|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 17 2017 11:22 oneofthem wrote:
ive only distinguished between lawful intelligence and the deranged sabotage and manipulation conducted by tin pot dictatorships.
encryption is mainly of psychological value to the average person, hugely valuable to criminals and sophisticated services that will eventually be in the employ of kleptocrats. i dont see the hype
the hype is that it is a safeguard against the fastening of totalitarian surveillance systems. it is the wedge that prevents the rock from rolling downhill. or to use another metaphor, no one really thinks about the dyke until Katrina hits.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 17 2017 11:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:16 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 11:05 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 10:54 IgnE wrote:shit they did a study on it? they are really cues into the REAL problems now and can lead us into a world where accumulation continued unabated. i dont know what you dont get about this, but current levels of inequality, worldwide, that are continuing to get worse are now a major barrier to capital accumulation. one would EXPECT the davos-type think tanks to be looking into their overdetermined and well formulated "problem". its mainstream now buddy it is not motivated by a desire to protect capital. this is deeply delusional. rather, humans are far more complex creatures than vulgar marxism can accommodate please, it only looks delusional to you because you think in conspiracy theories. see all your ridiculous jibes at the "left" and at "snowden" despite claiming to think in an analytic manner about how flows of material, human, and cultural resources shape outcomes. this isn't "vulgar" marxism. clinton's project fails with zero or negative growth. this is a fact. stop pretending it's delusion. you obviously dont know what motivates center left economists. very embarrassing. ive previously linked internal discussions of wceg on policy advocacy in inequality. you can see for yourself what the motivation is. as i said, your own rigid views of the world leads you to conspiratorial conclusions. im just pointing this out, doing a bit of analysis on how leftists go from a certain ideological framework about the world to ascribing evil motivations to moderates. it is all in your head buddy. i know perfectly what well motivates them, and it doesn't matter. motivations don't matter in any of my propositions. it has nothing to do with "evil actors." you are the one actually who continually feels the need to paint me as the deviant and reinscribe your viewpoint as the only legitimate one: "look at these nice people who care about really helping the poor"
ill just say that im not accusing you, as in the left, of conspiracy. im accusing you of being dumb. it is understandable though
|
I'm feling rather buried under jargon here. Can you two explain what it is you're discussing and what your viewpoint is?
|
Here's a conspiracy for you: there's a guy with his location listed as the Cayman Islands posting about how wealth inequality isn't a huge problem in the world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 17 2017 11:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:22 oneofthem wrote:
ive only distinguished between lawful intelligence and the deranged sabotage and manipulation conducted by tin pot dictatorships.
encryption is mainly of psychological value to the average person, hugely valuable to criminals and sophisticated services that will eventually be in the employ of kleptocrats. i dont see the hype the hype is that it is a safeguard against the fastening of totalitarian surveillance systems. it is the wedge that prevents the rock from rolling downhill. or to use another metaphor, no one really thinks about the dyke until Katrina hits.
it'll help you typing shit in a basement, but also protect the cayman transactions of the guy you are shittalking.
real safeguard lol
totalitarian control in this modern age is not about rounding you up in a camp. a high honor reserved for the few but insignificant. it is about crafting reality through secrecy of the bad stuff and information control. study china for a bit eh
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 17 2017 11:27 a_flayer wrote:
Here's a conspiracy for you: there's a guy with his location listed as the Cayman Islands posting about how wealth inequality isn't a huge problem in the world.
yes, that is precisely what i'm saying. thank you for proving my point
|
|
|
On February 17 2017 11:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:27 a_flayer wrote:
Here's a conspiracy for you: there's a guy with his location listed as the Cayman Islands posting about how wealth inequality isn't a huge problem in the world. yes, that is precisely what i'm saying. thank you for proving my point
I'm just predicting where you were going to take the conversation, mate.
