something Socrates never thought of. And
Socrates’ historical legacy includes not only those who were inspired by him to
protect rights, but also some more vicious thinkers who exploited Socrates’s
poorly-developed political philosophy as a way to justify giving excessive
powers to government. Socrates’s own disciple Plato, as well as the Straussian
movement in our own time, took this rights-destroying path.
Socrates’s strength as a thinker wasn’t the idea of constitutional
rights, which was developed long after his time. Instead, his strength was in
recognizing that people in general, and governments in particular, overestimate
their own knowledge. He would have been quick to see the mistake made by the
NSA’s “Socrates”, who assumed that a government that can conduct full
surveillance will make the right decisions. The original Socrates would have
recognized that gathering exabytes of data on the world is still quite likely
to lead to foolish decisions, producing leaders who are eager to impose their
will but cause disasters because they don’t really know what’s good. The NSA’s
“Socrates”, who is much less of a thinker, can’t look seriously at this danger.
He tells those in power over him, “Yes, I want you to have lots of info about
me and everyone else, that way you’ll do good.” Maybe his core assumption is
that by consenting to surveillance and showing his own loyalty, he at least
will be treated well. But do his leaders really want to devote effort to giving
him a good life? Do they know enough about how to give him a good life? Does he
himself know what a good life is? He’s too wrapped up in flattery, servility
and conformity to face these issues, and it’s no wonder that his life is in
fact miserable. Those who have the courage to defy injustice, like the Greek
Socrates, have a better life. And we are the ones who continue the centuries-old
task of defending and developing rights.
Peter Maass ↪ Randall
Rose
This is an amazing and thoughtful comment. Kind of a Platonic ideal of
what a comment can be, and who a member of the commenting community can be.
You’ve explored issues that I didn’t have the time or space to go into, nor the
background. Thank you again.
Mike T
This “Socrates” dipshit was definitely the
right choice for the job of “internal propagandist.” From his writings it’s all
too clear that he was born to lick boots and kiss ass; to follow immoral orders
and set an example for other pussies to do the same; to never be his own man,
but to live out his existence as a member of the US federal Borg. Such
creatures would be pitiable if they weren’t guilty of crimes against the rest
if us.
“Socrates,” if you’re reading this, let me tell
you something. All of us will die someday. No one escapes the Reaper (the real
one, not your cowardly murder machine). For all I know, I might die tomorrow
in agony, and you might die in peace after living 100 years; but I STILL
wouldn’t trade places with you. You know why? Because when I die, at least I’ll
know that I lived free, untamed, and defiant, with knee unbowed. You will
live and die as a coward and a servant, and I hope you rot in hell. FUCK YOU.
rrheard ↪ Mike
T
Holy smokes Mike T tell us how you really feel. That rivaled some of my
more pointed comments over the years. Bravo.
I didn’t lay into the guy personally too much
because I figured he simply doesn’t have the moral or cognitive horsepower to
understand that what he is doing is unethical if not immoral. He actually
appears, to one degree or another, to believe he’s doing something moral or
ethical for the greater good. Or at least he’s convinced himself he is. Maybe somewhere
down the road he’ll come to Jesus so to speak. One can only hope anyway.
Not that I’m opposed to your rhetorical style to urge him on the way.
nuf said ↪ rrheard
I didn’t lay into the guy personally too much because I figured he
simply doesn’t have the moral or cognitive horsepower to understand that what
he is doing is unethical if not immoral.
That’s some backhand ya got there 
In one of the supporting docs, Socrates mentions that he both selects and analyzes data; he’s writing those tasking scripts to Noogle folks and then he decides if the behavior is suspect. Can’t say enough about how bad that is for us; fuck that kapo.
In one of the supporting docs, Socrates mentions that he both selects and analyzes data; he’s writing those tasking scripts to Noogle folks and then he decides if the behavior is suspect. Can’t say enough about how bad that is for us; fuck that kapo.
PlayNiceKids
What an article, and what an experiment…I’d even call it beautiful. The
thing is, I feel bad for the guy…initially because hey, a blog that is very (anti-the
thing he does) is reporting on him, and then less because this person has after
all found a way to rationalize what he does, and then more again because he
is/was clearly frustrated with life, and probably also because I’m in the
wannabe-writer-in-crisis boat myself and let me tell you, I feel those
feels and this particular boat ain’t a luxury cruise. Your experiment worked
brilliantly in showing me how easy it is to get invested in someone’s outcome
without even knowing anything concrete about them.
And now I’m wondering…is this my tendency towards being way too
empathetic towards others, or is it indeed voyeurism–the same drive that gets
me invested in a TV soap opera about people who don’t really exist? Very good
food for thought, I’ll be chewing away all night at least.
And I feel compelled to say that it strikes me as so very
heart-wrenching that this Socrates seems to have approached his writing career
by waiting for others to, in essence, give him permission to write or be
published. The grad program, the editors and contests…the blog is a step in the
right direction, as is refusing to scrap it after this article. My heroes
tend to be artists who just couldn’t stop creating even when life or other
people got in the way. This is what the Internet is for, Socrates…find your
realm, work it, expand, repeat. Self-publish or blog or just hang out in
writing forums, actively participating…whatever you do, man, don’t let that
spark go out.
Peter Maass ↪ PlayNiceKids
Excellent comment. Thanks for posting it. And good luck (in the good
way) with *your* writing.
Carl
Did anyone else find this guy’s blog?
Wasn’t hard after using a google search containing the authors mentioned plus a
few other terms. Hint: it’s on blogspot.
-Mona- ↪ Carl
Did anyone else find this guy’s blog?
Yes. Read comments from the bottom up for that convo.
Kay
A Great and necessary piece of writing. Is Kim Jong-un a rare
personality or a kind of control freak mentality that can happen anywhere?
“Glorious Writer!” featuring D. Rodman might be a faithchanger.
coram nobis
I’m not sure, if I was choosing a nom-de-plume for a major venture,
that I would have used an ill-omened name like Socrates. He had problems with
the powers-that-be, and wound up getting unfriended in a rather final way.
It’s sort of like buying your dream sailboat and naming it the Edmund
Fitzgerald.
(See earlier comments. I did a search on “Socrates'” prose and came up
with Rousseau. Maybe that would have been a better avatar, given that he may
have been using the man’s talking points. And his Confessions could be
rather interesting.)
liberalrob ↪ coram
nobis
“…sort of like buying your dream sailboat and naming it the Edmund
Fitzgerald.”
At least you would make an end that would be worth a song…
coram nobis ↪ liberalrob
I knew a guy who bought a boat named the Sultana. Today at least
we have wikipedia.
Mariners have a sense of ill omen, and that includes names. Sultana,
Edmund Fitzgerald, Titanic, Empress of Ireland, Hood, Mary Celeste, Sarah
Palin, HMS Invincible.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on
down
Of the big lake they call Gitchee Goomee
The lake it is said never gives up its dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
Of the big lake they call Gitchee Goomee
The lake it is said never gives up its dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
Quenby Wilcox
Sorry typo below
Should say “There’s no difference btwn. those who can’t read, and those who don’t”.
Should say “There’s no difference btwn. those who can’t read, and those who don’t”.
Quenby Wilcox
Here is my 2 cents on the surveillance issue.
Background — The focus of my work at late is domestic violence/violence
against women (DV/VAW) as human rights violations, and the obligation of the
State to protect — with concentration on intl. divorce & custody disputes.
So since govts. are suppose to ‘protect’, I am logically asking the US Dept. of
State/Amer. Consulates to do their jobs and ‘protect’ Americans living abroad
(from DV & Legal abuse from divorce lawyers – see Divorce Corp movie —
right on the nail). — State Dept. does not agree w/ me see so I am lobbying
Congress (see http://warondomesticterrorism.com/category/lobby_for_americans_living_abroad-2013/
& http://warondomesticterrorism.com/category/defensor_del_pueblo_4-14_english/).
And, now I am helping Maria Jose Carrascosa (https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1390059).
MY 2 CENTS:–
I have made enough ‘noise’ on the Internet, that at present I am ‘a bee
in the govt’s bonnet’ & I am sure that they are spying on my communications
by now (or will be soon)
Now if all of the govt. people who were spying on me would read the
mail I have been sending to their colleagues at the State Dept. AND DO WHAT I
AM TELLING THEM TO DO (UPHOLD INTL. & FEDERAL LAW), then I would stop
bugging them, I could help the 7M American living abroad (~4-5M DV victims), I
could (help) reduce (& maybe eliminate) the 2000 new cases of intl. child
abduction the State Dept. deals with each yr. (Consulates would get the credit
w/little work), and everyone could move on with their lives. Sounds simple.
N’est pas.
BUT, INSTEAD (since govt. officials are functionally illiterate) I will
keep on telling the State Dept (in no uncertain terms) what they must do to
comply with the law, they will continue to do nothing (not even read my ltrs.).
They will surely tell their ‘friends’ over at NSA that I am a belligerent, rebel-rouser,
that I won’t go away and need spying on bcse. I am a security threat (LOL check
out my photo), and they will hack into my computer to spy on me. The joke here
is that they will spy on me to read the letters that I am trying to get the
federal govt. to read in the first place, but the smuck won’t read for the life
of them. Einstein said, and I concur “There’s no difference btwn. those you
can’t read, and those who don’t”.
So I guess the moral of my story is — If you want your govt. to read
your mail, you first have to get them to spy on you, and hack into your
computer!!
WOULDN’T IT BE MORE EFFECTIVE TO TEACH FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HOW TO READ
RATHER THAN HACK?!?
And, to all of you at the Intercept — Chapeau! This world needs more
people like you in it. As Einstein said “The world is a dangerous place, not
for the evil people, but for those who do nothing about them.”
rp
A couple of observations:
1. The system at the NSA is obviously broken when individuals like
Socrates (the blogger) have keys to the car.
No doubt his overseers have just as many “issues” in their personal
lives as himself, you or I. People are just never 100% on top of things during
the span of their lives.
The potential for abuse (and it only takes one person) is very strong.
I seriously doubt that whatever checks have been put in place since the
Snowdon episode for individuals or their superiors are infallible to misuse and
abuse. Unfortunately there are people who have misguided convictions that they
are doing the right thing for themselves and the rest of us.
I don’t have all the answers, but I can’t see continuously vetting the
mental state of all the players involved with the NSA in it’s current form as
viable.
2. In perusing the comments, I noticed people “tracking down” who they
think Socrates might be.
That’s as tasteful and dangerous as the vigilante quotient of Anonymous
who in the past have “outed bad guys” when in fact they were mistaken.
-Mona- ↪ rp
Except the bit about the short story titled
“Infection” about an STD. Add that to the rest of data, and I think they did
find the guy.
Peter Mustermann
@ Peter Maass
Sokrates is easy to read: “Scruple of
conscience”, he sleeps bad, fully aware of the fact that there are drones in the air,
firing hellfire rockets based on metadata. He knows they don’t know enough for
a kill decision, even if they had some “looks like a taliban” attached to a
polygraph, they wouldn’t know enough. Sokrates knows that his “inner universe”
is bigger than everything he could tell or write about it. So he tells himself
to be “a good leutenant”, “Befehl ist Befehl”.
That’s not cognitive dissonance, he is aware of
the problem. He doesn’t act blinded by secret selfsurpressing CogInt.
It’s the regular so called “Nuremberg defence”.
And he knows this.
sauncho smilax ↪ Peter
Mustermann
I don’t know if I agree with this, it’s too
dismissive. If he is aware of the deception, then eventually he will be forced
to make a choice between becoming what he pretends to be or quitting. If not,
then it is worth asking what drives him to deceive himself to such a degree
that the deception becomes a core principle of his cosmology. Either way
(deception or self-deception) seems like the same kind of process, doesn’t it?
: |
The Intercept has published a lot of shocking news about surveillance.
This is the most messed up thing I’ve read here.
After that, I got nothing.
a1a1
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it
make a sound?”
coram nobis ↪ a1a1
The NSA will hear it.
Pedinska ↪ coram
nobis
Not only will they hear it but they will be able to tell from the
metadata how tall it was, its number of growth rings and how many and how full
were its branches.
And don’t let’s start talking about roots! :-s
a ↪ Pedinska
Not to mention who or what has inhabited it now or in the past!
rrheard
@ Peter Maass
Oh and I hope it doesn’t become necessary, but
hopefully you vetted this piece with legal counsel prior to publication. I
absolutely wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ didn’t come after the Intercept and
both you and Ms. McNeill individually for making it possible to discern the
non-public identity of an NSA employee/operative. Now maybe the saving
grace is that this level of NSA analyst or employee doesn’t have the legal
protection that certain others do, and there won’t be anything the NSA or DOJ
can do about his identity being indirectly discernible. I wouldn’t know but I’d
suppose it was a risk. Nevertheless, it has always appeared to me that First
Look Media is willing to go to the mat legally to fight these sort of First
Amendment fights–and it is part of their purpose in existing, which is super
important from both an institutional perspective and you and Ms. McNeill’s
personal/professional ones I’d think. Keep up the good work.
Peter Maass ↪ rrheard
Noted and approved.
Louise Cypher ↪ Peter
Maass
Best wishes in joining Barrett Brown and writing “Columns from Jail”
for The Intercept for the rest of your life.
-Mona- ↪ Louise
Cypher
Not gonna happen, Louise. The United States has not (yet) abandoned
free speech and a free press to the point you authoritarians would like.
Benito Mussolini ↪ rrheard
By this time, the NSA is likely to have figured out that information in
the Snowden files may no longer be secure. It must be impossible at this stage
to trace everyone who may have accessed those files. Therefore it is incumbent
on the NSA to assume the information may already be in the hands of ‘bad
actors’, who are capable of searching on Google (and ‘bad’ may even be worse
than commenters at The Intercept).
