RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "What if we're wrong? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits massive surveillance and unlimited data mining, as revealed by former National Security Agency technician Edward Snowden?"

 (illustration: unknown)
(illustration: unknown)


Make Big Brother Our Friend

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

22 June 13

 

hat if we're wrong? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits massive surveillance and unlimited data mining, as revealed by former National Security Agency technician Edward Snowden?

In a less absurd world, those who communicate electronically might expect a right to privacy, as the Supreme Court established in 1967 in Katz v. United States, which required state and federal governments to go to court, show probable cause of criminal activity, and obtain a specific warrant to execute a wiretap, well within the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Inevitably, it seems, such freedom was short-lived. In 1979, the Court gave law enforcement the power to collect without warrant the numbers we called and those that called us, and passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 and subsequent amendments now lets NSA scoop up as many as 3 billion individual telephone and email communications a day, store the "meta-data," possibly forever, and continue to mine them to uncover patterns and connections far beyond anything possible only a few years ago. Welcome to the worst dystopian nightmares of Franz Kafka, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell.

Snowden tells us that individual analysts can use the meta-data to call up, listen to, or read the full content of the communications. President Barack Obama, Senator Diane Feinstein, and NSA director General Keith Alexander all tell us that Snowden is wrong, but offer no hard evidence to back up their claims. Whom should we believe?

Clearly, our rapidly expanding technology requires new legal thinking and systemic protections hard-wired into the computer code to leave an audit trail of who has accessed the information and for what purpose, as Professor Lawrence Lessig has suggested.

As far as we know, NSA has no safeguards like that, and the current cases filed by the ACLU and Electronic Freedom Foundation may never force anything similar. Even scarier, a Constitutional judgment could turn out to be worse than nothing. As former chief justice Charles Evans Hughes put it in the bluntest possible terms, "the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his eight unaccountable associates get to decide, and a majority of them could easily call the current "ca ca" Constitutional.

What, then, do we do?

At the risk of going satirical, let me suggest a way forward. If President Barack Obama can embrace Big Brother as his enduring legacy, if he can describe the super-secret workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as "transparent," and if he can call himself "Bush-Cheney Lite," why not grow up, get real, and follow in his soiled footsteps? Why not put Big Brother to better use?

1. Let Big Brother end Washington's gridlock. Former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who knew something of these matters, used to keep dossiers on everyone from yours truly to Martin Luther King Jr. to President Lyndon B. Johnson. This was why LBJ kept Hoover in office, saying that it was better to have him on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside of the tent pissing in. NSA records make Hoover's collection seem quaint. I wonder how many Tea-Party Republicans in Congress have long trails of telephone calls and emails to their lovers, male or female, or credit card purchases for expensive gifts. Just a mention of this information would go a long way to getting difficult legislation passed.
2. Use Big Brother against Big Money. Much of Wall Street's wealth and power comes from their access to inside information that the rest of us do not have, cannot get, and cannot act upon in a timely way. Prosecutors do not find most of this inside information illegal and rarely bring cases to court. They say they find it too hard to secure evidence that would convince a jury. Well, not anymore. With all those NSA records, the odds are overwhelming that prosecutors could find discussions between major Wall Street players and corporate leaders, along with the time-coded computerized buying and selling based on those communications.
3. Have Big Brother eat Monsanto. One of the more delicious secrets to emerge from Wikileaks was the enormous effort of U.S. diplomats to help Monsanto sell its genetically modified seeds against the vocal opposition of European consumers and several European governments. How do we explain it? Easy. Just write a simple algorithm to trace every one of NSA's saved phone call and email from people at Monsanto to influential people in government. Big Brother will completely eliminate any need for conspiracy theories.
4. Let Big Brother solve climate change. For several years prior to November 2009, climate scientists agreed in overwhelming numbers that our planet was warming and that humans added to the problem by burning fossil fuels. The debate then took a dramatic turn when the ubiquitous Wikileaks published thousands of files and emails that one or more computer hackers had surreptitiously copied from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain. According to polling data and other evidence, this Climate Gate data dump and the right-wing spin put on it significantly reduced U.S. and international support for efforts to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases. NSA records might well help us discover who stole that data, how major players like Exxon Mobil and Charles and David Koch were able to make such good use of it, and how the climate deniers continue to operate.
5. Use the massive surveillance and data mining to weaken the American Empire. If the United States has a major advantage in dealing with our European allies, it is our dominance of the new digital economy. If we have a major disadvantage, it is how our digital dominance threatens personal privacy, which Europeans value far more than we do. Snowden's revelations make this conflict all the more pressing, and are already complicating incipient negotiations for a trans-Atlantic free trade pact.

