Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Privacy Your Rights Online

Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom 261

Posted by samzenpus
from the everything-is-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing the audience at the Freedom Online Coalition Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry defended NSA snooping actions saying: 'Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it. And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices. And that's why he then, after examining it and debating it and openly engaging in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful reforms, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us. And finally, transparency – the principles governing such activities need to be understood so that free people can debate them and play their part in shaping these choices. And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.' He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this debate, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom

Comments Filter:
  • by robinsonne (952701) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:19AM (#46918835)
    If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.
    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:21AM (#46918851) Homepage

      I would say that the US used to be, but the last decades have turned over to the dark side.

    • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmMENCKENail.com minus author> on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:26AM (#46918899)

      If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms

      He says so right there:

      He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it.

      I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

      • He never said it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:06AM (#46919233)

        I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

        At no point he said explicitly this administration is on the freedom side. 1st rules of politics : make the reader read something he thinks he might read but in reality do not say anything. Reader are probably all assuming *what* the right side is. The funny things is, kerry at no point really explicitly said it.

      • I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

        I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

        • I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

          It is also a mistake to believe that what he thinks matters in the least. He is the secretary of state. He has no authority to set policy for the NSA, CIA or DIA.

          • I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

            It is also a mistake to believe that what he thinks matters in the least. He is the secretary of state. He has no authority to set policy for the NSA, CIA or DIA.

            I'm not sure any of us thought he was speaking authoritatively. But he is a member of the administration, and is assumed to be parrotting the public position of Obama. And so we scream at him for his remarks' self-serving hypocrisy and self-contradiction, in effigy of screaming at Obama himself.

            But, of course, your point extends to our screaming as well. Practically speaking, none of our protestations on a Slashdot comment system are at all likely to affect national policy or the general public's sentime

            • If I had my choice between Secretary of State or the Presidency I would choose Secretary of State. Tons of influence, nearly untouchable by the president after being appointed, and a highly functional position unencumbered by the bulk of politics inflicted on the President.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]

              • by Obfuscant (592200)

                Tons of influence, nearly untouchable by the president after being appointed, and a highly functional position unencumbered by the bulk of politics inflicted on the President.

                If by "nearly untouchable" you mean "can be fired at a moment's notice at the whim of the President, is the lightning rod for every failed Presidential foreign policy position or statement, and has to step and fetch for foreign dignitaries that are better ignored", why yes, I agree completely.

                Keep in mind, when you see a Secretary of State making absolutely ridiculous statements demonstrating a complete ignorance of world politics, he's doing so as Secretary of State because the President chooses not to f

        • But... He does not say it.
          He does not think it.
          He does not act it.
          I think its a mistake to infer that he infers anything. (He is, after all, the United States Secretary Of State; Prima Fascia evidence of his professional relation to truth.)

      • "I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things."

        He means respecting the freedom for the rich to do whatever they want, and for everyone else to suck it up.

      • by Rigel47 (2991727) on Monday May 05, 2014 @12:08PM (#46919801)

        I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

        It's not. But he's a politician and part of a Government that excels at saying one thing and doing another. All this bullshit talk about "transparency" is laughable. The only reason we are having this "talk" is because of Edward Snowden.

        Nevermind, of course, that any reasonable reading of the Constitution makes much of the NSA's activities illegal. But no, that's not important. What's important is that we're talking, having "conversations," in a "transparent" manner. Meanwhile the NSA's vacuums are running full tilt and the FISA rubber-stamp machine is printing "Approved" on anything that comes near it.

      • by Yakasha (42321)

        If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms

        He says so right there:

        He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it.

        I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

        Mitreya-san, one must always respect one's enemies.

    • by MisterSquid (231834) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:44AM (#46919061)

      If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.

      The right side? What a bunch of horseshit. The summary quotes Kerry as saying

      And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.

      Which I'm might be a typo ("the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people") but would be unsurprised to find out he actually said that, Freudian slip and all that.

      What really infuriates me is the hypocrisy and the lies. Who is "win[ning] prizes" for holding the US government to standards? Snowden had to flee his country to seek asylum in RUSSIA for crying out loud.

      The whole thing stinks and they (Kerry, Obama) have the gall to lie to our faces that they are going to do something about it.

      I'm so angry I could spit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Who is "win[ning] prizes" for holding the US government to standards?

        Well, his boss won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:50AM (#46919113) Homepage Journal

      Right side of history is Obama's administration's catch phrase.
      Of course he also said that Romney was on the "wrong side of history" about Russia being a threat.

      Translation.
      Right side of history == people that agree with the Obama administration.
      Wrong side of history == people that do not agree with the Obama administration.

      Just what we need is a president with a catch phrase.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      2009 analysis pretty well predicting this mess:
      http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/

    • The "Right Side of History" is one of these overused statements to say He I Think I am right, while your side is wrong.