So when The Intercept notified the NSA of the source file on which this
story was based (as stated by Peter Maas in the comments), they were doing the
NSA a favor, since the NSA (presuming it wasn’t previously capable of
determining which files had been compromised), would then be able to take steps
to protect Socrates Jr. from those bad actors. So possibly the NSA, as a token
of their gratitude, will bestow some sort of award on The Intercept.
The fact that certain Intercept commenters found what they claim to be
Jr’s blog, still up on the internet, would by this point be irrelevant, since
any necessary actions have already been taken. Even Jr. himself couldn’t be
bothered to take it down – or else welcomed the attention of potential
publishers for his work. Unlike certain hysterical postings might lead one to
suppose, there is no evidence that The Intercept ambushed anybody – quite the
opposite.
Foucault
I believe he kept his blog up because after publication of this article
he is guaranteed a reader-base.
Peter Maass ↪ Foucault
An interesting guess. I don’t know. PM
nuf said ↪ Foucault
“he kept his blog up because after publication of this article he is
guaranteed a reader-base.”
His blog is going to launch stealth cyber-attacks on anyone visiting it (cuz you know nobody was visiting before TI shined the spotlight)
That’s right; mouse over anything and they’re in …
His blog is going to launch stealth cyber-attacks on anyone visiting it (cuz you know nobody was visiting before TI shined the spotlight)
That’s right; mouse over anything and they’re in …
abbadabba
abbadabba ↪ abbadabba
“Let’s get back to work, here…”
I love shoes!
Vivian Darkbloom
The Socrates of this story is not only a failed writer but at work he’s
an overly aggressive brown-noser.
Pierre d'Entrecasteaux
Three facts:
1) Like Jesus, Socrates had a huge influence on intellectuals, politicians and “normal people”, up to this day.
2) Like Jesus, Socrates never wrote a line.
3) Like Jesus, Socrates was put to death by the State.
I don’t know whether facts number one will apply to “your” Socrates.
I hope fact number three won’t.
1) Like Jesus, Socrates had a huge influence on intellectuals, politicians and “normal people”, up to this day.
2) Like Jesus, Socrates never wrote a line.
3) Like Jesus, Socrates was put to death by the State.
I don’t know whether facts number one will apply to “your” Socrates.
I hope fact number three won’t.
clare howell
“His inaugural column even suggested that the NSA’s slogan could be
“building informed decision makers — so that targets do not suffer our nation’s
wrath unless they really deserve it — by exercising deity-like monitoring of
the target.”
Unless they really deserve it? Like Dick Cheney
labeling Greenpeace (of which I am a member) a terrorist organization, ushering
them into the ‘really deserving it’ crowd. Or peaceful protesters being
arrested yesterday in St. Louis County, Missouri, thus making them deserving of
it. ‘Deity-like monitoring’ is a route to absolute tyranny.
-Mona-
I’ve not read through all the comments. Has anyone suggested there are
folks who have taken Maass’s article as a challenge who are currently burning
up Google to connect the dots and reveal Socrates?
coram nobis ↪ -Mona-
I
did a search on “personal mission statement creation of literature as a higher
calling than raising a child nobler to live as a penniless writer than a
parent” but came up with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which suggests that Socrates
may have cribbed some material.
Scott Walker’s name also popped up, for some reason.
-Mona- ↪ coram
nobis
HAHAHAHA
Amelia ↪ -Mona-
Yes they found him, it’s down thread.
-Mona- ↪ Amelia
Thanks. Found it — and found Google Result #11.
Amelia
Thanks for this article Peter Maas. I am so fascinated by the psychology of
people who spy on other people, and not just people who do it because they’re
paid to do it and work for the NSA. Our society in general is just
becoming so narcissistic, in terms of reality TV and social media. I just find
it crazy how people put so much of their personal stuff out there on the web,
just broadcasting it into the ether. Aren’t they just a little bit afraid of
whose attention they might catch? It’s a big scary world out there and you
can’t know who might “click” on your profile and take an interest. I tell my
kids all the time that the Internet is one of the scariest places on earth and
to keep their personal info, off of it.
But yes, “we are all hackers now,” the internet makes it so easy.
On
another note, I wonder about Socrates’ social skills. He strikes me as someone
who, though he may have a family and a job and maybe a social life and
friendships, is somehow a bit “cut off.” I mean, I don’t think his personal
relationships are probably very meaningful or fulfilling. I think he probably
has difficulty connecting with people. I think he probably doesn’t understand
himself very well, and therefore doesn’t understand other people very well. But
he wants to (understand better). I think he’s lonely. Maybe that’s why he feels
comfortable spying on other people. It’s a way of feeling connected to people,
but from a position of power, a position that doesn’t feel vulnerable.
I wonder what his personal feelings are about the people/targets he
surveils. Does he develop affection for them? Dislike maybe? Does he develop
proprietary feelings? Does the act of spying on someone, after a while, begin
to “feel” somehow, like a real two-way relationship?
I’m surprised he kept his personal blog up, especially since the
description of it here makes it sound a little like a “cry for help.” Ah well,
very interesting stuff Peter. Thanks again.
Peter Maass ↪ Amelia
Thanks, appreciate it.
Amelia ↪ Peter
Maass
Actually, if I could delete half of my above comment, where I speculate
about that guy’s personality, I would. Because I have no idea who he is. Why am
I psychoanalyzing? I think B. Mussolini probably got closest with his quote,
below:
“I found myself wishing that my life would be constantly and completely
monitored” – the “Socrates” guy
“I translated ‘god’ into ‘NSA’ because omniscience (even more than
omnipotence) is the hallmark of a god, and the natural human instinct is to
submit, as Socrates did, in the face of an omniscient entity.
The reason he did not remove his blog is because his faith instructs
him that if the NSA wishes it to be removed, it will do so. To act of his own
volition, without a direct order from the NSA would not occur to him.” – B.
Mussolini
Ted ↪ Amelia
I
have also pondered the psychological makeup of these folks. Apart from the
monetary compensation ( I assume it pays well ) there must be a pretty creepy
voyeurism thang going on here. I mean, this is really kind of sick. Not
like Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’ but a million times worse.
ericson ↪ Amelia
you know, Amelia?
That is actually a really cool characterization
i wouldnt change a thing
General Hercules
I have an intuition that he writes here as “abracadabra”.
Brian Murray
Great piece of writing, in my humble opinion. Fascinating story,
tantalizing I’m sure to a lot of folks who may get on line and find out who
this person is.
Peter Maass ↪ Brian
Murray
Thanks for your comment.
coram nobis
” … a Failed Writer Becomes a Loyal Spy?”
That sounds exactly like [WhiTTaker] Chambers.
-Mona- ↪ coram
nobis
Chambers was a
magnificent, elegant writer (and translator). He was not remotely “failed.” His
later essays for TIME were among the most lyrical and literary in the history
of that publication — from the years when it was quite good.
He became a spy because he was a devout believer in, and member of, the
Communist Party, and was recruited for that work. In large part because of his
facility with languages.
His professors
and friends at Columbia, including Lionel Trilling, expected him to become a
major writer and poet. But he fled to Communism and writing for the
Party including in the Daily Worker and The New Masses. His agitprop short
story Can You Make Out Their Voices? was considered fine fiction even
outside of Party circles. But then he was approached by the Party for
underground work, and he went.
coram nobis ↪ -Mona-
Point taken; I was mainly thinking of the period when he switched sides
again. A lot of New York and Hollywood luminaries were asked to name names, and
it did tarnish a lot of those mixed up in it. Being remembered for the Pumpkin
Papers isn’t exactly Pulitzer territory.
On another matter, have you had a chance to look at this?
It’s getting news stories — distractions — over the free-press issue,
but the whole document seems to have very wide implications for war doctrine.
-Mona- ↪ coram
nobis
Being remembered for the Pumpkin Papers
isn’t exactly Pulitzer territory.
He didn’t intend it as such. Initially, they were his insurance policy
against GRU reprisals when he jumped ship — he made sure they knew he had some
evidence hidden.
When the Hiss thing blew up a decade later, Chambers knew the truth and
had evidence showing it. Hiss made the mistake of suing Chambers for
defamation, and the Pumpkin Papers were released — and Richard Nixon and HUAC
were ecstatic, of course. At that point there was no denying Chambers really had
been a spy and that others implicated in the papers were (or had been) as well.
(The defamation suit ended.)
If the Pumpkin Papers hadn’t been enough, the Venona decrypts and a
brief opening of the KGB archives to Western historians, settled multiple matters
in Chambers’ favor.
Thoreau ↪ coram
nobis
The problem with writers is when they become vengeful grasping
supplicants to those who want to starve them to death, ad infinitum. There’s no
shortage of power tripping agents at publishing houses or editors who despise
anyone who didn’t psychoactively craft a message to match the elusive idea in
their head, that even *they* can’t manage to communicate clearly to another
person. It’s a tryanny of crazies!
Why didn’t
this guy just go live in a field somewhere and resolve to self-publish? Why go
insane and throw himself in the gears of the surveillance complex? Oh. Ego. The
bid to be remembered as something ,if not great.. by a bunch of evil people.
Greatness comes from purpose. People are going to piss on your purpose.
They’ll frutstrate your aim and deliberately misunderstand talent b/c they
don’t get it. However, you don’t give those people what they come to collect
on: failure. So in a way, I’m glad he didn’t give up even if he messed up.
This guy repaid a bunch of pathological narcissists with service that
gave morale to Americas equivalent of Stasi!
This whole scenario is a tragedy.
coram nobis ↪ Thoreau
Not all writers go out badly.
I think I am a verb instead of a personal
pronoun. A verb is anything that signifies to be; to do; to suffer. I signify
all three.
—Ulysses S. Grant, from a note written a few days before his death
—Ulysses S. Grant, from a note written a few days before his death
avelna2001
Socrates seems to assume benign intentions on the part of the NSA and
the government in general. He assumes that the only thing they’re trying to
accomplish is stopping the “bad guys”. That’s clearly not the case. Case in
point: Laura Poitras. It seems terribly naive on his part.
Fred Cowan ↪ avelna2001
Quite right, The NSA sees all as bad guys, friends who serve, or
suspect threats or talents for future recruits.
rrheard
If it is true that we are mysteries even to
ourselves — as the original Socrates suggested — the eavesdroppers at the NSA
invade our privacy without learning who we really are.
And above is precisely why mass surveillance is both ineffective,
pointless and likely counterproductive independent of the immorality of
engaging in voyeurism absent specific articulable cause to suspect someone. Our
secret inner lives, our private thoughts, ideas and secrets–that’s a big part
of what makes us individuals. We are at base a function of what we choose to
share with others, what we keep to ourselves, and the actions we take. But we very rarely if ever truly understand ourselves,
assuming that’s possible, much less anybody else. But we don’t broaden our
understanding of each other without engaging in the very hard work of earning
each other’s trust and respect and getting others to let us into their private
lives, hopes, fears, aspirations, neuroses . . . and you certainly don’t do it
by voyeurism without permission or legal or moral justification without. And you certainly
don’t get there by not having an incredible amount of compassion, tolerance and
adaptability to the many cultural and historical differences that make us
“different peoples”.
It is part of the human condition to distrust what we misunderstand or
aren’t familiar with. But the scary thing about the immoral hacks at the NSA
and affiliated agencies, is that an algorithm can never truly “understand” or
shed meaningful light on a person’s inner life–the myriad conflicting “whys”
behind what we do.
And taking a bunch of data points based on outward habits and
activities of a person and mashing them all together and trying to deduce
conclusions about what a person “might do” prospectively can only yield the
most superficial of insights.
What’s
most scary to me is that someone like the subject of this story is entrusted to
do this. The person you are describing is not very intelligent (given his
bad/unsuccessful writing), not very creative, not very insightful, not very disciplined or committed to the
thing he nominally loves most–writing, and to top it all off doesn’t
morally comprehend the implications of what he is doing to others in pursuit of
his narrow material self-interest and desire to be financially comfortable. But what he
perfectly represents is the average American. That’s what’s truly scary to
me–he is many if not most of us.
I’ve often said, if you ever want to know how a seemingly “normal” if
not “civilized” people like the Germans of their time could adopt Nazism, or
people could go along with Stalinism, or support the activities of Israel vis a
vis the Palestinians, or be proud Americans despite the fact we’re a nation
build and slavery and genocide and have been bombing the fuck out of human
beings all over the globe in service of “our interests” for 60+ years, simply
look in the mirror.
The vast majority of people on the globe are narcissistic, mistrustful
and frightened of the “other”. They are incredibly greedy. They are largely
dissociated from the larger consequences of their actions and don’t care. They
are willing to kill in service of “order” and the false perception of “security
and safety” and “material well-being” particularly where they can do it without
getting their own hands bloody or putting their own safety at risk. We are
tribal, barely evolved, naked little apes with hobbies and jobs and some
technological trinkets to make our lives a little less physically exhausting
and/or entertaining.
It will take an incredible external threat to all of humanity and/or
our physical environment to ever get the vast majority of humanity to consider
the possibility that as a species we are a) all basically the same despite some
very superficial phenotypic and cultural differences, b) that if we are to
survive as a species it will be through collaboration and sharing rather than
competition, c) that our “materialist” way of life is biologically
unsustainable and in fact counterproductive to forging the species wide
humility and the human sense of community necessary to perceive all life, and
our brief consciousness and experience of it, as the true gift bestowed upon
“humanity” and d) if we are to survive as a species that we are “all in it
together” along with all the other forms of life on the planet–no better no
worse, just different, (co) and interdependent and important in its own right
to our mutual survival.
Basically I think we’re approaching that point. I’m just not very
optimistic that we can evolve fast enough to not suffer catastrophe. Which is
not to say I believe it will be the end of the earth, just lots of things that
inhabit it and grow upon it. It will likely keep spinning and produce the next
mixture of species of life that will have “their time” being the dominant forms
of life on the planet. Hell maybe some small pockets of humanity will survive,
hard to say.