These five suggestions are 100% satire, which I offer to dramatize how loosely-wired and out-of-control our surveillance and data mining system continue to be. I can't wait to see your suggestions for how we could put Big Brother to use.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+14 # Trojan Horace 2013-06-22 12:08
Maybe your assumption here is wrong. LBJ had Hoover relatively tamed... In this scenario the Security apparatus have the President tamed.
 
 
+1 # barkingcarpet 2013-06-22 15:08
.
 
 
+34 # barkingcarpet 2013-06-22 15:09
Edward J. Snowden IS a hero, and the U.S. government/N.S. A. IS corrupt. It IS the DUTY of all of us to alter or abolish our government, and folks, we need to seriously alter it.
This IS an evil and corrupt abuse, and shame on all of us for going along with any of it.This man exposed our government SPYING on all of us, without warrants. Folks have tried to deal with this issue through "proper" channels, and gotten nowhere. I AM ashamed to be an American. Entitled bullies and "bad guys" are us.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/17988-arrrrrgh-mr-wizard-halp
 
 
-11 # tabonsell 2013-06-23 15:41
How many times must we go over this nonsense?

NSA's duties involve only TOTALLY FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS or communications going to or coming from foreign sources. If it gets any information that is totally domestic it must be DESTROYED. You are not being spied on.

And yet we have the ignorant leading the uninformed or the delusional leading the misguided on a journey of total panic and hysteria on matters they have no knowledge about.
 
 
0 # kochadoodledoo 2013-06-26 05:38
And which are you, ignorant, uninformed, delusional, or misguided?
 
 
0 # tedrey 2014-05-07 04:49
You're a year behind everyone else.. NSA claimed what you say; we now know it was not true.
 
 
+23 # whywonder 2013-06-22 15:13
Remember the whole idea of the different branches of the government is to provide check and balances on each for the good of the people. Since the Supreme Court has become its own political party the check are not there and all we get is more issues. The media is another problem area in my opinion. The are now controlled by big money and are engaged in making the news and not only reporting it. We the people have been superseded by we the media. Sad but true.
 
 
+14 # tedrey 2013-06-22 15:35
Here's one. Why not have the NSA actually find out what plots are being laid against us (the way they claim to be doing) and then, instead of keeping these plots secret like the last 50 times,(so that the plotters won't know we're on to them,)actually warn the people who use the bridge, the building, the Stock Exchange that is threatened. If we all know the plot, the plotters will have to think up a new one.
 
 
+6 # Malcolm 2013-06-22 23:00
Quoting tedrey:
Here's one. Why not have the NSA actually find out what plots are being laid against us (the way they claim to be doing) and then, instead of keeping these plots secret like the last 50 times,(so that the plotters won't know we're on to them,)actually warn the people who use the bridge, the building, the Stock Exchange that is threatened. If we all know the plot, the plotters will have to think up a new one.


Well. For one thing, I bet dollars to doughnuts that these alleged terrorist plots don't actually exist...
 
 
+2 # myungbluth 2013-06-23 07:04
I think your intentions are good, but what if the NSA is wrong from time to time? What about possible panic in the streets? I see room for other kinds of mischief there.
 