|
On February 17 2017 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:12 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 11:01 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 10:51 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 10:36 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 06:14 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 17 2017 06:07 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2017 05:47 biology]major wrote:
Why doesn't the IC just release the transcripts and destroy Trump then? Exactly. lol we are not snowden or putin. this will be a proper investigation rather than trial by media. leaks were after congressional gop refused to do anything. if there is an investigation then there wouldnt be a need for leaks I don't really understand the set of views that can lead to these two statements side by side? snowden leaked way too much, with stylized presentations designed to bolster foreign adversaries. his is a propaganda op. you can read this piece to see something close to my view on it. https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-shouldnt-pardon-snowdenif he leaked the narrow bits about the 215 program, meh. would prob have been treated as an ellsberg type and gotten away with it do you agree with this? I think the most charitable moral/ethical case for leaking details of electronic intelligence operations abroad, including against our adversaries, is that these operations were harming the Internet, were hypocritical, were contrary to American values, and the like, and Snowden’s disclosures were designed to save the Internet and restore American values. This is not a crazy view; I know many smart and admirable people who hold it, and I believe it is ethically and morally coherent. my view is that given current attitudes, yes. but in an ideal world where the need for law enforcement ad security is better appreciated, the equilibrium would be a fully traceable internet but one where the mechanism of investigation is very secure, with content access enjoying full legal protection comparable to physical surveillance. there will be special privilege for intelligence and white collar crime investigators. but you'd have oversight on those too. generally i tend to favor transparency over privacy, especially transparency of elites with feudalist tendencies. these guys are the true enemies of anything resembling democracy. ok well we partially agree then. cyber surveillance and investigation that is personalized and limited would be more analogous to the warrant and manpower requirements for investigations that pierce the veil of citizen privacy. but you just made an argument that the segregation of society with respect to education is a "rock rolling downhill". the MASS surveillance and capture of everything that's said or thought is exactly this on a magnified scale. it's the fastening of a totalitarian apparatus upon the world that will remain fastened as appointments and administrations change. not everyone is a benevolent philosopher-king but you can't roll back that elimination of privacy when caligula ascends to the throne. okay, i suppose totalitarianism would get boosted in a world where trumpkins control the nsa etc. but i see a lot of upside to radical transparency, enough so that we can focus on preventing trumps while using these tools to accomplish things like exposing banking secrecy. the other upside is exposing the internal regime logic of authoritarian structures so they lose control over the population. there is a bit of slippery slope argument in all this that makes me turn against drawing strong conclusions. i tend to see how a mechanism can be a factor in increasing or decreasing the movement of the world towards desirable ends, rather than evaluating how bad they could be in some potential future state of affairs. we should be investing and inventing internet architectures that protect users' privacy via things like end-to-end encryption and ending the commoditization of data on corporate cloud server farms. those things still leave space for dedicated intelligence agents to investigate individuals who they have specific interest in and who a judge also thinks warrants investigation. in any case this distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" intelligence gathering is a perverse fiction when national intelligence communities routinely trade information (i.e. bypassing "domestic collection" concerns entirely) or when huge amounts of information crosses national borders only to access some hub before returning to the country of origin, etc. etc.
The biggest problem with this private view of data is not the totalitarian regimes but the fact that it completely harmstrings any kind of scientific or economic progress.
It's also ironically the digital equivalent of "get off my lawn and take your hands of my property" that the left usually is not a fan of.
There's lots of potential, not just profit oriented, in data so it would be stupid to fall back to some localism. The position on digital privacy on the left never made any sense given anything else they argue for.