Hell I’m not even sure it is fair to see ourselves as the most
“evolved” life on the planet at present–the species most suited for prospective
survival. We are a young fragile though numerous little species, and not all
that adaptable given the short amount of time we’ve been here. I’d have to
think insects, or bacteria, or viruses or something like that are the most
evolved and long lasting species at this point. I mean isn’t that part of one
of the biggest human conceits–because we view ourselves as capable of things
that an ant isn’t, or we perceive ourselves more “cognitively” complex or
evolved than some other species on our planet, we believe we are somehow
superior to them? My question has always been “superior” how? In any meaningful
evolutionary way? From an evolutionary standpoint sometimes “simpler” and “less
complex” is more adaptive and more likely to survive and propagate the species.
Seems to me that is a more useful understanding of “superior” in an
evolutionary sense.
What good does all our cognitive horsepower and species “complexity” do
if our technological creations and “way of life” ultimately causes us to
destroy ourselves and much of the life we depend upon for our very survival? I
would think with a little humility and perspective we’d understand that we may
be more clever than we are smart or wise or otherwise evolutionarily suited for
survival. Guess we’ll see–well I probably won’t but some will. And I can pretty
much guarantee that endeavors like the NSA aren’t helping us achieve the wisdom
and humility we’re going to need if we’re going to make it as a species.
Amelia ↪ rrheard
You are all over the map with that post, rrheard, but I really enjoyed
it.
rrheard ↪ Amelia
Yeah sorry about that. Little overcaffeinated when I wrote it as you
can tell by the typos and lack of edits.
I guess a shorter version would have been this: the banality of evil is
in all of us–to lesser or greater degree–in our indifference, ignorance, fear
of the “other”, lack of empathy, lack of humility, laziness, materialist wants,
tribalism, misunderstandings, misguided intentions, confusion, lack of
self-knowledge and penchant for violence/competition over collaboration. And
“Socrates” is perfect example of just that idea(s). Bad things are going to
continue to happen, systemically and individually, until we can “evolve” past
some/all of that. If our humanity (or lack of emphasis on its better qualities)
and “culture” don’t catch up with our technological capacities, old ways of
organizing our societies and materialism pretty quickly, and change fairly
dramatically, then we’re in very serious trouble as a species (not to mention
all the other species of plants and animals on the planet) if we aren’t
already. IMHO.
nuf said ↪ rrheard
What’s most scary to me is that someone
like the subject of this story is entrusted to do this.
Socrates was selected for the job precisely
because of his submissive mind. That he spent 7 years as an evangelical (an
uber believer in a sky-dweller ) reveals his eagerness to serve , or submit to,
some form of a higher power which would obviously have his best interest. Or at
least, any wrath dispensed would be directed at those less servile.
Twisted; scary indeed.
Twisted; scary indeed.
rrheard ↪ nuf
said
@ nuf said
It also appears, without disclosing his identity, that he is/was US
Marine Corp (not sure if they like “ex”, “former” or whatever). Although now he
appears to be agnostic. In any event, appears he’s struggling/struggled with
some/all of that. Not surprising given he represents the common American
archtype, if not the average human one.
liberalrob ↪ rrheard
There’s very little I can add to that. I agree with your assessment of
our situation. It
is 3 minutes to midnight.
I wouldn’t equate evolutionary progress with humans or any species
being “most suited for prospective survival.” Evolution on Earth is replete
with examples of evolutions that failed spectacularly; the very term
“evolution” implies ongoing change. And as far as superiority is concerned,
that has always been subjective. The real question is, “evolution towards
what.” It may be true that simpler and less complex is better in terms of
longevity; but more complex and complicated may be better in achieving other
ends. If the goal of life is to survive and propagate, then Earth-based life
must someday leave the Earth in order to achieve that goal; it seems very
unlikely that bacteria or insects will manage to accomplish that before the Sun
burns out, other than by accident. Humans, however, or our descendents may just
figure out how to do it…and they will bring along all the rest, like Noah’s
Arks in space. So in that sense, I don’t think it’s improper to consider
ourselves superiorly-evolved. Was it wrong for Muhammad Ali to call himself
“The Greatest?” Within the realm of boxing, for a period of time, he was. So
were the dinosaurs masters of their time. Right now, as you say it’s our time.
Maybe the next step won’t be biological at all, but technological. We may be
creating our evolutionary successors at this very moment.
If
we destroy ourselves, which at the moment seems unpleasantly likely, the “good”
it will have done is to illustrate yet another failed path of evolution.
Evolution towards what, who knows? But if we fail to survive, the Earth will
continue on…and beyond that, the vast cosmos. And beyond that…
rrheard ↪ liberalrob
@ liberalrob
All good points.
Peter Maass ↪ rrheard
Thanks for taking the time to write this comment; really thoughtful.
rrheard ↪ Peter
Maass
Peter
You’re welcome. Sorry it lacked edits and brevity. Get a little carried
away contemplating the implications of a piece of writing I thought was both
interesting and important.
Great piece by the way. Seems to be the consensus with everybody but
“goodbye cruel world Ondelette” anyway.
altohone ↪ rrheard
“he perfectly represents is the average American”
I may be going out on a limb here rr, but after reading that comment
and having read many of your others, I would say you do NOT represent the
average American.
And that’s a good thing.
rrheard ↪ altohone
altohone
In many ways I’m like most Americans. I just think on the big things
(war, civil liberties, justice generally, racial/gender/sexual orientation
justice, economic justice, a more enlightened view of patriotism) I’m willing
to be an outlier and not go with the heard.
As I indicated, people are complicated. And notwithstanding all their
faults and fears and shortcomings, I think most people, and most Americans
individually have the capacity, if not the present will, to do the right thing.
To see the bigger picture if they want. But they are bombarded by so much
propaganda throughout so much of their lives beginning at a very early age and
emanating from so many institutions, that they struggle to recognize certain
truths that are right in front of them.
To do so would cause them great
cognitive/emotional stress because they are taught to view themselves as part
of something ‘exceptional’ and apart from the rest of humanity. It would also
force them to consider changing how they live their lives if they truly had to
grapple with the collective consequences of our individual “way of life”. And
most Americans are too economically insecure and worried about their children
and families to envision that change, while often painful, can be a good thing
in the long run.
Most of my closest friends and family aren’t at all like me
politically. Good folks but uninvolved and unconcerned about things if it
doesn’t directly impact them. That’s the way most people are. They are tribal
and incredibly generous to those in their immediate circle. My theory is that’s
where you start to change hearts and minds–one at a time–within the circle of
those closest too you. That has a way of spreading. At least I hope it does.
But in any event thanks for the compliment.
Piper's Son
This
is an outstanding article on a subject I can only describe as pathetic. Great
job.
Peter Maass ↪ Piper's
Son
Thanks,
appreciate it.
Fred Cowan
This article is haunting a look at a two way mirror with ghostly
reflections from both sides. Almost as if IT’s Peter Maass and Staff are raping
the rapist who may deserved his fate but hard to watch even though they are
gentle about it. One most first empty their thoughts and soul to be filled with
evil, then the pressure of peers and fears can do the rest. Those who can face
and expose evil without getting lost in it give us all a chance to make a
stand. The commenter’s are very on their game (below)
Pedinska: most of us have, at some point in our
lives, had to do something our employers – or others with power over our lives
– asked of us that we disagreed with and/or felt was wrong. Glass houses, “let
he who is without sin cast the first stone”, etc. and all that….
Fran
Macadam: Stalin was first a poet, Hitler a failed painter [Is a failed artist
dangeours?]
JLocke: Understandable that he doesn’t want to talk, but, totally
hilarious that a true believer in total surveillance wants his privacy.
Benito Mussolini: O citizens of the USA, that the NSA only is wise; and
in this oracle the NSA means to say that the wisdom of men is little or
nothing… as if the NSA said, O citizens, the wisest is he or she, who like
Socrates, knows that their wisdom is in truth worth nothing
Joanne Susan Hosea
Whom among us can state with clear conscience: We weren’t duped – at
least, in part – by the “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” threat and the
subsequent “hope and change” future plan?
Joanne Susan Hosea ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
Snake oil salesmen and people who sell a false bill of goods ought to
be held accountable. They’re the criminals and frauds.
Joanne Susan Hosea ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
The former NSA employee – nom de plume “Socrates” – described herein
strikes me as a “straw man” of sorts.
Joanne Susan Hosea ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
My “S” doesn’t stand for Stasi, clown. Pay closer attention ;-).
Torturestan ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
I was not duped, in any part, for any seconds, and your Stasi did not
like that one bit. (I guess — Mona, I know you’re lurking — they found this
opinion quite remarkable so they launched a remarkable torture session which
continues until this moment. My torture story is truly remarkable, Mona.)
However, I did believe some of the WMD stories not written by Judith
Miller. I read reports about a group of US soldiers finding WMD from the Iraq /
Iran war which contained poisons manufactured in South Carolina, then read of
the exposed soldiers shabby treatment from troop supporters. But the US did not
invade South Carolina in retaliation, and this created almost as much confusion
as the US invasion of Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, so it is possible that I am
being duped now. It could be a symptom of Post Traumatic Disinformation
Disorder.
a1a ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
Me, 100%. I am not in anyway an expert – common sense and logic with
not much more than a high school knowledge of Iraq, the M.E. and Saddam’s very
odd friendship with the US/West put me on high alert.
I still cannot believe that people actually believed the lies and
propaganda and thought it just fine and dandy to attack a sovereign country,
decimate and violently abuse its people and destroy its infrastructure and that
just for starters – I still find it mind boggling. “Hope and Change” – for whom
and how? People might have asked, it was most obviously not for Iraq’s citizens
Many foreign media outlets had an entirely different take that, at the
very least, should have been cause for pause, along with some attempt at the
critical thought process. Plus, the pillorying of Hans Blix and ElBaredei and
anyone who dared to say otherwise should have raised a flag in everyone’s mind,
if not the more obvious arm-twisting, threatening, blackmailing, bribing to
scramble together a ‘coalition of the willing’. Freedom fries? Really!
“Snake oil salesmen and people who sell a false bill of goods ought to
be held accountable” …. as should the masses and Congress who didn’t care to
question the chow that was served up to them, but ate it up , swallowed it
without chewing and even asked for more!
Torturestan
NSA’s slogan could be “building informed decision makers — so that
targets do not suffer our nation’s wrath unless they really deserve it — by
exercising deity-like monitoring of the target.
This pretty much sums up the totalitarian mind set of the most
defective members of US society, and commenters trying to wheedle sympathy for
the rodent are sloppy, letting others know they share Socrates’ world view, if
not his profession.
Socrates “really deserves” to be monitor ed 24×7, stalked, harassed,
threatened, and assaulted by several of his targets over a period of say, ten
years, at the risk of being too lenient. I think it’s called “facing music” in
the Intelligence / Torture Community’s dictionary.
Pedinska ↪ Torturestan
Socrates “really deserves” to be monitor
ed 24×7, stalked, harassed, threatened, and assaulted by several of his targets
over a period of say, ten years, at the risk of being too lenient.
No, he doesn’t. He’s doing something, however wrong, that he’s been
made to understand is legal and necessary. The people who should be punished
are those who lied to him, Congress and all of us.
Ricardo Camilo López ↪ Pedinska
The people who should be punished are those
who lied to him, Congress and all of us.
Did -you- lie to him? I have never done so!
I do think we all have free will and can tell right from wrong, if not
coming, then going.
RCL
Pedinska ↪ Ricardo
Camilo López
Did -you- lie to him? I have never done so!
There should have been a comma after Congress.
Eat shoot and die
Fred Cowan ↪ Ricardo
Camilo López
Yea, sometimes you don’t see it coming.
Torturestan ↪ Pedinska
“No, he doesn’t”. Yes, he does. The Golden Rule
If innocent people can be monitored 24×7, stalked, harassed,
threatened, and assaulted with impunity then equal and opposite pushback is
legit. Writing Congress, the ACLU, and the Center For Constitutional Rights” is
pissing in the wind.
You are too
comfortable; long-term organized stalking and torture sessions are a mere
abstraction to you. [Accurate.] And you are also excusing yourself and
the rest of the US population for your/their own responsibility — their
critical role — in turning the US into a totalitarian state. It could not have
happened without you, and this political climate will be maintained for as long
as Socrates and his rodent partners are accommodated, funded, and encouraged.
I think we’ve had this conversation before, but reminding American
voters they are not innocents is always worth repeating.
You need to endure several years of torture before showing us your
sympathy for Socrates and his Stasi comrades.
(Socrates and the NSA give you their warmest regards.)
Pedinska ↪ Torturestan
I make no such assumption and you know nothing about me aside from what
you read here, but go ahead and label me. It goes off my back waaaaay faster
than my own responsibilities for what is happening do. I take this shit
seriously.
-Mona- ↪ Pedinska
Pedinska, your accuser, “Torturestan,” lacks credibility — certainly
s/he has far, far less than you do. His/her judgment is severely impaired as
s/he believes and promotes deluded bullshit like this:
You are too comfortable; long-term
organized stalking and torture sessions are a mere abstraction to you.
And:
they found this opinion quite remarkable so
they launched a remarkable torture session which continues until this moment.
My torture story is truly remarkable,
There’s much more sheer lunacy in the latest Andrew Fishman comments
section from these “Targeted Individuals,” including this gem from “Pat B.”
My head and later parts of the upper body,
were roasted for nearly a year, 24/7, in 2010 with DEW. I slept on a bed of ice
every night, with my head surrounded by ice in order to offset the heat. The
cold presented its own miseries and the protection was hardly effective. The
level of pain is similar to poking your head inside of an oven whose broiling
setting has been turned on.