 
+12 # Douglas Jack 2013-06-22 15:37
To break a police state, citizens need critical-mass proximity, solidarity & collaboration. As foreign colonial invaders, in violation of laws, customs & sovereignty here, we've bought a myth of individualism, organized from the 'grass-roots', alone, shallow, weak, easily burned by the sun & living as artificial beings.
Humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') ancestors know from long memories that; living, working & grouping together is fundamental to sustainable culture.
https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/indigenous-circle-of-life
Indigenous collective, deep, strong, specialized, penetrating 'tree-roots' & high canopies, resilient photosynthesis of 92 - 98% of solar energy, requires individual & family commitment to live & plan in addition to the nuclear family. Privacy with individual & family spaces is important, but as we need female-male, young-old interaction.
Indigenous Confederacies 'Haudenosaunee' (Iroquois = 'people of the extended home') such as the Celts were based in multihome-livin g such as Longhouse (apartment-like ), Pueblo (townhouse-like ) & Kanata (Mohawk 'village'). Proximity enables extended families to work & interact intentionally. Minding children, sharing meals, providing elder-youth interaction or hiring lawyers in response to corporate or government snooping, we need collaboration. 70% of us now live in multihome complexes. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/9-do-we-know-who-we-are
 
 
+9 # tedrey 2013-06-22 15:41
It's very tempting to say that the first four suggestions are exactly what SHOULD be done, and in the full light of day. But no, unlike the government, we believe in the fourth amendment.
 
 
+18 # Thomas Daulton 2013-06-22 16:05
Quite frankly, I do not see a reason why the majority of this article is satire. Is Mr. Weissman trying to trivialize these issues by making fun of them? I don't think it's Constitutional for the government to do this surveillance, but everyone I talk to just shrugs and says they'll do it no matter what we tell them. So the only way to salvage anything positive from this debacle is to use the surveillance in cases like Weissman describes. In particular, the financial stuff. Just like terrorism, high-tech financial fraud uses a diffuse pattern of seemingly innocuous transactions, so the analysis capability of the PRISM system would be a good fit. This stuff is illegal, and robs pretty much everybody in the First World to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. The "satirical" reasons Weissman gives for monitoring the big banks and brokers are all true. What is satire about this? What is funny about this? If all 300 million of us have to put up with 24/7 recording and monitoring of our personal family communications, there is ZERO reason we have to put up with fraud and collusion practiced over electronic communications systems for one minute longer. The President and the NSA keep telling us that nobody's rights or privacy is violated. Let them put their money where their mouth is -- monitor and archive ALL financial communications! Tell the banks they have nothing to fear if they've nothing to hide.
 
 
+16 # MidwestDick 2013-06-22 17:47
Actually, they don't need the big sweep up. There is plenty of proof lying around. All they would have to do is subpoena a big pile of records. What is missing is the will to do so. Why would a lawyer in America, who knows this part of the law, accept a crappy 100 Gs a year to chase these thieves around when he can earn 20 times that much helping them steal?
What do you think the AG will be doing after he leaves office? He is going to make a pile so big. Bill Clinton will envy him.
 
 
+2 # Thomas Daulton 2013-06-23 11:46
I thank you for commenting on my opinion, and we are definitely on the same side. However, I think there are aspects you are missing. #1, simply programming the computers to analyze for financial fraud in addition to terrorism would be a huge step forward over a subpoena with almost ZERO additional effort. Just by doing a few extra analysis runs, the AG and the SEC will have their effectiveness expanded hugely, without costing the public any notable extra money. A right-minded lawyer, or a State Attorney General, may view that as a reason to work further on "chasing these thieves around" instead of submitting to cynicism. Government lawyers, despite what you say, still exist who are pursuing these investigations, and they want to win. If, with this extra computer capability, an ambitious government lawyer on a shoestring budget can score a big victory over a team of multimillion-do llar corporate lawyers, it will surely be a feather in his cap, which can net him a much bigger salary and demand when he goes to the private sector (if you insist on seeing everything from a mercenary point of view).
 
 
+4 # BostonPundit 2013-06-22 16:06
Mr. Weissman - funny.

But satire aside, the Supreme Court could easily say the "surveillance" - which it really is not - is legal. I say not "surveillance" because that term implies watching specific persons or a specific area for illegal activity. Here the metadata is being sampled to determine if contact is made to specific known Al Qaeda (or other terrorist) numbers.

But, back to the point: the First Amendment is written in absolute language - Congress shall make no law ....