      The problem with trying to look good for history, is that history looks back with filtered vision.
      A lot of people at the time, even in the US, though Communism was a good idea, you look at Star Trek, Communism won! The hippy movement... As an ideal communism looked progressive and will bring the world into a better place... However the system had a fatal flaw it didn't account of peoples a

      • by Bartles (1198017)
        Communism yes, Fascism even more. Progressives commonly supported and were intrigued by Fascism in the 20's and 30's.
    • Lets not hold back progress with regressive definition of the English Language, mmmkay?

    • If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.

      The trick to being on the "right side of history" has always been to make sure the people who will write the histories are people already sympathetic to your side.

    • by blagooly (897225)

      I consider myself a refugee from the one party state of Mass. Vermont now. Still one party, but there are more trees. Plus, a bonus, a soul still exists here in old school Vermonters, not so different from old school everywhere.

      Kerry strikes me as a mediocre man. Splashed on to the scene as a impressive, whistle blowing, honest Veteran. People cared, they listened. Rewareded as Senator for life in Mass. Since then? What? Where does that experience apply?

      Now this? Homeland security, TSA, info gobbling, m

  • History... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:22AM (#46918853) Journal

    History is written by the victors - not necessarily the good guys.

    • The victors are always the good guys. They get to decide who the good guys are.

  • by delt0r (999393) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:23AM (#46918861)
    As far as i can tell, if there was no Snowden there wouldn't be any discussion at all.
    • by dmbasso (1052166) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:39AM (#46919009)

      Exactly. This hypocrisy really pisses me off:

      I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.

      So please stop being a hypocrite and free Ms. Manning, give her a medal for her bravery.

  • Irony (Score:5, Informative)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:23AM (#46918869)

    From TFS:

    "I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes"

    So, Snowden isn't due for jail-time if he were to return to the USA, Mr. Kerry?

    And why has the Obama administration brought charges against more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? (Six by Obama, three by all previous administrations combined)

  • doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VMaN (164134) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:24AM (#46918875) Homepage

    "Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."

    But that is precisely what is going on.

    • Re:doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:51AM (#46919123) Homepage Journal

      "Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."

      But that is precisely what is going on.

      Since Obama came on the scene, I've learned that when a politician prefaces a statement with, "let me be clear," chances are good that he's going to be anything but.

      • Re:doublespeak (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:30AM (#46919421)

        Well, this isn't something Obama invented... It's just new to those that were young or uninvolved in the political process. Obama brought in a lot of new voters that could learn what the rest of us did years ago. It's fun to be disappointed by your political heroes for the first time.

        How did that song go?

        We wont be fooled again!
        *pause*
        New boss, same as the old boss.

        So "The Who" figured it out 40 years ago, but we're still re-learning it every 8yrs.

        • Re:doublespeak (Score:5, Informative)

          by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:43AM (#46919525) Homepage Journal

          Well, this isn't something Obama invented...

          Perhaps not, but he has latched onto it as his personal catch phrase. [google.com]

          Just like how Bush Sr didn't come up with the phrase, "no new taxes," but when I hear that phrase he immediately springs to mind... or rather, Dana Carvey's dead-on impression of him.

          • by Minwee (522556)

            Just like how Bush Sr didn't come up with the phrase, "no new taxes," but when I hear that phrase he immediately springs to mind... or rather, Dana Carvey's dead-on impression of him.

            I can see Russia from my house!

        • We wont be fooled again!
          *pause*
          New boss, same as the old boss.

          Then we get on our knees and pray - we don't get fooled again.
          *pause*

          Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!

          Oddly enough, I was listening to that song as I got to your post...

    • by bobbied (2522392)

      "Let me be clear –

      Any statement that starts with that phrase, will be neither clear nor the truth, epically coming from a politician. It's like saying, "To be honest" or "I'm not lying"...

  • Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xtal (49134) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:25AM (#46918881)

    "I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."

    I don't even know where to begin with this one.

    Don't worry. The internet will deal with this because there's money on the line, and the US should understand this. If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.

    The outcome from this will be an even harder to stop internet. This may have be an unintended effect, but may end up being a net positive gain for personal liberty in the long run. History is full of reasons why this is a good thing, and why we must never lower our guard.

    Interesting times.

    • by CRCulver (715279)

      If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.