I do hope Peter Maass will join Glenn, Cora
Currier and Micah Lee in not permitting these “Targeted Individual” fanatics to
crapflood his comments. Fishman’s turned into an ocean of crazy.
Ricardo Camilo López
and by the way guys, if you have wondered when will “Mona” show up, I
tell you “be not afraid” . I paid her a ticket to some beach resort in Bali
without access to the Internet. I just hope our darling Mona will withstand
that 😉
RCL
Ricardo Camilo López
THE PHILOSOPHER OF SURVEILLANCE. What Happens
When a Failed Writer Becomes a Loyal Spy?
Thank you very much Peter. I tip my hat to you (with my comments).
… an in-house ethicist who would write a
philosophically minded column about signals intelligence.
… they had what it takes to be the “Socrates
of SIGINT.”
Something I have noticed is that those NSA morons think of themselves
as semioticians, data analysts, linguists, … smart guys, just because they make
money by sucking it up the chain of command
… events that was half-Sartre and
half-Blade Runner … examiner did not know enough about his life to understand
why at times the needle jumped.
Damn! APA doesn’t want to “cooperate” with these guys anymore. Who will
explain to those idiots (among many other “technicalities”) there is something
called intersubjectivity and you will not be able to get into people’s minds,
never “know” enough about anyone to understand anything, really
“One of the many thoughts that continually
went through my mind was that if I had to reveal part of my personal life to my
employer, I’d really rather reveal all of it,” …
You see! They have thoughts going through their minds
“I found myself wishing that my life would
be constantly and completely monitored,” he continued. “It might seem odd that
a self-professed libertarian would wish an Orwellian dystopia on himself, but
here was my rationale: If people knew a few things about me, I might seem
suspicious. But if people knew everything about me, they’d see they had nothing
to fear. This is the attitude I have brought to SIGINT work since then.”
… and what thoughts those “experts” have!
… yet does everything it can to prevent us
from knowing anything about the men and women who surveil us, aside from a
handful of senior officials who function as the agency’s public face
What I like about this piece is that theintercept a la John Oliver
seems to be slowly understanding that there are very easy ways to make things
understandable to the proles out there. I keep waiting for pictures or Michelle
Obama fingering her husband. You have such “metadata”, why not using it for a
good purpose. USG basically keep all us in virtual prisons, they are killing
and double tapping people based on “statistical patterns” even our medical
records are part of their purview … and then theintercept has “moral” issues
with telling people how it is like …
Socrates was an evangelical Christian …
Those Christians! God bless ‘America’!
His young son answered and fetched his
father. Socrates was not pleased. He asked that I not disclose his identity,
which was ironic because his columns praised the virtues of total transparency
as a way to build trust. Why shouldn’t the public know about him?
and he and his likes will not have a comfortable feeling when they read
this article (or maybe they are moral and emotional zombies already). Now,
those kinds of good ‘American’ Christians seem to be way above that boring
“Don’t do unto others …” thing. That insipidly boring “Golden Rule” must be for
the brainless lowlifes
“I can’t say anything,” he said, not long
before he hung up. “You can’t use my name.”
These people mean “can” and “cannot” in their own distorted ways. I
would love to see that guy exposed for them to realize that in the same way
that they “can” watch and mess with people’s lives as if they were ants in an
experiment, things (even if minimal) “can” also happen to them
The name on Socrates’ columns was not, it
turned out, his full legal name; he used an abbreviated form of his first name.
His last name is an ordinary one that yields a large number of search results.
McNeill and I had a bit of luck, though — his columns included a user ID with
his middle initial. McNeill needed a day to comb the web and examine public as
well as proprietary databases before finding a person she believed was
Socrates. He resided in the Washington area, was married to a woman who had
worked in Korea (Socrates is a Korean language analyst), and he had lived in a
variety of places that correlated with biographical hints in the columns.
Hey guys one of the few things I can boast about is being an excellent
data analyst. I did write my Master’s thesis on the Mathematics of
informational related issues (ghost phenomena) in physical experiments. I used
to work for corporate ‘America’ (Ernst & Young, American Express, Lehman Brothers)
doing data analysis. In fact, exclusively based on the info you published on
this article it is not so hard to find out who this “Korean Socrates who was an
evangelical Christian” is (well, if they haven’t already removed and obfuscated
those leads already).
The blog consists of more than 20,000 words
Socrates wrote about his failed effort, before joining the NSA, to earn a
living as a writer.
That is “him” …
Socrates represented a post-modern version
of the literary eavesdropper.
I think you may be overworking a bit your associations here. He is just
one of the many unsuccessful #ssh0l3s who can’t figure out what to do with
their @ss (for lack of minds)
… Winston Smith in 1984, who works at the
Ministry of Truth and despises everything it does. Gerd Wiesler in The Lives of
Others turns insubordinate after he receives an assignment to surveil a
well-known writer and his girlfriend. And Harry Caul in The Conversation comes
to fear that he is being played by the business executive who hired him.
and Howard Prince (Woody Allen) in “The Front”, even though he wasn’t
even the actual writer was a guy with a spine, some sense of humanity (and
humor) who did chose to go to prison instead of playing their game by snitching
the actual author
… “We probably all have something we know a
lot about that is being handled at a higher level in a manner we’re not
entirely happy about” … “This can cause great cognitive dissonance for us,
because we may feel our work is being used to help the government follow a
policy we feel is bad” …
“I try to be a good lieutenant and good
civil servant of even the policies I think are misguided.”
and to those kinds mixed rationalizations from “I am just following
orders” + Evangelical Christianism is all those morally deafferented morons
have in their minds
Socrates does not have a quiet psyche, …
The story, about a man whose ex-girlfriend
gives him herpes, was called “Infection.”
Well, that is imaginative enough. Don’t you think? He was aiming to at
least beat the title of Ha Jin’s novel: “Waiting”
Socrates sent his stories to literary
reviews and got rejection after rejection. Late last year, he wrote that he
felt empty and low.
Again, you may be overworking a bit your associations here. His being
an NSA #ssh0l3 does not explain or is a result of his muse or personal issues.
He could be a continuously rejected, “uncomprehended” writer like Anne Frank or
James Joyce. He may become a later comer with a very troubled life (even though
not as a snitch) like Cervantes, a mad man like who was actually a great
painter like Van Gogh or later become some sort of Rustichello da NSA
We should admit something good about him. His reflections, role in this
article.
THE INTERCEPT HAS A POLICY of not
publishing the names of non-public intelligence officials unless there is a
compelling reason, as with our naming of Alfreda Bikowsky, who oversaw key
aspects of the CIA’s torture program.
Thank you very much for exposing that @ssh0l3.
// __ Alfreda Frances Bikowsky: CIA Criminal – YouTube
youtube.com/watch?v=Krdxr1EwQ_s
We should let them understand secrecy is not our business, so we don’t
have to respect their “morality”.
The beauty of anonymizing data, according
to the (very many) entities that do it, is that nobody can be identified —
citizens and consumers do not have to worry that their privacy is violated when
petabytes of data are collected about what they do, where they go, what they
read, where they eat and what they buy, because their names are not attached to
it. The conceit is that our data does not betray us.
So we (very stupidly) think …
… Would you like to know the names of the
schools where his wife has worked? Would you like to see the pictures of their
son or their house?
Well, no. We should be decent, his family should be kept off limits,
but not him; even thought, to my surprise, USG doesn’t respect people’s
families and dear ones. Knowing the name of his dog or its meaning is kind of
funny because something peculiar about those morons is the names they give to
things. Is the name of his dog Plato?
If the original Socrates of ancient Greece were still around …
Actually, I hear him sobbing about such an idiot corrupting his name,
but then again those folks tend to use names in funky ways
Socrates (the columnist) insisted that
total surveillance would allow the NSA to understand us and not mistake our
intentions. His inaugural column even suggested that the NSA’s slogan could be
“building informed decision makers — so that targets do not suffer our nation’s
wrath unless they really deserve it — by exercising deity-like monitoring of
the target” …
and “we” the NSA are the Gods unleashing “our” “nation’s wrath” on
whomever we deem to be bad guys, so get ready theintercept and all your
posters, including Mona … (you see Mona trashing TIs didn’t save you)
Yet the blog stayed up. In fact, he
continued posting — once about a blockbuster movie series he disliked, another
time about a short story he generally liked. I asked McNeill, the research
editor, what she made of this, and she was surprised, too.
Well, maybe you will give him the chance to get the attention he seems
to crave and by the way “Socrates” if you read this, you could show theintercept
how silly those mere mortals are by posting the URL to your own blog here.
Listen, you may like my poetry, which you may even find therapeutic:
I promise to you that I would give you input on your writing.
… I’m not sure I can ever understand him,
even if he were strapped into a polygraph and had all the time in the world to
answer my questions. If it is true that we are mysteries even to ourselves — as
the original Socrates suggested — the eavesdroppers at the NSA invade our
privacy without learning who we really are.
That was a great closure to one of the most interesting articles ever
penned at theinternet
Satyagraha,
RCL
RCL
Peter Maass ↪ Ricardo
Camilo López
RCL, this is a great, thoughtful comment. Really appreciate it. PM
ondelette
Here’s an example. I told Socrates, in our
phone call, that I had read his blog. I assumed that once our conversation was
finished he would go online and take down the blog, scrupulously doing what a
smart surveiller would do once he realized he was the target rather than
targeter — try to scrub the public domain of his existence to inhibit
surveillance of him.
Yet the blog stayed up. In fact, he
continued posting —…Yet I had misunderstood him. I’m not sure I can ever
understand him, even if he were strapped into a polygraph and had all the time
in the world to answer my questions.
It is as amazing to watch this. Truly. And to see it met with comments
like,
I would even go so far as to assert that,
given his appeal to modesty, he lacks sufficient self-awareness and imagination
to succeed as a writer. (TallyHoGazehound)
To say the things he’s quoted as saying, he
must be sorely lacking in self awareness.(JLocke)
I wonder if he might be lurking here now,
reading comments. If so, I would encourage him to engage – though I can only
imagine the sort of trepidation that might produce – so that all of us might
learn from this experience.(Pedinska)
The problem here isn’t Peter Maass’ and Sheelagh McNeil’s lack of
knowledge of their subject, nor the commenters who display the same, the
problem is that Peter Maass and Sheelagh McNeil themselves lack the
introspection to understand their subject.
I came here some time after being kicked off of The Guardian. The
moderators there thought they knew me well, I’m sure. They wrote me an email
about how my posts were in violation of their rules on grounds of “irrelevancy”
and “off topic”. The letter also stated that all comments that mentioned male
victims of rape in articles about rape in general (which over there means rape
of women only) were considered offensive and off topic.
What they thought they knew was they believed — perhaps they’d even
done big data datamining techniques to prove it to themselves — that all people
who brought that topic up were “MRA” adherents of misogynist websites come to
troll. Never mind that if they had even done as much schlock surveillance as
one tenth what Maass and McNeil did, they’d have discovered that I penned a
column the two subjects of male rape, and rape as a weapon of war on FDL (and
led an off-site discussion on it for a few days afterward, but they wouldn’t
know that).
They are also of a kind with what’s going on here. They lacked the
introspective ability to read one of the comments they had automatedly
classified as offensive, and tried to figure out why it was being posted. Not
many misogynists rednecks from MRA sites quote the European Journal if
International Law, or the UNHCR.
Introspection people. It isn’t a quality lacking in our
“Socrates” subject necessarily. We don’t actually know. We don’t know what his
“editorial control” over his internal columns was and who decided on their
topics, we don’t know anything about them. In particular, we don’t really know
he believes in doing to people what Peter and Sheelagh did to him at all. We
don’t know that because Peter and Sheelagh lack the introspection to decide to
solve their quandary about his reaction to being doxxed before going to print,
and just blithely chatter on about it being unknowable.
I suggest you start, Peter, by watching the movie Fair Game about the spy Valerie
Plame. Then follow it up with a fictional account based on that incident
as well, Nothing
But The Truth
starring Kate Beckinsale and Vera Farmiga. And then maybe finish up by
reading The
Politics of Truth by Joseph Wilson. They are all about a very small group of
people of order 3 (Karl
Rove, Scooter Libby, Bob Novak, essentially), deciding to doxx Valerie
Plame, a deeply undercover CIA agent who was working on finding out about
weapons of mass destruction and their lack of existence, because her husband
blew the whistle on the “Yellow Cake” assertions in the run up to the Iraq War.
I bet you don’t see much common ground between Socrates and Plame. But
that isn’t because there isn’t any, it’s because you believe that the small
group (Rove,Libby,Novak) is inherently more evil and nefarious than the small
group (Snowden,Maass,McNeil). To someone like me who has reason to fear (not
worry, not paranoia — fear) doxxing, there is identically zero difference. A
small group of zealous people, convinced of their righteousness, reached out
and smacked someone who’s identity needed protection — regardless of whether
you agree with why — and feels quite okay with what they did.
And the commenters that likewise don’t know why Socrates’ behavior is
what it is, or believe they can see into his soul and find learning experiences
and lack of introspection? Did any of you do the simple and very
introspective/empathetic exercise of putting yourself in his shoes at all? Or
do you, like Peter Maass, believe you don’t have to because it’s just an NSA
guy you may have hurt, not somebody who’s an “innocent civilian”?
As someone who has to protect myself against doxxing, and who actually
came here after The Guardian kicked me out precisely because I felt I could
trust Glenn Greenwald (and by extension his organization) to protect my
pseudonymity, I am appalled.
Peter, it’s very simple why he continued blogging: He is trying to
limit the damage and stopping a public action calls attention to anyone doing
real surveillance that he’s the subject you are referring to. It isn’t that
you don’t know him well enough to know that, it’s that you don’t know the
effects of your reporting on your subjects well enough to know what you’re
doing to them.