|
On February 17 2017 11:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 11:12 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 11:01 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 10:51 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 10:36 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 06:14 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 17 2017 06:07 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 05:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Exactly. lol we are not snowden or putin. this will be a proper investigation rather than trial by media. leaks were after congressional gop refused to do anything. if there is an investigation then there wouldnt be a need for leaks I don't really understand the set of views that can lead to these two statements side by side? snowden leaked way too much, with stylized presentations designed to bolster foreign adversaries. his is a propaganda op. you can read this piece to see something close to my view on it. https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-shouldnt-pardon-snowdenif he leaked the narrow bits about the 215 program, meh. would prob have been treated as an ellsberg type and gotten away with it do you agree with this? I think the most charitable moral/ethical case for leaking details of electronic intelligence operations abroad, including against our adversaries, is that these operations were harming the Internet, were hypocritical, were contrary to American values, and the like, and Snowden’s disclosures were designed to save the Internet and restore American values. This is not a crazy view; I know many smart and admirable people who hold it, and I believe it is ethically and morally coherent. my view is that given current attitudes, yes. but in an ideal world where the need for law enforcement ad security is better appreciated, the equilibrium would be a fully traceable internet but one where the mechanism of investigation is very secure, with content access enjoying full legal protection comparable to physical surveillance. there will be special privilege for intelligence and white collar crime investigators. but you'd have oversight on those too. generally i tend to favor transparency over privacy, especially transparency of elites with feudalist tendencies. these guys are the true enemies of anything resembling democracy. ok well we partially agree then. cyber surveillance and investigation that is personalized and limited would be more analogous to the warrant and manpower requirements for investigations that pierce the veil of citizen privacy. but you just made an argument that the segregation of society with respect to education is a "rock rolling downhill". the MASS surveillance and capture of everything that's said or thought is exactly this on a magnified scale. it's the fastening of a totalitarian apparatus upon the world that will remain fastened as appointments and administrations change. not everyone is a benevolent philosopher-king but you can't roll back that elimination of privacy when caligula ascends to the throne. okay, i suppose totalitarianism would get boosted in a world where trumpkins control the nsa etc. but i see a lot of upside to radical transparency, enough so that we can focus on preventing trumps while using these tools to accomplish things like exposing banking secrecy. the other upside is exposing the internal regime logic of authoritarian structures so they lose control over the population. there is a bit of slippery slope argument in all this that makes me turn against drawing strong conclusions. i tend to see how a mechanism can be a factor in increasing or decreasing the movement of the world towards desirable ends, rather than evaluating how bad they could be in some potential future state of affairs. we should be investing and inventing internet architectures that protect users' privacy via things like end-to-end encryption and ending the commoditization of data on corporate cloud server farms. those things still leave space for dedicated intelligence agents to investigate individuals who they have specific interest in and who a judge also thinks warrants investigation. in any case this distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" intelligence gathering is a perverse fiction when national intelligence communities routinely trade information (i.e. bypassing "domestic collection" concerns entirely) or when huge amounts of information crosses national borders only to access some hub before returning to the country of origin, etc. etc. The biggest problem with this private view of data is not the totalitarian regimes but the fact that it completely harmstrings any kind of scientific or economic progress. It's also ironically the digital equivalent of "get off my lawn and take your hands of my property" that the left usually is not a fan of. There's lots of potential, not just profit oriented, in data so it would be stupid to fall back to some localism. The position on digital privacy on the left never made any sense given anything else they argue for.
I think this is where we start switching to a digital democracy of some kind.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw this is why intention is important. when someone shares common purpose and values with you, you can use those as basis for convincing arguments. that is, if you have good arguments and data to support. in other words, good intentions define the natural boundary of alliance and working together for common purpose.
