Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom 261
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."
Sure, I guess I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that the US used to be, but the last decades have turned over to the dark side.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what exactly?
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
History. The US has always been at war.
Kerry justifies his bullshit with the standard, "The other guy is worse, so STFU".
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of history is poor, but I'll agree that the motives of domestic policy are sincerely suspect. These values are NOT what my ancestors fought for, however, and so this is a change.
We were once tribes and warriors, and now instead of multiple gruesome battlefields, executive play war conquering each other and us on a battlefield called Greed Capitalism.
Re: Sure, I guess I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Your knowledge of history is poor, but I'll agree that the motives of domestic policy are sincerely suspect. These values are NOT what my ancestors fought for, however, and so this is a change.
We were once tribes and warriors, and now instead of multiple gruesome battlefields, executive play war conquering each other and us on a battlefield called Greed Capitalism.
In the old days, people who played at war died on the battlefield. That was a good thing, because we're better off with such men dead. The problem with modern warfare is that they come home alive. In an ideal war, both sides slaughter each other and the last man standing dies of his wounds before he makes it home.
Re: (Score:3)
When was that exactly? I watch a lot of history channel, and history is mostly filled with kings and generals standing BEHIND the lines of poor people with pointy sticks.
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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)
Who is "win[ning] prizes" for holding the US government to standards?
Well, his boss won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong side of history == people that do not agree with the Obama administration.
That's also a frequent definition of "racist".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
2009 analysis pretty well predicting this mess:
http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Right:sizing (Score:2)
Lets not hold back progress with regressive definition of the English Language, mmmkay?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
History is written by the victors - not necessarily the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
The victors are always the good guys. They get to decide who the good guys are.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart saves the American consumer well over $200 billion a year, greatly exceeding as a benefit all the "corporate welfare" charges ladled on it, "to help their underpaid employees".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And they use a lot of their money to push corporation control of the education system (e.g. corporate run charter schools). After all, what better way to prep the next generation of loyal consumers than by getting to them (and making a profit off them) young?
Re:Bingo (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to show us publicly run schools that do better? I'm seriously in favor of govt. oversight of the corporate flavor, but lack of competition has degraded our public system into a nearly useless shithole.
Wait, what? (Score:4)
Stop and consider the Henry Ford business model. Pay people well and they buy your products as well as boost the economy around them so that others can buy your products.
Now consider the Wallmart business model. Pay people poorly, but sell products cheap enough where they can still survive (not thrive).
Which is better for our Republic? Obviously the former is better, it was the model that drove us to the top in terms of economy, GDP, innovation, and wealth.
You should really stop and consider Socrate's Allegory of the Artisan and understand that these issues are not new. Allowing a certain class of people unchecked wealth and government strength to back that wealth is as anti-Republican as you can get.
Wallmart does no service to anyone but themselves and the others holding wealth and power currently.
Re:Bingo (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed.
Well, I had to get to page two of a google search on "Walmart Makes Stores Close" before I started coming to articles with numbers from sources I'd heard about, but here [forbes.com] you'll find this quote:
"A study published in 2008 in the Journal of Urban Economics examined about 3,000 Walmart store openings nationally and found that each store caused a net decline of about 150 jobs (as competing retailers downsized and closed) and lowered total wages paid to retail workers.".
This [theatlanticcities.com] article was interesting to read but for those averse to clicking the link:
"But the closer a store was to the Walmart location, the greater the likelihood it would close. Persky and his colleagues found that for every mile closer to the Walmart, 6 percent more stores closed. Close in around the store's location, between 35 and 60 percent of stores closed.
And depending on the type of business, the impact of a Walmart moving in can be much worse. Persky says that the per-mile closure rate increase for drugstores is almost 20 percent. For home furnishings, it's about 15 percent. For hardware stores, it's about 18 percent per mile. For toys, it's more than 25 percent per mile.".
Really, that's all the time I'm willing to invest in refuting the idea that somehow WalMart fosters a diverse / thriving / healthy business ecosystem.
So lets be Open about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So lets be Open about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Who do you think you're kidding here? All the channels have been designed to shut down whisteblowing, not protect it. Going to tell the brass at the CIA that the CIA is breaking the law, under the orders of the brass? Going to tell the DOJ that the Pentagon is breaking the law, following classified legal opinions written by the DOJ? Tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that the illegal programs the Committee has voted on are illegal?
Re:So lets be Open about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just conveniently forget that Snowden tried to do things the "correct" way, and nothing happened.
Irony (Score:5, Informative)
From TFS:
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)
Re: (Score:3)
That was a total WTF statement, who was he referring to? Obama? O_o
doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
"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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
"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"...
sure, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is the case, be honest about it.
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security CAN come at the expense of cyber privacy."
See? Now THAT would be an honest statement, and I could rightfully criticize it.
Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Big Fat Liar (Score:2)
Sen. McCarthy said the same thing in the 50s (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Arrogant, incompetent boob (Score:5, Funny)
John Kerry in 1971 Doonesbury comics [abstractdynamics.org]
Some things never change
Stop policing! (Score:2, Insightful)
".... 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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
See the movie "Dr Strangelove" for reasons why.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises!
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly off-topic, but for anyone who hasn't seen Dr. Strangelove, see it. It's hilarious! Peter Sellers is amazing.
Thomas Jefferson said.... (Score:5, Informative)
"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!"
Re:Thomas Jefferson said.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Leak their secrets go to jail (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
its just an attempt at damage control (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Aren't you supposed to be on the left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Sure (Score:2)
Is he ignorant, stupid, or lying? (Score:3)
Unfortunately those are the only three choices here.
more choices (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick any two? Problem is some of them are all three at the same time.
obama admin is funny (Score:3)
they say nice things and then continue the bush/cheney agenda. fascism.
Sum up (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey, we're not as evil as a lot of other countries out there! PS. Turrirrists"
Today in America (Score:2)
Anybody still want to argue that there are major differences between the two major political parties here in America?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
I believe I speak for the entirety of humanity when I say, "No John. Fuck off, you puppet."
Red Flag Phrase (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Getting ahead of himself (Score:2)
My usual test (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The lessons we've learned are often in direct contradiction of tradition.
Kerry is old guard.... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think to be technical his wife is extremely rich, he's just 'wealthy'. :)
Actually, you're all looking at this wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so we're all pissed... (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
"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.
Right Side of Story (Score:2, Redundant)
Kerry, the great dissembler. (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:If Might Makes Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the US, by controlling in the Internet, more or less is capable of re-writing any history that is less than praising of its methods, I suppose the US is on the right side of history. They can write the history, after all.
Re:If Might Makes Right (Score:5, Funny)
He was just misquoted. He meant the US is on the "write" side of history. As in the US is going to write the history and paint it as completely wonderful.
"In the dark times, national security was hampered by not knowing what every citizen was doing at all times. Roadblocks such as warrants prevented our wonderful security organizations from looking up information on anyone at anytime. This meant that threats could come from anywhere at any time. Those tasked with protecting our security wept over such horrible restrictions. Thankfully, the restrictions were removed and our wonderful security overseers can now look up information on anyone at any time for any reason without having to deal with trivial minutiae like court-issued warrants, probable cause, or fact-based evidence linking the person to a crime. This means we live in the most secure times imaginable. Just ask anyone (who doesn't want to be dragged off in the middle of the night for speaking out against the security agencies)."
Re: (Score:2)
You stole my pun. I'll kill you!