You people have it completely wrong. People don’t fear your doxxing or
your incomplete anonymizer scrubbings because of what you will do to them, or
even what Pedinska reminded us of, “Comment sections can be cruel places, and I
would hope that we could engage with compassion.” They fear doxxing for
reasons you have no knowledge of at all.
You have no idea what this person does at the Korea desk, or anywhere
else in the NSA aside from his column in their internal document, the
permission you got for which was from Edward Snowden and no one else. After
which it was you two who decided that gave you a free ride to surveil him, your
logic undoubtedly including the self-righteousness of going up against the
surveillors at the NSA and teaching them a lesson. In all, three people
accountable to no one sat judge, jury, and executioner on this guy’s identity,
just like Rove, Libby, and Novak.
I fear doxxing because of something nobody here could possibly guess
without a ton of digging, and a personal interview on a subject I’d never give
one on. Because it’s something that requires secrecy to the extent that I take
it to the grave alone. You can’t possibly know the harm you’d cause because you
can’t possibly know what’s involved. And you’d never know afterward, either,
and if you apply the Greenwald idiotic metric, you’d assume you never caused
any harm and you’d be dead wrong.
For all the columns here about privacy, and the thrills everyone has at
bantering about encryption and XKeyScore and everything else, you don’t know
what secrets really are at all. Not because you haven’t read a thousand
documents and interviewed a million people and massed whatever you could
understand of dozens of experts. Because you haven’t ever taken the step of
sitting there for an hour before you published and trying to be your subject
and experience what they will go through when your column comes out.
I came here after The Guardian because there are 3 organizations left
online who can cause real harm with the information they have about me. One, I
have their written, binding statement that they will not doxx me. One is an
organization that I just have to continue to worry about for the foreseeable
future. The third is Glenn. I came here because I trusted him that he would
never do such a thing, I still do trust Glenn.
But I’m leaving now, because I can’t trust this place. Peter, that’s
what you fail to understand at all, not because you’re no good at surveillance,
not because there’s an existential gulf between people’s minds that we will
never understand each other at that level.
Because YOU lack the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.
I’m sure a lot of people here are thinking, “Don’t let the door hit you
in the ass on the way out.” So be it. But you should at least allow one thing
to penetrate the thick armor of righteousness that surrounds this place like a
wetsuit that hasn’t been rinsed in a while: You are a complete mirror image of
the people you hate at the NSA. You share their self-righteousness, you share
their belief that nobody you want to target deserves privacy.
What you needed to know, Peter, is that you have seen the enemy and
they is us.
Outahere for good. As a beacon for civil rights and privacy, this place
is an Epic Fail.
Pedinska ↪ ondelette
And the commenters that likewise don’t
know why Socrates’ behavior is what it is, or believe they can see into his
soul and find learning experiences and lack of introspection? Did any of you
do the simple and very introspective/empathetic exercise of putting yourself in
his shoes at all?
Actually, I did. And, though I hadn’t read the entire list of comments
before posting mine in hope of some sort of dialogue (because I think, in
general, such dialogues help us understand)…
Or do you, like Peter Maass, believe you don’t have to because it’s
just an NSA guy you may have hurt, not somebody who’s an “innocent civilian”?
…I was extremely disconcerted to see that people in comments
immediately went searching for his personal information, a search that could
have been avoided had the article left a few things less specific. This guy
didn’t deserve doxxing anymore than the Conde Nast guy who was hooking up with
prostitutes on the down low.
I am not of the mind that low level grunts should be made to suffer for
the sins of their bosses. But you wouldn’t know that, ondelette, because you
lack the introspection to understand me. Or maybe it’s not about introspection
so much as just assuming things about others simply because of lack of intimate
information/knowledge.
I understand why you feel the need to leave and think that’s a shame.
Do what you need to do to remain safe. But please don’t ever think you know the
end-all be-all of my thought process because you take something I write and
apply contexts that aren’t accurate based on your own assumptions.
Pedinska ↪ Pedinska
Sorry. Mishandled italics. The following should have been italicized as
a quote from ondelette’s comment:
Or do you, like Peter Maass, believe you
don’t have to because it’s just an NSA guy you may have hurt, not somebody
who’s an “innocent civilian”?
ondelette ↪ Pedinska
I’ll comment one more time to answer you. I don’t consider it a
“learning experience” to sit fearful of the wrong eyes reading something that
gives up privacy, knowing that the repercussions might be quite horrible and
deadly. I consider it the drip drip drip torture of total helplessness and
unshared responsibility. Not everybody who fears exposure fears for themselves
alone.
Pedinska ↪ ondelette
Not everybody who fears exposure fears
for themselves alone.
I understand this to the best of my ability. Because I have not had
direct experience it is, of necessity, something not inherent for me. That does
not mean I think it negligent. It also does not mean that I am minimizing it.
I am sorry you feel you need to go but I understand (as best I can).
Donald B. ↪ ondelette
Already back for another petulant mini-gripe.
Oh, lordy, Ondy doesn’t fear for his self-loving self, but for some
nameless, helpless others in his benevolent care. What a classic display of
overcompensation for low self-esteem. Keep countering that sense of
worthlessness to stop you from opening your veins, Ondy. ‘I AM smart and
important, I AM smart and important, I AM smart and important.’
-Mona- ↪ Donald
B.
‘I AM smart and important, I AM smart and important, I AM smart and
important.’
Exactly.
What is the universe of professions that would require someone to post
anonymously online to protect others? Lawyers, doctors, therapists,
priests — these all post online all the time using their real names.
JLocke ↪ Pedinska
– “…I was extremely disconcerted to see
that people in comments immediately went searching for his personal
information, a search that could have been avoided had the article left a few
things less specific. This guy didn’t deserve doxxing anymore than the Conde
Nast guy who was hooking up with prostitutes on the down low. “
I object to the insinuation that my (and clearly you are referring to
among others, me) verification of the article is a form of “doxxing”. I did no
such thing. I regularly fact check articles, and for this one, I made no
exception.
Is the article itself “doxxing”? I don’t think so either. One could
accuse any story with unnamed individuals of revealing something about them.
The only way not to reveal anything would be to not reveal the story. What did
Maass reveal? The guy has a house, a son, etc, …Altogether not enough to direct
you to him. Was that necessary? I’d argue, in fact I’ve already argued, that
the public purpose of doing that is to press the point on the power of meta
data, and the value of privacy.
Peter Maass ↪ JLocke
This comment makes an important point about the difficulty of writing
about someone without identifying him/her, even if the name is not mentioned.
It’s the 33 bits of entropy problem (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy).
As my story stated, it might be possible that Socrates’ name could be found via
the information that was in my story; we realized that. At The Intercept, we
discussed this a lot and some of the factors that were discussed included the
fact that Socrates did not take down his blog, even though he knew a story was
going to be published about him, and the consequences of him being identified
by readers (the consequences being minor to negligible, I believe), as well as
the public interest in writing about him (versus not writing about him at all).
Pedinska ↪ JLocke
I object to the insinuation that my (and clearly you are referring
to among others, me)
Actually, I wasn’t referring/insinuating to you at all, but if it makes
you feel better to think so, ok. 
And, as Peter notes below,
As my story stated, it might be possible
that Socrates’ name could be found via the information that was in my story; we
realized that.
I would be interested to know why Peter believed the consequences would
be minor to negligible.
JLocke ↪ Pedinska
– ‘Actually, I wasn’t referring/insinuating to you at all, but if it
makes you feel better to think so, ok. “
I’m glad you were not referring to me, I respect your opinion. I was
surprised when you wrote this:
– “I was extremely disconcerted to see that
people in comments immediately went searching for his personal information, a
search that could have been avoided had the article left a few things less
specific. “
In my opinion, it is unclear in the passage who you are blaming for the
search that could have been avoided, the readers doing the searching, or Maass.
I was taken aback, that my conducting a google search, and not even revealing
what I found, was disconcerting to you. You’ve now cleared up what you meant.
And we disagree on the danger the article itself poses. It’s definitely an
interesting question.
Peter Maass ↪ Pedinska
<>
Lots of reasons, including the fact that there are plenty of government officials, and private citizens, who have said or written or done far worse and have not been harmed.
Lots of reasons, including the fact that there are plenty of government officials, and private citizens, who have said or written or done far worse and have not been harmed.
JLocke ↪ ondelette
Ondelette, you think this article is “doxing”? Seriously? I don’t think
you know what doxing is.
Wikipedia – Essentially, doxing is openly
revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which
were previously private or difficult to
obtain.
Urbandictionary – “It’s publicly exposing
someone’s real name or address on the Internet who has taken pains to keep them
secret. “
So to spell it out to genius here, Ondy, where are the difficult to
obtain private records? Where in the article is his real name or address?
Only those of us who have read ondelette’s angry egotistical outbursts
over the years can really appreciate the comedy of this:
– “Because YOU lack the ability to put
yourself in someone else’s shoes.”
(or as the hulk would say more elegantly: “Ondy mad!, Ondy smash!!”)
To the best of my recollection, nobody has ever accused ondelette of
having empathy, or for that matter self-awareness (ego?, yes, in spades). And
this post gives us a taste of how it’s all about ondelette. Be sure to keep
posting in open comment forums Ondy, how you are done with commenting, and are
really into keeping your identity secret, from, …whoever cares? I guess.
Wnt ↪ JLocke
Beyond a doubt this is a case of doxxing. Somebody had a column under a
pseudonym, it attracted somebody’s attention, and he attempted to figure out
who the author was. It’s no different here than on Usenet or 4chan or anywhere
else.
However, the apocalyptic arguments just don’t cut it. If there is some
national security reason why the identity of a translator must not get
out, then why is he revealing personal details about himself in a news column
that was apparently quite widely distributed within the NSA’s network even
before Snowden made his disclosure? Why are they letting him (or anyone)
distribute that column, let alone encouraging it?
The thing we have to bear in mind is that the people the U.S. has to
worry about, the North Koreans (?) who hacked Sony, the Syrian Electronic Army
that hacked a whole mess of media and Wall Street in about a week last year …
that kind of organization can do its own doxxing. And it’s not going to do it
for our entertainment. For example, if the NSA were ready to fire one of its
translators for being doxxed, then there should be somebody in Syria who is
ready to tell a dozen translators that their doxxes are about to come out —
unless they do him a favor now and then. And I imagine the Russians are much
more competent than that.
Doxxing is often a very low journalism, a sort of pointless assault
that can have a disturbing impact, but I’m not ready to believe the NSA should
have special immunity against it. The immunity we need to develop should be
nationwide – based on a deliberate and calculated effort to deny doxxers the
ultimate goals of their harassment, most notably the firing of those targeted.
If we as a country can learn to circle like musk-oxen and stand up to bullies
as a matter of habit, then doxxing will be a pointless and harmless exercise
and we will focus more on the issues, such as “anonymization” of personal
details, that it incidentally brings up.
JLocke ↪ Wnt
– “Beyond a doubt this is a case of doxxing. Somebody had a column
under a pseudonym, it attracted somebody’s attention, and he attempted to
figure out who the author was. It’s no different here than on Usenet or 4chan
or anywhere else.”
Interesting definition. But it doesn’t seem to match many other definitions
currently in use. Many definitions seem to include the “private contact
information” component.
This is doxing:
– “Donald Trump Gives Out Lindsey Graham’s
Cell Phone Number, Continues to Be a Jackass
If you’re not familiar with the term, to
“dox” someone is to share their private contact information with a large group
of people.”
Wnt ↪ JLocke
Ask the experts: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Dox
. Or see Wikipedia on “doxing”. The Hollywood Gossip doesn’t have standing.
JLocke ↪ Wnt
– “Ask the experts…The Hollywood Gossip doesn’t have standing.”
I’ve already posted three definitions of “doxing” on this page alone.
But if you are looking for a publication that has standing, you will be looking
a long time. English is a living and evolving language.
I’ve got a better idea, you find a sentence in the English language
where “doxing” is used in any way to even remotely describe something akin to
what Peter Maass writes in this article.
Wnt ↪ JLocke
Well, I’ll admit the weird wrinkle here is that he doesn’t actually
post a trove of documents as per an old fashioned doxxing. But he provides a
roadmap that makes all of them easy to find, and find them we have/will. The
situation is very vaguely analogous to Barrett Brown posting a link to a trove
of hacked documents, and then being blamed for “releasing” them. Now to be
clear, I never wanted Barrett Brown prosecuted, nor do I think that this open
source doxxing (even if the documents were posted) would be comparable to a
hack … but I’m not going to call it entirely ‘non-creepy’ either. What it is,
really, is as the author says, a demonstration of the power of ‘anonymized’
information. Which is a fair point to make, but a disturbing one to take. The
point of recognizing that this is a doxxing is so that we realize we should
take the high ground and not see it go on into the sort of harassment that
often goes hand in hand with that.
rrheard ↪ ondelette
Ondelette
I wish I could say I’m sorry to see you go, because occasionally you
have something to offer discussions. Occasionally. But on balance I can’t
honestly say I’ll miss you.
Here’s my beef with your neurotic desire for anonymity. If that desire
is born of keeping the secrets of others out of professional ethical
obligations that’s one thing. And if outing you would somehow infringe those
obligations or out their identities, then I could see why you are so paranoid.
But if what you do is so dependent upon your identity not being known,
and/or your vocation or profession is one that doesn’t permit you to stand
behind your opinions openly, then one of several things is likely true, a) the
organization you work for has its priorities all screwed up if its employees
aren’t allowed to have public opinions on matters of public importance
(assuming you don’t disclose sensitive internal information or that of your
clients/patients whatever, b) you are more interested in your personal
financial well being as a result of that employment choice than you are of
being a human being who has a legal and moral right to hold and espouse any
opinion you choose as long as it doesn’t violate the law, or c) you’re entirely
too self-important and full of shit and have always been entirely too
self-important and full of shit.
Like I said, I wish I was sad to see you go but I’m not. And I expect
most around here aren’t.