such conspiracy so evil
|
On February 17 2017 11:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 11:12 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 11:01 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 10:51 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 10:36 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 06:14 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 17 2017 06:07 oneofthem wrote:On February 17 2017 05:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Exactly. lol we are not snowden or putin. this will be a proper investigation rather than trial by media. leaks were after congressional gop refused to do anything. if there is an investigation then there wouldnt be a need for leaks I don't really understand the set of views that can lead to these two statements side by side? snowden leaked way too much, with stylized presentations designed to bolster foreign adversaries. his is a propaganda op. you can read this piece to see something close to my view on it. https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-shouldnt-pardon-snowdenif he leaked the narrow bits about the 215 program, meh. would prob have been treated as an ellsberg type and gotten away with it do you agree with this? I think the most charitable moral/ethical case for leaking details of electronic intelligence operations abroad, including against our adversaries, is that these operations were harming the Internet, were hypocritical, were contrary to American values, and the like, and Snowden’s disclosures were designed to save the Internet and restore American values. This is not a crazy view; I know many smart and admirable people who hold it, and I believe it is ethically and morally coherent. my view is that given current attitudes, yes. but in an ideal world where the need for law enforcement ad security is better appreciated, the equilibrium would be a fully traceable internet but one where the mechanism of investigation is very secure, with content access enjoying full legal protection comparable to physical surveillance. there will be special privilege for intelligence and white collar crime investigators. but you'd have oversight on those too. generally i tend to favor transparency over privacy, especially transparency of elites with feudalist tendencies. these guys are the true enemies of anything resembling democracy. ok well we partially agree then. cyber surveillance and investigation that is personalized and limited would be more analogous to the warrant and manpower requirements for investigations that pierce the veil of citizen privacy. but you just made an argument that the segregation of society with respect to education is a "rock rolling downhill". the MASS surveillance and capture of everything that's said or thought is exactly this on a magnified scale. it's the fastening of a totalitarian apparatus upon the world that will remain fastened as appointments and administrations change. not everyone is a benevolent philosopher-king but you can't roll back that elimination of privacy when caligula ascends to the throne. okay, i suppose totalitarianism would get boosted in a world where trumpkins control the nsa etc. but i see a lot of upside to radical transparency, enough so that we can focus on preventing trumps while using these tools to accomplish things like exposing banking secrecy. the other upside is exposing the internal regime logic of authoritarian structures so they lose control over the population. there is a bit of slippery slope argument in all this that makes me turn against drawing strong conclusions. i tend to see how a mechanism can be a factor in increasing or decreasing the movement of the world towards desirable ends, rather than evaluating how bad they could be in some potential future state of affairs. we should be investing and inventing internet architectures that protect users' privacy via things like end-to-end encryption and ending the commoditization of data on corporate cloud server farms. those things still leave space for dedicated intelligence agents to investigate individuals who they have specific interest in and who a judge also thinks warrants investigation. in any case this distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" intelligence gathering is a perverse fiction when national intelligence communities routinely trade information (i.e. bypassing "domestic collection" concerns entirely) or when huge amounts of information crosses national borders only to access some hub before returning to the country of origin, etc. etc. The biggest problem with this private view of data is not the totalitarian regimes but the fact that it completely harmstrings any kind of scientific or economic progress. It's also ironically the digital equivalent of "get off my lawn and take your hands of my property" that the left usually is not a fan of. There's lots of potential, not just profit oriented, in data so it would be stupid to fall back to some localism. The position on digital privacy on the left never made any sense given anything else they argue for.
This is more of a problem of trying to twist world views into a left and right dichotomy.
It is also not the equivalent of any real world analogy. Once data is collected and stored, that's it. It's out there, and can and will be accessed without your knowledge, and freely propagated each and every time someone else accesses it.
Basically, you're not telling someone to keep their hands off something. You're asking them if they can keep everyone else from touching it, and the answer from a sheer security logistics point of view will always be no.
|
Paul Ryan showed up to Senate Republicans’ weekly lunch on Tuesday hoping to salvage a controversial pillar of his tax reform plan that would change how imports and exports are taxed. “Keep your powder dry,” the House speaker pleaded.
The next day, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took to the Senate floor to slam Ryan’s so-called “border adjustment tax,” saying “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”
“Many other senators share these concerns and we most certainly will not ‘keep our powder dry,’” Cotton went on, without naming the speaker in his speech.
The sequence was an ominous sign for a linchpin of Ryan’s tax plan — and perhaps for the prospects of tax reform happening at all. The border adjustment tax would generate more than a trillion dollars over a decade; there’s no obvious way to replace that money, which is needed to help pay for a steep cut in corporate and income taxes.
In meetings with administration officials and Senate leaders, Ryan has framed his proposal as a compromise between a tariff, which the president wants, and conservative orthodoxy against border taxes. He has suggested it's in keeping with President Donald Trump’s “America first” mantra, since it would reward American manufacturers that make stuff here and sell it abroad.