      Math, such as crypto algorithms, is awesome, but implementations are not. Nerds have been aware for well over a decade (the EU Parliament's ECHELON report came out in 2001) that certain states seek to monitor and store as much online communication as possible, but coding practices even in sensitive privacy-defending applica

      • by swillden (191260)
        Meh. Implementation bugs can be fixed. It's designing for security and privacy that matters, and once we address the flaw that CAs represent, SSL is a pretty good design (and that fix is in the works). That said, I'm a lot less confident in the ability of math to beat guns than the GP. Technology can't work around policy problems, not directly. It can be used to raise awareness so that public opinion can then be used to fix the policy problems.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      You are assuming the masses are with you. First you lose the propaganda war, then you lose everything else. They'll outlaw Bitcoin. Outlaw TOR. Outlaw VPN. Outlaw proxies. Close down open wifis. If you're not the facebook-posting, cell phone-wearing, credit card using transparent type you'll be targeted. They'll find something because almost everybody breaks the law in some way, then hang you out to dry as another posted child of crooks trying to fly below the radar.

      They don't need to force you to do anythi

  • The US is so far on the wrong side that it is in the ditch.
  • by bazmail (764941) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:27AM (#46918911)
    US Gov gives itself a stellar report card. What a surprise.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      This is true, but 1950s or today, I'll take the US over anywhere else. See, all governments give themselves stellar marks. Very few can make a case they even partially deserve it.

  • ahem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Major Blud (789630) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:28AM (#46918917) Homepage
    "And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices after they were leaked to the world."

    FTFY.

  • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:28AM (#46918919) Journal

    one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. ... and we all know which side the Ketchup Gigolo is on.

    -jcr

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:29AM (#46918929)

    John Kerry in 1971 Doonesbury comics [abstractdynamics.org]

    Some things never change

  • Stop policing! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ".... including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us."

    Here's a crazy thought: How about you stop starting wars, being the unwanted world-police, and generally just conclude that the world doesn't need your dictation. Maybe then people would stop hating you and trying to "do injury [sic]".
    Final conclusion: no meddling = no hate = no need for NSA.

    Yours anonymously,

    Coward

    • Here's a crazy thought: How about you stop starting wars, being the unwanted world-police, and generally just conclude that the world doesn't need your dictation.

      Every time the U.S. tries to stop being the world policeman and something bad happens (like the genocide in Rwanda), the world asks "where was the U.S.? Why didn't you stop it?"

      I know this is a "hate on the US for having signal intelligence spies, like every other major nation has, and has always had" thread, but exactly like how everybody hates

  • Hey (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:40AM (#46919015) Journal

    Mr. Kerry,

    We do not need a panopticon, either real-world or virtual on the Internet. And there are solid reasons never to build one. See the writings of your forefathers in government, or George Orwell.

    If it doesn't exist, and government is forbidden from making it, it can't possibly be misused. It's the same reason nobody should ever build a "continent buster" cobalt bomb.

  • by ToasterTester (95180) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:45AM (#46919067)

    "Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"

  • by Flicker (4495) on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:50AM (#46919107)

    "go to jail rather than win prizes"

    Kerry doesn't seem to have noticed that our government, particularly his boss's administration, is not giving prizes to leakers but rather jailing them. In particular Snowden's prize did not come from the U.S. government, but the mad scramble to capture and punish him certainly did.

  • what do you expect them to do or say?

    there has been enough talk about the US 'losing the cloud' and this hurts BUSINESS. that finally got their attention.

    now, if they will do anything real about our national conversation about online privacy, that I kind of doubt. we are essentially having the conversation amongst ourselves, but no one who can make laws is really stepping up to meet us and talk honestly about this.

    so, we're at step-1, I guess. we admit there is a problem (ie, loss of business revenue, no

    • we are essentially having the conversation amongst ourselves, but no one who can make laws is really stepping up to meet us and talk honestly about this.

      I'm really curious how the next two elections will go. I imagine every candidate is going to have to answer the question, "where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping and the collection of email and phone data for all Americans?" I wonder how many (if any) votes incumbents who voted against defunding the NSA's collection efforts or voted for the Patriot Act will lose? Their opponents will certainly make an issue of it.

      The next two elections will really decide the future of privacy. If a candidate (like Ob

  • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday May 05, 2014 @10:54AM (#46919147) Homepage Journal
    Yes, I agree that this administration is on the right side of history, but this is very annoying to people who elected them to be on the left! It's pretty annoying when the only two realistic candidates are the right and far right candidates.
    • by Uberbah (647458)

      It's pretty annoying when the only two realistic candidates are the right and far right candidates.

      Just because they've rigged [examiner.com] the system doesn't mean they're the only "realistic" options. Moreso when the Democrats are pushing right-wing policies that Republicans couldn't get elected to enact.

  • by ichthus (72442)
    ...but, don't look back. Look forward. Let's keep the freedom intact.
  • Unfortunately those are the only three choices here.

  • by rubycodez (864176) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:05AM (#46919225)

    they say nice things and then continue the bush/cheney agenda. fascism.