Pedinska ↪ rrheard
For what it’s worth rr, I believe this to be true of ondelette:
If that desire is born of keeping the secrets of others out of
professional ethical obligations that’s one thing. And if outing you would
somehow infringe those obligations or out their identities, then I could see
why you are so paranoid.
There really are professions where a person must maintain anonymity to
protect innocents. ondelette’s other qualities as judged in these comment
sections notwithstanding, I firmly believe that the above applies.
rrheard ↪ Pedinska
@ Pedinska
Fair enough, but I’ve always had a hard time understanding what that
profession is that simply disclosing that he/she works in it, could jeopardize
his/her obligations or the identity of those he/she assists or represents.
Human rights workers aren’t anonymous. Diplomats aren’t anonymous. Doctors
Without Borders employees aren’t anonymous. Most government employees except
covert operatives aren’t anonymous. Rape counselors aren’t anonymous.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists and other medical professionals aren’t
anonymous. And none of them feel the need to not have an opinion under their
own name. Just don’t divulge others identities (or facts that would lead to
their identities) in having your opinions or employing facts to support them,
or violate your ethical obligations to any particular individual.
If Ondelette would simply disclose the field that he/she works in and precisely
how exposing his/her own identity would comprise those ethical obligations I’d
be more sympathetic. But like I’ve said, over the years, I’ve come to the
conclusion the Ondelette has some “issues” that make his/her paranoia
irrational and not make any coherent sense. I’m conceding there may be some
profession that I’ve never considered, but for the life of me I’ve never
figured out what it could be that would impose the ethical obligations that
Ondelette describes and which supports Ondelette’s paranoia and positions.
I wasn’t raised not to stand up openly for what I believe. I was raised
to shoulder the consequences my mistakes, to admit wrong, and to change an
opinion or belief based on better information or more rational or moral way of
thinking about the situation. There’s no shame in that for me, it’s part of
being human. It’s why I’ve never hidden my identity here or anywhere. I’m
willing to defend what I say or write under any an all circumstances. If that
hurts me socially or economically so be it. Anybody that holds it against me I
know hasn’t taken the time to know me or what I’m about at personal level so I
don’t care what they think. I don’t put my personal economic self-interest (or
material desires) before my integrity and beliefs to the degree I’m capable.
It’s one of the biggest problems I have with us all playing ball with
the logic of capitalism. What does it teach the children of the world that you
can rationalize almost anything in the name of your (or your families’)
economic self-interest? We play ball under a system that forces us all, to one
degree or another, to not be, morally or intellectually, fully actualized human
beings. And by its very design, to not be accountable for the consequences of
our actions. It’s a weird form of slavery or neo-feudalism. And it is very
dangerous in my opinion. We are obligated to keep quiet, submissive and docile
about what matters most in life for fear of being cut off from the economic
pipeline of our “livelihoods”. It is fundamentally anathema to any sort of
political autonomy and democratic accountability. It is “the problem”, IMHO,
from which most others originate. That’s not to say it is impossible for some
to find a niche where they don’t have to make those “sacrifices” but the
question becomes, why should anybody? So people can have flat screen TVs and
running shoes? I don’t get it. Never have.
-Mona- ↪ Pedinska
There really are professions where a person must maintain anonymity to
protect innocents.
Not many. What professions come to mind?
Pedinska ↪ -Mona-
Not many. What professions come to mind?
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t have a list handy at the moment.
There are a lot of things I don’t know about lawyering and
confidentiality, but just because I can’t produce a list of those things
doesn’t mean I can’t stretch my mind a bit to imagine that they might exist.
-Mona- ↪ Pedinska
But I honestly cannot come up with professions that require online
anonymity to protect others. Sure, such a few might exist but I’ll be damned
if I can list any.
Moreover, based on Ondelette’s behavior I’m FAR more inclined to
attribute this (from rrheard) as the basis for Ondelette’s frequent
lamentations about his “threatened” anonymity:
c) you’re [Ondelette] entirely too self-important and full of shit and
have always been entirely too self-important and full of shit.
Donald B. ↪ ondelette
This authoritarian pseudo-intellectual’s disdain for those who are more
honest, thoughtful, decent, intelligent, and who are much better writers than
he, is such that he’s become rattled enough withdraw from their presence for
good. He can no longer muster the cognitive dissonance to deny his inadequacy.
Except, of course, he’ll be back sooner rather than later to continue
his posturing, because it’s essential to his ego that he convince us of his
worthiness, nay, his superiority. Then he’ll easily be shown up again as a feeb
and a fraud, and he’ll scamper away in a tantrum. Lather, rinse, repeat.
coram nobis ↪ ondelette
Ondelette, I am sorry to see you depart.
If you’re still checking posts, check this out, could you?
liberalrob ↪ ondelette
tl;dr: “One day, you’ll all be sorry!”
Christian C Holmer ↪ ondelette
…that was a revolving door.
altohone
What a shame the Snowden archive didn’t include the info and writing
samples of those who were rejected by the NSA.
Talk about unfulfilled lives full of bitterness… maybe a couple of them will turn whistleblower as a result?
Talk about unfulfilled lives full of bitterness… maybe a couple of them will turn whistleblower as a result?
As for the comments about it being illegal for our soldiers, government
employees and spooks to visit TI and other outlets, I would be willing to bet a
shiny new nickel that there is an exception for the staffers tasked with
monitoring and analyzing such things… and of course when collecting it all,
analysts reviewing what their targets are reading no doubt get some exposure as
well.
So don’t despair. When we heap our praise and admiration on them, at least a few do get to read it.
So don’t despair. When we heap our praise and admiration on them, at least a few do get to read it.
Geoffrey de Galles
Given all this tremendous publicity, I don’t doubt that Socrates could
now score big with a book agent & publisher if only he can dig out and
assemble copies of enough of his past writings — and if only he will follow
through with the conceit of using Socrates as his nom de plume. Mind, he might
need first to submit his writings to the NSA for publication-approval, as per
the rules @ the CIA.
toidiY sselesU ↪ Geoffrey
de Galles
Albeit informed by as little as I have been able to read of the
socratic oeuvre so far, I can pretty much guarantee I shall be giving his book
a shitty review.
deimon
More like one of the Tyrants of Athens raised after the hemlock without
benefit of Socrates’ guidance. This really perverts “the unexamined life is not
worth living.”
Maybe Foucault or Bentham would have been more appropriate philosophers
after whom to name their propaganda column.
Excellent, creepy story. Thanks Mr. Maas.
Peter Maass ↪ deimon
Thanks back at you.
WakeUpAmerica
I hope Socrates finds Scientology soon. It’s just the place for someone
who wants to reveal ALL of himself. They even have a polygraph of sorts.
Sebastian ↪ WakeUpAmerica
LOL, perfect idea.
Blackout
I’m so glad I read The Intercept! Its writing like this that changes
the world and people’s minds. Cleverly written and acridly true. There is
perhaps no better way to make the point (within real ethical boundaries) than
to do it like this.
Peter Maass ↪ Blackout
Thanks, I appreciate it.
decentcitizen
This
guy is not so different than anybody else. Maybe a little more desirous of recognition
than the next guy but that does not make him a bad person (maybe a bad writer).
By way of observation, the NSA career path was Plan B. This was not his dream
job but a fall back position. What stories do we need to invent to convince
ourselves that what we do is necessary and important? As entertaining as his
self-justification is, it’s equally depressing. Regardless of where you stand
on lawless state sponsored mass information gathering, this guy deserves
sympathy. He is wounded, and although an aspiring writer, can’t find the words
or vocabulary to express it. This describes a lot of good people.
Wnt ↪ decentcitizen
Hear, hear! Wherever you see people doxxed, whether it is online or in
good old fashioned office politics, the ignorant crowd always falls into the
same trap. They think once they know a thing or two about someone, that makes
the person they know about less worthy. It doesn’t really matter what
end of the spectrum someone is on – they can be put down because they are too
wild and unpredictable or too staid and depressed, too chaste or too sluttish,
whatever. Our sympathy belongs with someone who, given any reasonable chance to
do so, would write stories for our pleasure and not spy on us at all.
abbadabba ↪ decentcitizen
Yes, he is hurting, and isn’t it odd that in our nation more of us
claim to feel pain than those half staved in war zones? Look how fat we are and
still hungering for something no one else can give us, no matter how much or
hard we take it.
This is the psychology NSA depends upon to drive the bus. Doubt
everything. Give up hope, no rope for that now.
Clark ↪ decentcitizen
The only thing about your comment which I want to question is
the idea of “good people” and “bad people.”
As you indicate, humans are a continuum of behaviors and
none of us are really disconnected from what we see as
good and bad. I don’t believe there is an either/or as much as we need
to try to
find a balance and possibly have a more positive effect on the world,
in spite of the reality of our inescapable guilt.
The greatest danger of the surveillance state is
that the people who do the most to enable it to grow
(and none of us are totally guilt-free)
depend upon broad categorizations of good and bad which
are manipulations of feelings of insecurity (another inescapable
aspect).
Perhaps Mr. Socrates’ writing would improve if he thought better
of other people’s private lives.
abbadabba
I’m just DYING to read Infection! “She was born to kill me…”
What a dope, she’s just the vessel, Dan Brown!
From this I assume he’s got no air in the room for anyone but his own
needs. Just what the country needs, more needy people.
Benito Mussolini ↪ abbadabba
Socrates Jr. cast his nets into the nearly infinite seas of the
internets, trying to haul forth pearls of human drama for his stories. His best
result was a fellow whose girlfriend gave him herpes; this shows the filters on
XKeyscore need to be improved. Surely with a bit of effort, he could have
located an example that involved a more serious STD.
Sebastian ↪ Benito
Mussolini
more LOL!
abbadabba ↪ abbadabba
I must say I do feel sorry for this man because
he’s now the butt of our hostlity toward NSA and all those who pervert justice
to grind this stinking protection racket in our faces. NSA must be so relieved.
Glad I’m not him. I suck at writing, too, but I
know better than to let NSA tell me what to say. Now he hasn’t a clue who he
is.
I say fuck you, too, GCHQ! We couldn’t have
destroyed our civil liberties without you, Ripper Van Winkle.
Wnt
If you’re willing to push the limits of propriety, there’s someone else
I’d love to see a journalist track down: patient B-19 from this remarkable
story ( http://www.violence.de/heath/jnmd/1972paper.pdf
). He was 24 years old in 1972, the son of a retired military officer, and was
diagnosed with various serious psychiatric diseases such as homosexuality and
an appreciation of LSD. Admittedly, I wouldn’t be surprised if his traumatized
brain didn’t just hemorrhage out long ago, or if he finally rage-quit a rigged
game, but if he’s still out there, I would really love to hear his story.
I’d also love to know if a good reporter can FOIA whatever CIA-funded
research Robert Galbraith Heath did that might have been so extreme he *didn’t*
publish it openly in 1972.
abbadabba
Pretty burdensome to force your writing to pay your way when you
haven’t even got the yoke on it, yet. That’s why I am grateful for the year
plus spent woodshredding in the Intercept’s silo. This corn is from last
season.
hellfire
This story gives new meaning to the term Ministry of Truth,
notwithstanding the axiom “an eye for an eye”.
I’ve got $10k that says heads are exploding at the NSA. Wait till
someone spies on every license plate in their parking lot.
hellfire
Jon Proctor deserves a prize for that graphic.
Peter Maass ↪ hellfire
Yes, he did a great job on it. He also did the (great) illustration for
this story by Trevor
Aaronson–https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/.
hellfire
I’ve got $1k that says this scumbag is the latest applicant to Google
for his “right to be forgotten”.
Ben ↪ hellfire
The “Right to be Forgotten” only applies in Europe. Google has
explicitly stated the rule applies to each google entity separately, such as
google.fr, and not google.com.
Wnt ↪ Ben
To the censor’s eye, any sign of obedience is a
sign of opportunity. Offer them a finger and they’ll take half
your damn hand. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/technology/personaltech/right-to-be-forgotten-online-is-poised-to-spread.html?_r=0
.
hellfire ↪ Ben
umm.. you’re kidding…right? I’d pay for a rolling eyes smiley about
now. And a double face palm. Hey pal..I gotta suggestion for ya. Instead of
staying up late at night correcting computer generated news typos…visit a
comedy club.
abbadabba ↪ hellfire
I noticed the notices Pforzheimer’s Third turded all over the Internet
eight years ago have been erased, so was it true he nearly married Zooey
Deshanel, or was that a figment of HIS imagination, too?
I was just running down the Old Man, the capo of the tutti clan.
Couldn’t see the wood for all the fucking leaves! But I found him where I
thought I might, in the corporate papers of Tea Pot’s Dome. Bring it home,
dopers! I love data! But my net comes up so empty ,lately. The guilty prefer to
be forgotten.
I WILL find out Tree’s family name, if I do nothing else on this
planet!
abbadabba
I prefer emotional vampire to literary
eavesdropper. How about Halifax’ John hanging around like his ex-wife is some
fruit he can pollinate if he’d had a mind to. Like he’s writing a
novel…he’s just searching for someone more screwed up than he is to tell
himself a bedtime story. He’s a manipulative alcoholic who thinks he’s a
writer. So glad a comic book kicked his ass.
Still think killing off lesbian lovers is a fucking crime, BBC feed
bags. Three in one season? Seriously? That’s a serial crime! Didn’t run that
passed the pedos for a good taste off, PBS? So glad you showed yourselves, how
ever covertly.
yabbaddabbaddoo
This guy reminds me of a Morrissey song – Girl Least Likely:
How many times have I been around?