But the idea is sharply dividing Republicans — even within the White House.
Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon likes it, but the president’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, is opposed, according to people who have talked with them. Trump himself has acknowledged he doesn’t think much of the proposal, though he has said he will keep an open mind.
Many Republican senators say privately they detest the concept, fretting that will hurt their in-state retailers like Walmart, which is headquartered in Cotton's state. Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), sources say, has warned Trump and Ryan that border adjustment won't likely have the support needed to clear the Senate.
Hatch, in an interview after Ryan's presentation, said the speaker “didn’t cover [the border adjustment proposal] as specifically as I would have liked.” And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the fifth-ranking GOP senator, said the Finance Committee will likely go a “different way.”
Others were more unequivocal.
“It’s beyond a complication. It’s a bad economic proposition,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.).
That’s not to mention Ryan’s issue in own chamber. A handful of Ways and Means Republicans — including some with close ties to Trump — are fretting that retailers slapped with a new import tax will ultimately pass the cost onto consumers. One member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), asked his chairman Wednesday to hold hearings on the proposal.
Source
|
The next day, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took to the Senate floor to slam Ryan’s so-called “border adjustment tax,” saying “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”
I... I don't understand this sentence?
|
On February 17 2017 12:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +The next day, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took to the Senate floor to slam Ryan’s so-called “border adjustment tax,” saying “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”
I... I don't understand this sentence?
which part don't you understand? the anti-intellectualism remark?
|
United States43542 Posts
On February 17 2017 12:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +The next day, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took to the Senate floor to slam Ryan’s so-called “border adjustment tax,” saying “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”
I... I don't understand this sentence?
The implication is that intellectuals live in an ivory tower with no grasp on reality. Say I were to propose making healthcare costs deductible above the line in my tax plan as a way to help the working poor who suffer from chronic ailments that require small ongoing costs. I would run into the problem that the working poor are generally not likely to be keeping detailed receipts and logs of all their minor purchases and so the plan would fail.
Presumably his objection runs along those lines. I mean hell, the EITC, a tax credit built to redistribute wealth to the working poor in the name of social equality has similar problems because a good proportion of the people who should be getting it don't file their taxes (they pay them, they just never file for tax refunds).
|
On February 17 2017 12:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +The next day, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took to the Senate floor to slam Ryan’s so-called “border adjustment tax,” saying “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”
I... I don't understand this sentence?
Harvard educated liberals have stupid ideas.
|
On February 17 2017 11:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 11:24 IgnE wrote:On February 17 2017 11:22 oneofthem wrote:
ive only distinguished between lawful intelligence and the deranged sabotage and manipulation conducted by tin pot dictatorships.
encryption is mainly of psychological value to the average person, hugely valuable to criminals and sophisticated services that will eventually be in the employ of kleptocrats. i dont see the hype the hype is that it is a safeguard against the fastening of totalitarian surveillance systems. it is the wedge that prevents the rock from rolling downhill. or to use another metaphor, no one really thinks about the dyke until Katrina hits. it'll help you typing shit in a basement, but also protect the cayman transactions of the guy you are shittalking. real safeguard lol totalitarian control in this modern age is not about rounding you up in a camp. a high honor reserved for the few but insignificant. it is about crafting reality through secrecy of the bad stuff and information control. study china for a bit eh
lol typing shit in a basement ok. do you listen to yourself? shit dude if we dont know everything we cant stop the bad guy in the caymans? well shit, where do i sign over all my civil liberties? lets patriot act 2 this. you are just caricaturing yourself at this point. no one's talikg about "camps" bud. yeah totalitarian control is about controlling information . . . in practice this transparency you talk about is a one-way transparency.
|
I find it amazing that someone is arguing for less privacy from government at a time when said government is headed by Donald Trump.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you dont believe in the possibility of good institutions. should just kill yourself then because the commie revolution will never come
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