The Fourth Amendment is not absolute - what it prevents are UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. So all the justices have to decide is whether what is being done is reasonable.
 
 
+10 # MendoChuck 2013-06-22 16:20
As long as we are "allowed" to vent our frustrations through our keyboards, safe in our homes and buildings nothing will change.

When 2014 comes around and we are once again "allowed" to vote for the limited choices that we are assigned to accept nothing will change except the continued growth of the controls that keep up tapping our keyboards.

If and when Americans decide change will happen and make the only change we are "allowed" to make and change our vote then maybe change will actually happen.

Perhaps some of you may recall that night in 2008 when we are promised that "Change has come to America!"

Well has it?
You tell me!
 
 
+9 # Thomas Daulton 2013-06-22 16:22
The only way this wiretapping system is going to change, is if it inconveniences the powerful. Implement the first three or four of these suggestions and just watch how quickly the PRISM system gets an overhaul and constitutional review. One of the primary reasons this sort of spying is against the intent of the Constitution is because of the inequality involved. _THEY_ can get dirt on _you_ and thereby control you, but _YOU_ can't get dirt on _them_. Restore the equality aspect, and it will teach the supporters of this system a lesson about the Constitutional principles. If the PRISM supporters, like the President, are serious when they say it doesn't infringe rights or privacy, I say they should _PROVE IT_, turn the PRISM upon themselves. If they _don't_ mean what they say about privacy, then they are lying to the nation about a crucially important Constitutional question, and they should be removed to a man (or woman). Let's find out which it is.
 
 
+2 # Thomas Daulton 2013-06-23 10:19
It's an interesting point to say "this is satire but we can't do this because we respect the 4th Amendment." Who's "we"? The 4th Amendment says the _GOVERNMENT_ shall not obtain evidence by unreasonable search and seizure. The 4th Amendment doesn't govern the behavior of the citizens, only the government. "We" citizens can't violate the 4th Amendment. (Which is not to say I can walk into your house and search your dresser; but that's a civil crime, not a Constitutional one. The 4th Amendment deals with the way that the Authorities obtain evidence during criminal trials; not with what the citizens do.)

The government, in this case, is the party that's charged with implementing the 4th Amendment, and is the party that is apparently not respecting it, with the indiscriminate surveillance. Not us.

If the 4th Amendment is going out the window with this PRISM surveillance apparatus, and nobody says we can do anything about it, then throwing the _EQUALITY_ aspect of it out the window too is an _additional_ crime, and a worse one. Why should this surveillance only go one way? Proposing that this abuse be applied equally is righting a wrong, not adding to it.

Remember, this information is being collected about the banks and the government monetary agencies, about Monsanto, about rich and poor people alike, ALREADY. This proposal is not proposing any significant ADDITIONAL COLLECTION EFFORT; only, using what is already being collected. How is that satire?
 
 
+1 # Thomas Daulton 2013-06-23 11:48
Once again, I'm going to point out, the fact that this abuse is one-way, in my mind renders the argument invalid that "we can't propose this because we respect the 4th Amendment". What we are actually talking about is SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, which is quite a separate issue from any 4th Amendment question.
 
 
+4 # Torvus 2013-06-22 16:35
Does hacking count as 'mass surveillance'?
 
 
+9 # James Marcus 2013-06-22 16:42
What if the U S Supreme Court (majority) is in-the-same-poc kets as the President, and Congress?
What if their Rulings of Law are arbitrary and obviously, themselves, Unconstitutiona l?
What if?
 
 
+14 # RHytonen 2013-06-22 20:03
Quoting James Marcus:
What if the U S Supreme Court (majority) is in-the-same-pockets as the President, and Congress?
What if their Rulings of Law are arbitrary and obviously, themselves, Unconstitutional?
What if?


Is there anyone who even suspects they are NOT?
 
 
+9 # luvdoc 2013-06-22 16:56
In this digital age, the idea of 'secrets' is almost quaint. Soon, I hope, everyone will 'know' everything. Hackers and whistleblowers will be the Paul Revere's & Robin Hoods'of tomorrow. luvdoc
 
 
+4 # Malcolm 2013-06-22 18:08
Re "Whom should we believe"?