Recycled papers paving the ground
Well, she lives for the written word
And people come second, or possibly third
Recycled papers paving the ground
Well, she lives for the written word
And people come second, or possibly third
And there is no style, but I say “well done”
To the girl least likely to
Oh, deep in my heart, how I wish I was wrong
But deep in my heart, I know I am not
And there’s enough gloom in her world, I’m certain
Without my contribution
To the girl least likely to
Oh, deep in my heart, how I wish I was wrong
But deep in my heart, I know I am not
And there’s enough gloom in her world, I’m certain
Without my contribution
So I sit, and I smile, and I say “well done”
To the girl least likely to
Page after page of sniping rage
An English singe or an American tinge
“There’s a publisher,” she said, “…in the new year”
(It’s never in this year)
To the girl least likely to
Page after page of sniping rage
An English singe or an American tinge
“There’s a publisher,” she said, “…in the new year”
(It’s never in this year)
I do think this, but I can’t admit it
To the girl least likely to
So one more song with no technique
One more song which seems all wrong…
And oh, the news is bad again
See me as I am again
To the girl least likely to
So one more song with no technique
One more song which seems all wrong…
And oh, the news is bad again
See me as I am again
And the scales of justice sway one way
In the rooms of those least likely to
Oh, deep in my heart, how I want to be wrong
But the moods and the styles too frequently change
From twenty one to twenty five, from twenty five to twenty nine
In the rooms of those least likely to
Oh, deep in my heart, how I want to be wrong
But the moods and the styles too frequently change
From twenty one to twenty five, from twenty five to twenty nine
And I sit, and I smile, and I say “well done”
To the girl least likely to
Oh, one more song about The Queen
Or standing around the shops with thieves
“But somebody’s got to make it!” she screams
“So why why can’t it be me?”
But she would die if we heard her sing from the heart
Which is hurt
To the girl least likely to
Oh, one more song about The Queen
Or standing around the shops with thieves
“But somebody’s got to make it!” she screams
“So why why can’t it be me?”
But she would die if we heard her sing from the heart
Which is hurt
So how many times will I shed a tear?
And another stage of verse to cheer
When you shine in the public eye, my dear
Please remember these nights
When I sit and support with a dutiful smile
Because there’s nothing I can say
So chucking, churning, and turning the knife
On everything (except their own life)
And a clock somewhere strikes midnight
And an explanation – it drains me
If only there could be a way
And another stage of verse to cheer
When you shine in the public eye, my dear
Please remember these nights
When I sit and support with a dutiful smile
Because there’s nothing I can say
So chucking, churning, and turning the knife
On everything (except their own life)
And a clock somewhere strikes midnight
And an explanation – it drains me
If only there could be a way
There is a different mood all over the world
A different youth, unfamiliar views
And dearest, it could all be for you
So will you come down and I’ll meet you?
And with no more poems, with nothing to hear
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
Darling, it’s all for you…
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
A different youth, unfamiliar views
And dearest, it could all be for you
So will you come down and I’ll meet you?
And with no more poems, with nothing to hear
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
Darling, it’s all for you…
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
Oh darling, it’s all for you…
Sebastian ↪ yabbaddabbaddoo
That was nice to read. But he should have never left The Smiths. Except
for “Suedehead.”
abbadabba
Wow, you actually figured out how to uncloak this dagger without
hacking HIM?
James Harding’s crew, including the company lawyer at the London Times,
simply decided hacked data could be made edible if they could fabricate a way
to discovered it legally – as you did, thus leaving the fruit of their hacking
not so poisony, you see? What did they drink for lunch?
With this in mind, Harding lied to a judge that his staff had not
hacked for the identity of a copper who blogged anonymously when Harding knew
it was a twisted lie. A blame my lame lawyer move. The lawyer swan dived onto
his sword for them in a scene not written but must be seen!
Can’t tell me that’s not quality work. Harding got made into the BBC
Family promptly after getting fired by Murdoch, but not for that hacking. I
say, that was some hilarious work of history played out at the Leveson Inquiry.
We really need to give her an award.
Mr. Jay and Lord Levesons’ duets on the subject were quite sonorous.
And the eye rolls were to dive for.
JLocke ↪ abbadabba
– “Parallel construction”
Maybe this episode is all our would-be writer needs. He can gain
celebrity, make a book out of it and get the Zero Dark Thirty creators to
change a few facts and give it the Hollywood treatment, Peter Maass will be
known in the film as “the Ayatollah”, the Intercept could be built on top of a
secret lair for Putin and Bernie Sanders, and our writer would be played as a
mild mannered bureaucrat by day, a swashbuckling hero by night, his secret
power? He’s a human polygraph machine.
Movie catchphrase – “Don’t lie to me, only those that are deserving of
my country’s wrath need lie to me!”
hellfire ↪ JLocke
quote”He’s a human polygraph machine.
Movie catchphrase – “Don’t lie to me, only those that are deserving of
my country’s wrath need lie to me!”unquote
Give this man a prize.
abbadabba ↪ JLocke
I don’t think our stories are worth selling out for. Seriously, no one
cares about the loose threads at the Intercept, but I know GCHQ has to read
through this shite, and that’s why I write. Fuck you, GCHQ.
Justice, she’s a tease, but Liberty will bring you to your knees. Did
you see what she did to Justice just for looking? Shes blind, Jim.
abbadabba ↪ abbadabba
Take a bow, Justice.
Joanne Susan Hosea
Mr. Peter Maass:
Socrates (the columnist) insisted that total surveillance would allow
the NSA to understand us and not mistake our intentions. His inaugural column
even suggested that the NSA’s slogan could be “building informed decision makers
— so that targets do not suffer our nation’s wrath unless they really deserve
it — by exercising deity-like monitoring of the target.” Yet Socrates probably
knows, as most writers do, that what we say does not necessarily reflect what
is in our minds.
“building informed decision makers — so that targets do not suffer our
nation’s wrath unless they really deserve it — by exercising deity-like
monitoring of the target.”
COMMENT: Mob rule. Lawlessness. Criminality. Playing God.
George Maschke
Regarding Socrates’ expressed hope to be “constantly and completely
monitored,” an incident in 2013 suggests that this might be happening to people
who work in the SIGINT community. I run a website called AntiPolygraph.org. Two
summers ago, I heard from a Navy petty officer who worked in SIGINT unit that
when (s)he reported for a recent polygraph, (s)he was presented with a printout
of logs of websites (s)he had visited the night before on her/his personal
computer. The polygrapher knew that the petty officer had visited
AntiPolygraph.org and tried to convince her/him that the information provided
on our website (which includes a refutation of polygraphy and strategies for
mitigating the risk of a false positive outcome) was unreliable. For additional
details, see: https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/10/20/is-antipolygraph-org-being-targeted-by-the-nsa/
abbadabba
Answering your leding question…fabulous fabrications? Parallel
constructions the Academy would have been honored to have honored? Bitterness
is a pill better not swallowed before commanding an art form redesigned to
destroy personal liberties. See Hitler.
I’m very able to construct a suspect motive or few out of nuttin’ but
history as my template. Take Google’s move to become more efficient and
managable by busting themselves into Block Letters. Also a move typical for
those looking to shelter the profitable part of the company from the
consequences of corruption (FCPA) and leave the dying portion for the
settlement lawyers to scrap over. See NewsCorp.
anon
Did they actually call this poor soul “Socrates”?
Brought to you by the same marketing minds behind the “Big Brother”
reality TV show.
Nete Peedham ↪ anon
And “Honey Boo Boo”.
abbadabba ↪ anon
It was a casting call. The character was already written for him.
Monkee Madness care of the New Wrecking Crew. I like the drummer!!
Pedinska
Peter I am curious to know if you informed Socrates about the
publication date of this piece? I wonder if he might be lurking here now,
reading comments. If so, I would encourage him to engage – though I can only
imagine the sort of trepidation that might produce – so that all of us might
learn from this experience.
Doxxing, as I understand it, is incredibly uncomfortable, sometimes
dangerous, but like other uncomfortable learning experiences – wherein we find
ourselves suddenly in shoes we never imagined occupying in our lifetimes – it
can be enlightening and lead to better or, at least, more informed
consequences.
Comment sections can be cruel places, and I would hope that we could
engage with compassion as well as curiosity if only because most of us have, at
some point in our lives, had to do something our employers – or others with
power over our lives – asked of us that we disagreed with and/or felt was
wrong. Glass houses, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, etc. and
all that….
JLocke ↪ Pedinska
– “I wonder if he might be lurking here
now, reading comments. If so, I would encourage him to engage”
You are perhaps forgetting this:
–
“The U.S. military is banning and blocking employees from visiting The
Intercept in an apparent effort to censor news reports that contain leaked
government secrets.”
Socrates, I would expect, doesn’t want to go to jail, but perhaps if he
is even thinking about reading this, he should self-report to the authorities
anyway, lest their less than total picture of him cause them to mistake his
intentions.
Peter Maass ↪ JLocke
😉
JLocke ↪ Pedinska
– “I would encourage him to engage”
By the way, Pedinska, by encouraging a US intelligence officer to
access classified material (here at the Intercept), and by soliciting his
engaging in further unauthorized disclosure, I’m pretty sure a John Yoo clone
would say you are conducting espionage, treason, and even yes, skulduggery!!!
Yes skulduggery is now a crime, see appendix B, tab 14 of the secret OLC memo
in Dick Cheney’s safe.
ondelette ↪ Pedinska
Doxxing, as I understand it, is incredibly
uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, but like other uncomfortable learning
experiences – wherein we find ourselves suddenly in shoes we never imagined
occupying in our lifetimes – it can be enlightening and lead to better or, at
least, more informed consequences.
What
this statement lacks totally is the ability to walk in the shoes of the person
being doxxed. In this case, the general sentiment here is that doxxing this guy
is okay since he’s NSA and said he believed in total surveillance.
I’m
guessing that someone who truly believes that doxxing is an “uncomfortable
learning experience” and doesn’t seem to understand that there are some things
that are worth, to paraphrase the Daoists, learning not learning, doesn’t
really know much about people who fear it.
In my case, for instance, I’m sure it would be an “uncomfortable
learning experience.” And after that, as the “uncomfortable learning” continued
to roll out, and real harm happened, I would be the only one aware of exactly
what I was learning so uncomfortably, while the doxxer would drift on in their
internet blissfully righteous daydream believing themselves to be a banner
carrier in the parade for truth and justice.
They might even trot out one of Greenwald’s completely idiotic tropes
about how if nobody could link to a news story of actual harm, it never
happened.
Which is, of course, the most non-introspective notion of all.
Benito Mussolini ↪ ondelette
He states: “I found myself wishing that my life would be constantly and
completely monitored”. In other words, he wishes to be a celebrity. The Intercept
is merely granting that request. Of course, sometimes we have to be careful
what we wish for. Walter James Palmer probably wished to be the world’s most
famous bow and arrow hunter.
Kitt ↪ Benito
Mussolini
Walter James Palmer probably wished to be
the world’s most famous bow and arrow hunter.
And George Zimmerman probably wished to be the worlds most famous
Intern Neighborhood Watchman in training.
Pedinska ↪ ondelette
What this statement lacks totally is the ability to walk in the
shoes of the person being doxxed.
ondelette, I had an enormous amount of empathy and rage on behalf of
people whose Fourth Amendment rights were being trampled….right up until my
sister’s significant other was killed by fucking police for stolen baby clothes
brought into their residence (unbeknownst to them) by Children’s Services who
were given them by the people who sicced the police on my sister’s household
knowing that a child they were forced to turn over to my sister’s keeping would
be there during an armed, night-time, no-knock raid. After that, I knew
firsthand what it felt like.
None of us completely understands the shoes of others unless we’ve been
in them. That is human nature. That doesn’t mean that my, admittedly, poorly
worded statement is evidence I think what happened to this guy, in this
article, is just fine and dandy or that you get to blithely assign all the ills
of commenters here to my rap sheet.
None of us are birthed with a complete knowledge of everything that is.
No matter how often you think we should know this, that or the other thing, nor
however poorly we fail to live up to your standards, the plain and simple fact
is that we learn from the day we are born to the day we die. I am doing the
best I can to try each and every day to improve my empathy and understanding of
what happens to myself and to everyone around me. But you have now decided you
can shove me into the box you maintain for all things that suck on Greenwald’s
site and now you’re gone so no discussion. So be it.
Pedinska ↪ Pedinska
Addendum: My first thoughts/comment on a given article is often couched
in as neutral terms as possible to allow me to further evolve as I have time to
further ponder what I’ve read.
My brain may not reach conclusions with the lightning-like rapidity
others might desire of me – a lot of times, if not most, because I DON’T have
firsthand experience – but that doesn’t mean I – or anyone else wrestling with
understanding – should be written off for not getting it right in the first
fucking milliseconds it crosses my eyeballs and/or that part of my brain
responsible for processing it. :-s
-Mona- ↪ Pedinska
and now you’re gone so no discussion.
Meh. So he says. I don’t believe it.
Peter Maass ↪ Pedinska
I was in contact with an NSA spokesperson about this story as recently
as last week; the agency was made aware that it was going to be published.
Clark
I’ve wondered how long it will be
before the NSA collects so much information that they reach the point
of putting together an immensely tense raid against an extremely
dangerous terrorist organization and find themselves
face to face
with themselves.
Now I hear this –
from “the Smiths”
“Frankly Mr. Shankley, this position I’ve held
it pays my way and it corrodes my soul
I want to leave, you will not miss me
I want to go down in musical history
Frankly Mr. Shankley, I’m a sickening wreck
I’ve got the 21st Century breathing down my neck
I must move fast, you understand me
I want to go down in celluloid history
Fame, Fame, fatal fame
It can play hideous tricks on the brain
But still, I’d rather be famous than righteous or Holy
Any day, any day, any day
But sometimes I feel more fulfilled
Making christmas cards with the mentally ill
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Frankly Mr. Shankley, this position I’ve held
It pays my way and it corrodes my soul
I didn’t realize that you wrote poetry
I didn’t realize you wrote such bloody awful poetry
Frankly Mr. Shankley, since you ask
You are a flatulent pain in the arse
I do not mean to be so rude
but I must speak franky Mr. Shankley
Oh,
Give us money.”
yabbaddabbaddoo ↪ Clark
Indeed Clark, not Frankly Mr. Shankley but the story reminds me of Girl
Least Likely To lyrics, how odd.