  • Sum up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tom229 (1640685) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:23AM (#46919377)
    So, if I can sum up his entire speech in a sentence:

    "Hey, we're not as evil as a lot of other countries out there! PS. Turrirrists"
  • Anybody still want to argue that there are major differences between the two major political parties here in America?

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Yes.

      the Republicans are richer than the Democrats. The Democrats are disorganized housecats. The Republicans tend to be more organized and directed towards a single broadly defined goal.

      Both sides will fuck over the poor (bottom 80%) in a heartbeat to make their Corporate masters happy.

  • Ya. No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:32AM (#46919439)

    I believe I speak for the entirety of humanity when I say, "No John. Fuck off, you puppet."

  • Red Flag Phrase (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:42AM (#46919521)

    I've noticed that "Let Me Be Clear" is something of a trigger phrase.

    To the media, it means "We expect you to treat the following statements as fact. Plan accordingly".
    To the rest of us it means "We are about to lie to you more concisely than usual. However, you should pay attention because this will apply to you".
     

  • History is written by the victors. However for this guy to proclaim "victory" by starting to write the history already, before the "battles" have even begun, is a little presumtuous
  • My usual test (Score:4, Insightful)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:48AM (#46919565) Homepage Journal

    I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.

    1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count.
    2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water.
    3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.

    It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.

    • I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.

      1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count.
      2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water.
      3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.

      It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.

      I suspect your litmus test depends on particular definitions of what having been on the right side means, and on what constitutes progress.

      But I doubt we're all in agreement regarding those definitions.

      • Obviously there's subjectivity to it. I don't proclaim to be an oracle or arbiter of goodness. And I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

        But if one goes back to what the KGB or Nazis were doing, those traditionalist arguments were all over the place.
        One only needs to look at the arguments presented by slave states in their statements of secession to see the arguments from tradition blown up large.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:49AM (#46919575) Homepage

    He is an extremely rich person that wants the poor watched. All rich people think this way. Keep those grubby poor people away from my money. And yes you Making $80K a year, you are one of the "grubby poor" to these people.

  • by dsavage (645882) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:51AM (#46919597)
    He said that America will be on the right side of history... and it probably will. You have to remember that "History is written by the winners." - George Orwell
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Monday May 05, 2014 @11:56AM (#46919655)

    Now what? Are people going to engage in any kind of activism at all or vent on Slashdot? People simply don't give a crap about privacy and the polls show it. Everyone has the "hey, I'm not a terrorist so why should I care?" attitude.

    I've been trying to maintain it for my own online experience and the tracking is insanely pervasive. I can't even create a YouTube account without giving out my phone number. I've actually written my representatives to complain about it, but I know I'm in a small, quiet minority in this country. I just get tired of reading all the incensed comments and articles about the loss of online privacy when it amounts to nothing more than another rant.

  • Liar or Fool? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Monday May 05, 2014 @12:00PM (#46919707) Homepage

    "And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes." - Kerry

    Does he live in such a powerful echo chamber / reality distortion field that he actually believes what he is saying, or does he have such disdain for the citizens that he is comfortable saying the opposite of what is true, to try to squeeze out a few extra votes from those who don't know any better?

    The reply to my letter to the FCC regarding Net Neutrality opened with, "Dear Consumer,", and was purportedly from Tom Wheeler. That's what I am? Not a citizen, but a consumer -- a wallet on legs, to be pried open to get at the sweet, delicious money inside? Equal access to communications doesn't matter, as long as the video entertainment circuses gets a fast lane to keep us numb and the subscription cash flowing. To Kerry perhaps it is the same; I am just a vote, to be manipulated in whatever way necessary to serve the greater good. I wonder if both of them open letters to their spouses, "Dear Vagina." The sad truth is I've had the fortune to know some powerful people, and I wouldn't put that last beyond them were they more candid, and less possessed of glib and alluring insincerity. Perhaps the most telling thing is when a reply that opens, "Dear Consumer" shows that they no longer even grasp what the charade is meant to portray.

    We are not the consumers, nor the electorate. We are The People. The government is Ours. I tremble to consider the road between here and their understanding of that.

  • by gmuslera (3436)
    At least if the story looks like 1984, Brave New World, or The Hunger Games
  • by GT66 (2574287) on Monday May 05, 2014 @01:04PM (#46920345)

    "Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."

    As in the physical space? So then if "cyber privacy" = physical privacy and "cyber security" = national security then what Kerry is saying is that the US government fully intends to build a police state where every citizen is continuously monitored JUST LIKE in the government does in the cyber world. Because national security cannot come at the expense of personal physical privacy. Good to know.

    "But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad."

    Well, now they are since Snowden left them no choice. Funny how they weren't quite so committed *before* they got caught with their hands in the Orwellian cookie jar. BTW - inclusive does not apparently mean "We the people." Kerry seems to be referring more to lobbyists and apparatchiks.

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...