ROFLMAO!

Hey, fellow countrymen, have you seen the video of Clare Daly calling Obombya a war criminal, hypocrite of the century, among other somewhat odious terms, while concurrently telling Taoiseach (That is NOT a typo) Enda Kenny that he had showcased the Republic as "a nation of pimps, prostituting ourselves in return for a pat on the head."

And she accuses mainstream media of drooling all over war criminal obombya.

Go, girl!
 
 
-5 # Inspired Citizen 2013-06-22 18:15
In the past the Court has usually decided with the national security state.

I've argued recently that we need a new definition of privacy: inside the wall of our homes and our phone conversations. For access to them, a warrant is required. Nothing else in reality should have an expectation of privacy.

This would balance security measures needed to protect us from a determined foe while protecting us from the state.

I'm a dissident and advocate for a new legal order (constitutional amendment). Maybe I'm naive, but it doesn't matter if the NSA knows that I'm functioning under constitutional provisions to radically change the status quo. I know that the NSA would have no interest in me, but the contracted corporations should, if they do not yet.

We have to balance the 4th Amendment against the need for security. Uncle Sam and others are looking online; get over it. I've understood this since 2004. Expecting to have online privacy is naive and has been for over a decade. Privacy requires a virtual private network with good security. That's life online.

Welcome to the 21st Century.
 
 
+4 # Malcolm 2013-06-22 22:50
[quote name="Inspired Citizen"]In the past the Court has usually decided with the national security state.

I've argued recently that we need a new definition of privacy: inside the wall of our homes and our phone conversations. For access to them, a warrant is required. Nothing else in reality should have an expectation of privacy.

This would balance security measures needed to protect us from a determined foe while protecting us from the state.

I'm a dissident and advocate for a new legal order (constitutional amendment). Maybe I'm naive, but it doesn't matter if the NSA knows that I'm functioning under constitutional provisions to radically change the status quo. I know that the NSA would have no interest in me, but the contracted corporations should, if they do not yet.

We have to balance the 4th Amendment against the need for security. Uncle Sam and others are looking online; get over it. I've understood this since 2004. Expecting to have online privacy is naive and has been for over a decade. Privacy requires a virtual private network with good security. That's life online.

Welcome to the 21st Century.[/quot

Hey, citizen; what would you think about our despotic government stopped fucking over other societies? Maybe the other travelers on this beautiful planet would someday find it in their hearts to forgive us. Maybe we wouldn't NEED all this so-called security.
 
 
+1 # Inspired Citizen 2013-06-23 06:16
Agreed: we need to deconstruct the American Empire first in the written word (see Maddow's Drift) and then literally, with a new foreign policy.

However, people have long memories. Long after the U.S. pulls out of the Middle East, we will have Muslims aiming for revenge for what we have already done. We will still need the surveillance being undertaken to protect us.
 
 
0 # Dion Giles 2013-06-24 23:32
"will have Muslims aiming for revenge for what we have already done"

And for apostasy, blasphemy, impiety, disrespecting a "prophet", speaking up for uppity women and girls, following the dictates of mutual love, etc. etc. Protecting the freedoms disallowed by theocrats is something for a nation to be proud of, just as colonialist crimes are something for which a nation should be ashamed - and pay. Big Brother isn't the only enemy of the people.
 
 
+7 # ladymidath 2013-06-22 19:22
This kind of surveillance is the worst kind of slide towards a totalitarian regime. Is this how Obama wants to be remembered, as the President who continued these wars for profit and as the leader who spied on not only his own people, but the world.
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2013-06-22 22:52
Quoting ladymidath:
This kind of surveillance is the worst kind of slide towards a totalitarian regime. Is this how Obama wants to be remembered, as the President who continued these wars for profit and as the leader who spied on not only his own people, but the world.


Lady, I have often wondered about that cert thing. Obombya always SEEMED like such a well intentioned fellow...
 
 
+5 # Jude 2013-06-22 19:26
Love the creative ideas in this article! Satire, maybe, but I’d rather take them literally. I’ve been wondering why this mine of information hasn’t been used to track and arrest child pornographers. That would accomplish something positive for the world.
 