Sebastian ↪ Clark
More Smiths! I remember EXACTLY where I was when I first heard that
song!
Pedinska
If people knew a few things about me, I
might seem suspicious. But if people knew everything about me, they’d see
they had nothing to fear. This is the attitude I have brought to SIGINT
work since then.”
Unless and until surveillance can literally climb into our heads and
monitor our thoughts, know our motives, the above statement by Socrates is
unbelievably, naively false. And I would think that no one, even Socrates,
would want the government to exist inside our heads.
“building informed decision makers — so
that targets do not suffer our nation’s wrath unless they really deserve it
— by exercising deity-like monitoring of the target.”
As we are seeing now, with the DHS surveillance and targeting for arrest
of key, nonviolent organizers in the current Ferguson protests as well as the
journalists who are reporting on it – both First Amendment protected activities
– the decision making over “just desserts” is uncontrolled, no longer subject
to the law, if it ever was, and solely focused on maintaining current power
structures.
Fran Macadam
Democratic man as quintessential Quisling. One
of our little Eichmanns. No different than the communist loyalist who confesses
to whatever Stalin wanted for the good of the Party. Ironically, Stalin
was first a poet, Hitler a failed painter. The self loathing of artistic
failure, turned inwards masochistically to embrace totalitarianism. No doubt now the name of this article’s author is currency in
the agency, yet we the people can know nothing of what they say. Thus perish
the highest hopes and dreams of a people, exchanged for a mess of denigrating
national security state pottage.
George Maschke
To all the NSA analysts the truth who find the polygraph “a unique kind
of torture,” I empathize. Polygraph “testing” has no scientific basis, and
misplaced official reliance on it has caused irreparable career harm to many
federal applicants and employees. There is no need to “overanalyze” one’s
behavior. Polygraph outcomes have little to do with whether or not one has
spoken the truth. The polygraph is essentially a prop for an interrogation. See
my commentary on the NSA’s disinformational polygraph video “The Truth About
the Polygraph”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93_FDeMENN4
George Maschke ↪ George
Maschke
The first sentence of my previous post should read: “To all the NSA
analysts who find the polygraph “a unique kind of torture,” I empathize.”
Petros Polonos
A combination of a painful need to be heard and understood with the
fear of being “suspicious” and misjudged. But the real harm is in inflicting
this approach on others.
TallyHoGazehound
Surveillance, as a word, is a cleaned-up
version of voyeurism, and whether state-sponsored or editor-approved, it’s
creepy to carry out, and probably futile in most cases.
Yes. That is a fair description of how I felt reading this. And, I’d be
hard pressed to guess whether the NSA’s Socrates left his blog up because he
recognizes the limited real value of his mental meanderings, or if he genuinely
trusts that no harm can come to he, or his, as a result of those who were able
to identify him after you did. In either case, it would describe someone I
would not think fit to surveille others. All encapsulated by his appeal to modesty.
This is a I was just following orders… disclaimer if I ever read one. I
would even go so far as to assert that, given his appeal to modesty, he
lacks sufficient self-awareness and imagination to succeed as a writer. But,
therein lies the hazard of thinking you know someone, even as deeply as you
delved into his world. The NSA obviously finds him a perfect fit for their
purpose.
Thanks, Benito.
And I am called wise, for my hearers always
imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but
the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he
intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not
speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he
said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in
truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and
search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or
stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of
the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me,
and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any
concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the
god.
JLocke ↪ TallyHoGazehound
– “he lacks sufficient self-awareness and
imagination to succeed as a writer”
Exactly. To say the things he’s quoted as saying, he must be sorely
lacking in self awareness. I considered a snarky comment about recommending to
him one of the online writer’s courses on “self-awareness” but I deferred, I
haven’t read his work, and there may be a whole host of reasons nobody reads
his stuff.
Benito Mussolini ↪ TallyHoGazehound
“I found myself wishing that my life would
be constantly and completely monitored”
I translated ‘god’ into ‘NSA’ because
omniscience (even more than omnipotence) is the hallmark of a god, and the
natural human instinct is to submit, as Socrates did, in the face of an
omniscient entity.
The reason he did not remove his blog is because his faith instructs
him that if the NSA wishes it to be removed, it will do so. To act of his own
volition, without a direct order from the NSA would not occur to him.
Wiltmellow
Excellent column.
This statement attributed to Socrates (the subject of the article)
“building informed decision makers — so
that targets do not suffer our nation’s wrath unless they really deserve it —
by exercising deity-like monitoring of the target.”
reminded me of a recent Guardian article how this sentiment turns into
policy.
The Obama administration’s no-fly lists and broader watchlisting system
is based on predicting crimes rather than relying on records of demonstrated
offenses, the government has been forced to admit in court.
In a
little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department
and the FBI conceded that stopping US and other citizens from travelling on
airplanes is a matter of “predictive assessments about potential threats”, the
government asserted in May.
This is the excruciating problem of “proactive” law enforcement.
If officer Fife thinks someone has a gun and the intention to use it,
is he justified in shooting that person presumably preventing an act of
violence by initiating an act of violence — by preventing harm through
perpetrating harm? (See Iraq War II.)
Putting aside the utilitarian argument (which harm is the least harm)
and putting aside the obvious questions of intent, target, and means of
discernment, this most glaring issue arises (the basis for all totalitarian
States): can a person be justifiably punished for an act they did not commit?
When does the State cross a line as the (legitimate) guarantor of civil
rights to become the (illegitimate) violator of civil rights?
No matter how “informed” the “decision maker,” indeed, even accepting
the possibility of (an impossible) perfect foreknowledge, punishment for intent
(a thought crime) defines the totalitarian State because it necessarily
punishes heterodoxy as ferociously as it protects orthodoxy.
JLocke ↪ Wiltmellow
Excellent comment
toidiY sselesU ↪ Wiltmellow
Why not try telling this to Netanyahweh & his supporters apropos
Iran.
Christian C Holmer ↪ Wiltmellow
Preemptive strikes overseas. Preemptive policing at home.
Preemptive clearly unconstitutional unwarranted surveillance of every
single American based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.
“Socrates” is philosophically bereft and morally bankrupt. Perhaps some
hemlock tea once he gets the kids off to college.
stalked562 ↪ Wiltmellow
Great comment.
Eric Hughes
The real Socrates didn’t believe in democracy.
He did believe that people who knew better than you do are the ones that should
rule, and Socrates claimed to know better than anybody else. He would have been
delighted to have mass surveillance available to philosophers, because then he
could claim to know even more than mortals, limited to only one pair of eyes.
Socrates is a particularly apt pseudonym here,
proclaiming a public ideal, revealing an underlying ugly truth.
Nete Peedham ↪ Eric
Hughes
I
seriously doubt that you’ve ever read The Crito in your life.
Ricardo Camilo López ↪ Eric
Hughes
Dude:
I
think you are NSA ready!
Could
you possibly be mistaking Socrates with Plato?
RCL
Peter Maass ↪ Eric
Hughes
Interesting comment!
Joanne Susan Hosea
What am I missing here? Why would an investigative reporter lump
himself in the same category as a state sponsored spy? Where is there a
violation of privacy while researching and gleening information from publically
posted blogs/websites?
Ted ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
Because the subject of the story was a powerless functionary, someone
not involved in decision making. There are a lot of angry people who would
stalk and harass the subject of an article like this.
Even though their job was in service to the surveillance state, they’re
a private citizen – not a public figure like a James Clapper. The identity of
this person is not newsworthy – we assume the NSA is staffed by human beings
who have families and personal histories.
What IS newsworthy is an exploration of a snoop’s mentality, done in a
way that walks up to the line of journalistic ethics.
ondelette ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
What am I missing here?
Hmm. Interesting question. Would you accept “everything and the kitchen
sink” as a reply, just to make a long story short? If there’s no privacy
violation in surveilling a person from their publicly emitted trails, then who
the fuck cares if the NSA does it as a full time job?
Ricardo Camilo López ↪ Joanne
Susan Hosea
a violation of privacy
privacy? What is that anyway?
RCL
JLocke
I think the ease at which someone can google him, it took me about
thirty seconds, proves the point about meta-data admirably.
– “Why shouldn’t the public know about him?
What’s wrong with a bit of well-intentioned surveillance among fellow
Americans? I was not able to ask these questions, however.
“I can’t say anything,” he said, not long before he hung up. “You can’t use my name.””
“I can’t say anything,” he said, not long before he hung up. “You can’t use my name.””
Understandable that he doesn’t want to talk, but, totally hilarious
that a true believer in total surveillance wants his privacy.
Pedinska ↪ JLocke
Understandable that he doesn’t want to
talk, but, totally hilarious that a true believer in total surveillance wants
his privacy.
If he is a thoughtful individual at all then this is a lesson that will
not be lost.
Carl Weetabix
Sadly your description shows that the subject of you surveillance
is/was a bit of a child in his views. There’s nothing wrong with this, we all
are at some level, particularly when young and idealistic. The problem is of
course that decisions of life and death are made on such views. This
man-child’s, sophomoric, self-serving rationale allowed home to perpetrate,
well, crimes.
We should not forget this when thinking about what we allow our leaders
and government to do – these are not adults running the game, but flawed
children like the rest of us. The difference is just the level of consequence.
Benito Mussolini
As the original Socrates stated (with minor edits):
I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess
wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O citizens of the USA,
that the NSA only is wise; and in this oracle the NSA means to say that the
wisdom of men is little or nothing… as if the NSA said, O citizens, the wisest
is he or she, who like Socrates, knows that their wisdom is in truth worth
nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the NSA, and make inquisition into
anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not
wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and
this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any
public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter
poverty by reason of my devotion to the NSA.
Guy Fawkes
I googled “blog literature infection short-story herpes editor” and
result number 11 (dammit I didn’t get it on the first page on my first try…) is
this fellow’s blog. In the spirit of not re-idenitifying him, as you haven’t
done in the story, I won’t post the link here.
Just be aware that it wasn’t that hard.
Another guy ↪ Guy
Fawkes
Confirmed, really not that hard.
Bukowski's Balls ↪ Guy
Fawkes
Wow that was easy.
Also this guy seems like a massive douche.
Ricardo Camilo López ↪ Bukowski's
Balls
I don’t think you have the real McCoy 😉
There are even smiling
pictures of him out there
Please, theintercept police, notice I am not exposing him. I am just
avoiding for other people to mistake him for someone else
RCL
F Scott Fitztightly ↪ Guy
Fawkes
Outed as a spook and still nobody’s reading his shitty blog!
I just hope he’s a better analyst than writer, he doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Notional Security Agency (as if we had any).
I just hope he’s a better analyst than writer, he doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Notional Security Agency (as if we had any).
abhisaha ↪ Guy
Fawkes
Yes, that was really easy.
I get this strange sense of sadness while reading his blog and all the
rejection letters he got.
abbadabba ↪ abhisaha
It should sound familiar, as we are mostly concerned with our losses
and disappointments in life unless born lucky or with resilient genes. It’s
hard to crawl out of the bad grooves one cuts into their own amygdala replaying
those sad old songs.
These are the kinds of grooves commonly exploited by conmen, MadMen and
NSA to undermine ones sense of well being. Well people wouldn;t tolerate this
shite.
Ted ↪ Guy
Fawkes
I didn’t google those terms, because there’s no value in knowing who
the subject is. Yet by providing a coy road-map, you’re enabling harassment.
Yes, someone was going to post this, but why you?
Result 11 is just as bad as pasting his name.
Ben ↪ Guy
Fawkes
I was tempted to post who he is (or a path to him, as you have done),
but I decided not to because this article isn’t about the person, it’s about
the mentality. No doubt there are many more like him in the NSA, and focusing
on the person degrades the importance of the NSA spying as a whole.
Wnt ↪ Ben
I think if someone calls himself the “Socrates of SIGINT” and posts a
widely-read column, ordinary people don’t have an obligation to keep public
information about him, or our deductions about it, secret. We *do* have a moral
duty not to harass or threaten, of course. But haters gotta hate – it’s what
they do. If some idiot ends up making obscene calls to Weber’s number in the
middle of the night, that’s the same person who would have been calling the
third guy named as a big game hunter in Zimbabwe or trying to get some CEO
fired on a twitter hashtag for donating to the wrong side on a ballot question.
Our duty is to be sympathetic to human beings, understanding that the spy state
and the state-capitalist monopolist concepts it protects are the disease, not
the people who translate Korean. If we had a _decent_ economy as I’ve proposed
here previously, the guy would have been able to collect from a general subsidy
via privately-selected funding institutions that benefit authors, being assured
a decent living while writing stories that anyone in the world would be allowed
to read and adapt freely. Instead, the only thing we fund is more spy shit (
like THIS – http://www.nature.com/news/3d-printed-device-helps-computers-solve-cocktail-party-problem-1.18173
) and that’s the only thing that gets developed. The bastards who pay the piper
(with a part of the money they rob from him) only ever call one tune.
keller
Strapped into a polygraph – one of the many lessons waiting for us
students of psychology. But noone wanted to be the one. Ten books and with the
help of the polygraph it should be easy to find the chosen book. The polygraph
relies on human physical nature and the One´s hands were soaked with sweat. Too
wet for the polygraph, what a BLAMAGE!
The One asked me years later to participate at an experiment with a
polygraph. He was deeply depressed because the experiment was close to fail due
to a lack of participation. I agreed and almost felt asleed in the nice and
cosy atmosphere of the setting. The experiment was cancelled soon later.
No comments:
Post a Comment