 
+6 # Gnome de Pluehm 2013-06-22 19:38
This is labeled satire because of No. 5. He knows that otherwise he could be cited for urging and abetting crimes against the state (essentially against the business interests of the corporations, and thus the economic interest of the US).
 
 
+1 # robcarter.vn 2013-06-22 20:09
"What if we're wrong? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits massive surveillance and unlimited data mining, as revealed by former National Security Agency technician Edward Snowden?

CALL A REFERENDUM QUICK & make a new amendment to USA holy, wholly, Hole-full, constitution and/or political ruled SUPREME COURT..
 
 
+2 # ballerina 2013-06-23 00:07
Noun
The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of...
A play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.

"at the risk of going satirical.."

if mr. weissman is inclined to humour or irony, let it rip..personally , i don't find any of this humorous in the least although i could perhaps appreciate the attempt were the whole subject not so odious
 
 
+6 # fredboy 2013-06-23 05:55
As so many sit silently in fear, perhaps it is time we replace our national symbol, the bald eagle, with a sheep.
 
 
0 # BobboMax 2013-06-23 09:22
I like this idea! How about a couple hundred fiber optic cables into Bluffdale from, say, Google's servers. We could have crowd-sourced intelligence analysis. Of course, it would turn into a fustercluck, but, hey, that's what we have now anyway. Regardless, you and I are paying for the collection of the NSA's "metadata" so we own it and have the right to examine it. After I pry MY data loose from NSA, I'm going after a tougher nut- TransUnion, Experian and Equifax.

The NSA says it's discovering conspiracies that threaten our nation- certainly Wall Street qualifies. My favorite NSA-enhanced service is nailing "Cardholder Services," those jerks who keep calling to offer...somethi ng... even though I'm supposedly in the DoNotCall list. (Note- not my original idea- somebody in Letters To The Editor in the Boregonian.)
 
 
0 # Roger Kotila 2013-06-23 14:58
Like Steve Weissman, I don't trust the U.S. Supreme Court. They could allow "massive surveillance" of all of us no matter what the U.S. Constitution says. American activists face a situation where all 3 branches of the government appear corrupted -- owned by Big Money, Multinationals, and the Military/Indust rial/Secret Operations complex.

So what to do? See my article "America's Secret Surveillance Empire -- Violation of the Earth Constitution?" in RSN 13 June 2013.

The Earth Federation Movement offers activists a strategy that goes beyond American shores, a necessary adjustment when dealing with powers that operate not just in the U.S., but worldwide, and do not respect democracy. The Earth Constitution with its Office of World Ombudsmus shows one aspect of what good government must look like if we are to regain our fundamental rights. The Earth Constitution takes the political and moral high ground, and includes a practical, nonviolent strategy for activists in an emerging Earth Federation Movement (earthfederatio n.info).
 
 
+2 # DaveM 2013-06-23 18:03
I cannot help but be reminded of the "Hammer Into Anvil" episode of the classic TV series, "The Prisoner". The main character, seeking revenge against the leader of a total surveillance society, brings about the leader's downfall by behaving in a "suspicious manner". He mails blank sheets of paper, pretends to hear secret messages in phonograph records, and sends nonsensical "secret messages" to distant (actually nonexistent) recipients.

The leader, aware that he is being watched as closely as the prisoner and any of the other watchers, becomes obsessed with learning "the meaning of it all". He pursues it to the extent that he neglects his duties, fails in leadership, and finally becomes insane.

Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.
 
 
0 # Torvus 2013-06-23 18:21
O dear, most comments here could be labelled 'terrorist' these days. Any objection - or even a flutter of disagreement - to government's actions are probably deemed so. No wonder there is massive surveillance. (This is satire. I think.)
 
 
0 # ericlipps 2013-06-29 14:23
The problem is that "Big Brother" is by definition on the side of established interests. "He" is not going to be our friend, period--unless, of course, progressive interests somehow become dominant in society. And in that case, we wouldn't need a "Big Brother."
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN