A Little Paranoia Is Healthy

No one is mote paranoid than a government.

Your observation is not limited to the visual spectrum, either. Every form of communication is also subject to monitoring and archiving as well.

The only thing that is lacking is a way to filter through the vast amounts of information noise to extract what is deemed useful, but rapid advances are being made on that front.

Whether all of this is healthy or not will be for future historians to consider if they are permitted that luxury.

IMHO:

"They" are already sifting all messages looking for keywords,and logging all conversations that contain them.

The only way to communicate privately is by handwritten notes that are burned and the ashes eaten afterwards.Do not write the note in public,because the motion of the pen can be interpreted to derive what was written.The motion of the pen mimics the text written.

A note that has be erased by overwriting is not secure.They can scan with a laser and dissect the ink in layers,revealing the original text.

I guess you would have to go to the bottom of a coal mine at midnight during an eclipse of the sun to write a secure note.

Anyway, the video makes no mention of the lenses required for the resolution stated.It is far more powerful than they will ever admit.

The lenses have been improving for many years,and even the U2 spy planes of the '60's had better resolution than they indicate here, but they were stored on film, and not able to send video in real time.The real advance is the real time monitoring.

Do you think that the original Hubble telescope lens was accidentally ground improperly,(myopic)?

What do you think it was being used for before the corrective lens was installed?

Coincidence that the mistake was the needed focus for the surface of the Earth?

Seems like a waste to have that near-sighted telescope just hanging around and doing nothing.

Might as well use it to take some really good pictures of Earth.

Nah! "They" would never do that.

"Anyway, the video makes no mention of the lenses required for the resolution stated.It is far more powerful than they will ever admit"

Oh but it does,it says they used an array of over five hundred cameras the same as in cell phones to keep the cost down.

"The lenses have been improving for many years,and even the U2 spy planes of the '60's had better resolution than they indicate here,"

What is your evidence for this? I ask because I worked in a photo intelligence unit in the fifties. The cameras of the day increased focal length with prisms and mirrors so that the cameras could fit in the planes. There was no interest in seeing such small detail, the watch was for military equipment build up and nuclear facilities, etc.

It mentions the CCD Camera card, and the pixels on each,combined to get the total resolution,however, you still have to get a magnified image to the camera cards.This is where the lenses come in.You cannot simply snap a picture from that altitude without a lens in front of the CCD camera.The CCDs simply convert the photons into a charge, which is read by the processor card,and converted from analog to digital form and "massaged" by electronics into a downloadable video signal.

The resolution of the black and white photos was limited only by the emulsion of the photographic plate.A magnifying glass at 10x would reveal no pixelation.If the need ever arose to look closely, they could do it.

Lenses have constantly improved over the last 60 years, like everything else (except human nature) ,and magnification without distortion and virtually infinite zoom and focus is now a reality.

They could really count the feathers on the bird that flew by if the need arose.

I know I'm being watched...

When I'm not exposing government tyranny on FB and other sites, I run around my yard flipping the bird at the sky.

"Paranoia runs deep.... "

Buffalo Springfield,(For What It's Worth)

Good song; and given the piling up of one "scandal" after another, I think a little paranoia is justified.

I was only kidding about the running around the yard part.

Yes, many scandals, but the President did promise transparency.

It isn't paranoia if they are really out to get you.

.

I read an article the other day about a process using regular webcams with polarized light that could accurately photograph your fingerprint as you walk past 30 feet away.

.

But in the big picture, the amount of information gathered via surreptitious surveillance is trivial compared to the breadth and detail provided by the reports submitted by so many volunteer members of the largest spy agency, Facebook.

'Calm down' is almost as effective as 'promise you won't be angry' when it comes to phrases can spin me up.

.

Saying 'calm down' instead of simply stating the reason (if there is one) that alarm is not required is abrasive on several levels.

.

I consider 'promise you won't be angry' as an attempt at a preemptive' calm down.

.

.

Anyway, WTF are all those 'A's doing on that keyboard? How the hell is anyone supposed to type meaningfully on that?

How could you know that I am very exited about taking the 12:30 Ferry, bringing my guitar to the Doctor because the A string makes a bit of a funny sound? His name is Allen, but you knew that. Very serendipitous.

I'll leave my mobile at home so don't bother tracking. Public transport will get me from A to A eleven times= eleven bus stops. If you know my starting point you can watch what I do while on the bus and where I get out on YouTube.

If one really needed to know and would have the in the thread mentioned technologies anything could be found out. No need for paranioa, that's just the way it is. To think otherwise would be delusional, much worse than paranoia.

We are all big brothers and sisters by now, surviving in the 21st century and stuck in 1984. It's a hard rain gonna fall.

TThis circulated here some time ago.

And that's just what they're telling us about.

We've been developing this technology for over 50 years. Back them, when I was involved we all thought it would only be used on the enemy.

Now, apparently, the enemy is us.

Well if the're watching everybody so closely, why do so many crimes go unsolved?

Crimes are necessary to keep people complacent and reliant on government regulated authorities. (please read this with a flair of sarcasm)

Sarcasm?

If you would have used "scared" in place of complacent, you would have been right on the money.

There are a lot of people in local, state and federal government, that depend on a certain degree of sustained criminal activity to justify their existence....everything from police, to judges, to prosecutors, to prison guards; without crime, they would no longer be needed.

Personally, I believe that this is the reason that places like Chicago and Detroit have been "allowed" to deteriorate the way they have. Genuine help for the law abiding citizens, has been supplanted by powerful unions that actually benefit from ongoing crime and a lackadaisical response, i.e., we need more money!

"There are a lot of people in local, state and federal government, that depend on a certain degree of sustained criminal activity to justify their existence.."

Then why does the US have more people in jail than any other country?? 1 out of every 100 people is incarcerated! Add in probation, and it's one in 31...!!

recent news....

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-prison-population-seeing-unprecedented-increase/

Since roughly half of all these people are in jail because of marijuana charges, they could just legalize pot and all these overcrowding and financial problems would go away overnight...(stated for the 1,324th time)

These people have great lobbyists.

If the current trend continues, by the turn of the century 1 in 10 people will be incarcerated, with 1 in 3 if probation is included....The United States will become a prison colony, with the entire population enslaved...!

Maybe the laws are just too harsh...

I think we should release non-violent offenders and just have them on probation...

I agree about legalizing pot.

The problem with probation is there's no money for probation officers either.

I work with a county adult probation office in AZ.

Their staff has been cut to the bone, so much so that the community restitution programs that used to run 6 days a week, now run TWO days.

Like education, nobody wants to pay for it.

Maybe we could use robots....

Greetings I am your new probation officer, comply or die....LOL

Recently here in Colo a man who was convicted of killing 4 people, tried, sentenced to death for the crime was commuted by our gov. because 'the system is imperfect'. another man cut the throat of a female kitchen supervisor with a tin can lid while in prison. We need to recall liberal people in our state gov't. FAT CHANCE.

'...We need to recall liberal people in our state gov't....'

.

I'm curious about what meaning the word 'liberal' has in your eyes....beyond merely a group of people whose decisions you are critical of, or perhaps democrats.

What ideology must someone have to fairly be considered a 'liberal'? _{Please note: being mentioned in derogatory fashion by Rush Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, or other Fox 'journalists' does not qualify as an ideology.}

As our founding fathers have said, we need both wings (Left & Right) for the Eagle to fly.

However, when one wing dominates the Eagle can not fly straight.

I think when you look closely there is little difference between our 'left' and 'right' parties. I think we have been trying to fly on one wing calling it two for a long time.

.

I also find that people who use the term 'liberal' as a slur often have very little understanding of what the term means other than someone a 'conservative' talk radio host told them was someone to hate.

Replace conservative with liberal and vice versa with your statement also holds true

"Liberal' radio talk show hosts are a rarity compared to 'conservative' talk show hosts.

I don't often hear 'conservative' used as a slur. More often, but still not frequently, I hear the related term 'neo-con' used pejoratively.

.

I think you are right that ignorance of the term's meaning when used in the pejorative is probably just as common for the use of 'liberal' as it is for 'conservative' or similar words.

.

It is probably a result of the conditioning of the public towards a derisive attitude that political strategists and operatives have leveraged so heavily in the last few decades.

It is probably a result of the conditioning of the public towards a derisive attitude that political strategists and operatives have leveraged so heavily in the last few decades.

I was going to say something similar, but history shows, this has been around for over 150 years.

It was Even worse back then.

I'm sure my expectation people should be getting better (things like developing greater understanding, acting more thoughtfully, and not so easily duped...for example) as time goes on, somewhat skews my view of what is acceptable.

.

I don't have a good understanding for the level of animosity people 150 years ago had for differing political views, nor of the understanding people 150 years ago had about the real meaning of words they might have bandied about accusatorily.

.

I do think things have gotten worse in the last 20 or 30 years. I think the use of derisive terms without a good understanding of what the term actually means is far more pervasive these days than in recent decades past. People in general may or may not have been better informed or better educate/read, but there is an obvious difference today in the eagerness with which many people feel compelled to make statements containing words for which they almost certainly couldn't provide an accurate definition.

.

Did you know that when TV first came about, may people thought it would be the end of political parties? They reasoned that if the candidates could be seen my all the voters, no one would need to be told for whom to vote.

.

I read a while back about Microsoft working on cell phone technology that would listen to people with whom you are talking and analyze their voice and attempts to factually verify what they say via internet searches, they give you advice on whether or not you should trust what they say.

Considering how many phone numbers I remember today compared to how many I remembered before my phone conveniently did it for me, technology that conveniently removes the headache of figuring out which messages I should believe is more than mildly concerning.

.

I don't see this all heading in a positive direction.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'progressive liberal'...by that I mean people who would bypass our state and federal constitutions to push through their personal opinions. Support your local sheriff.

Ta-da!

*takes a bow.

Nixon and Reagan weren't progressive liberals.

Then why does the US have more people in jail than any other country??

Lack of capital punishment maybe??

No. Other nations have lower incarceration rates and crime rates without capital punishment.

The problem is the same problem of our murder rate.

1. We are a melting pot for just about every culture on the planet. Diversity is a wonderful thing, but it is also a two-edge sword. Clashes in culture can also create unrest.

2. As unpopular as it seems, we do have subcultures in the US that lend themselves to creating social misfits. Just look at the ratio of blacks versus whites in prison and it is nowhere close to the ratio of those outside of prison.

Both of these reasons contribute substantially to the conditions we have and bringing down the legal hammer is not going to fix the problem. That needs to be done further up the social stream and a democratic government can not legislate morality.

Also add that in the USA we are made up of a lot of people who didn't fit in where they came from. Many of the early immigrants had rebel / oddball / anti-social / even criminal tendency genes in them. Even the Puritans had a flaw - they were over zealous which causes great issues with others. We are a melting pot of societies misfits. What we left behind is the apathetic and what we term "normal" human beings.

Thanks for the insight you and AH.

When you look at it, that is correct.

It's like this country is built upon unrest. Till they find their place, and something else takes its place.

I do dislike this "melting pot" thing, it is not appropriate, it is a stew or a pot pie, with chunks of of different meats and vegetables.

I'm not certain I appreciate being called a meat.

.

I know I don't appreciate being called a vegetable.

.

Would it be possible for me to be labeled a seasoning?

You are, metaphorically, the eight hundred pound gorilla and may be anything you wish. Having read your posts, may I suggest cracked peppercorns

Thank you for that.

.

I'm just glad to know I'm not watering anything down.

I personally believe the problem is the revolving door policy of the penal system.This is in turn propagated by the lawyers that construct the legal system, with an eye toward their employment security.The churning of repeat offenders generates more business for them and their ilk.

When a person receives more jail time for drugs than 1st degree murder, something is wrong with the system.When a "life" sentence can be completed in 10 years, or less, something is wrong.

As for the genetics of crime, consider Australia,a former penal colony,yet the crime rate is not as high as the USA.

The problem is the laws and lawyers themselves."We hang the petty thieves, and elect the great ones to office"--- A Roman spokesman, but I cannot recall the name.

A town too small for a lawyer is always large enough for two lawyers.

"It is likewise to be observed that this society (of lawyers) hath a peculiar chant and jargon of their own,that no other mortal can understand,and wherein all their laws are written,which they take special care to multiply;whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood." --- Jonathan Swift,Gulliver's Travels

Both of these reasons contribute substantially to the conditions we have and bringing down the legal hammer is not going to fix the problem. That needs to be done further up the social stream and a democratic government can not legislate morality.

"Legislating morality" is why we have laws.

Problem with Morality is that Morality evolves

Data mining and crime prevention don't necessarily go hand in hand.

1. The federal government is not very interested in petty crimes.

2. My understanding is that most of the data that is captured is done in a manner that would not be admissible in court. However, that data would be used (for national security interests as defined by whoever/whenever) to help investigations and gather evidence that would be admissible in court.

For example, if an email somewhere reveals that it may belong to a terror cell, that would be the red flag that would initiate a more formal investigation which could result in a warrant for wire taps, etc. The email itself would not be used as evidence to secure that warrant, but would initiate an investigation that could legally reveal evidence that could be brought to a judge.

AH, that would be a very bad precedent to set, even under the auspices of saving the world from terror.

The government is going to rifle through your personal effects and should anything be found and should there be a need to discredit, harass or incarcerate you, then appropriate 'legal' methods of detecting the already known crime will be constructed.

You may feel secure that you have not committed a crime, but are you certain? Do you know all the federal crimes?

A few years back the congressional research service reported that they can no longer even count the total number of federal crimes.... check out this video, you can skip to around minute 5, but the whole video is excellent.

I am going by memory, but I believe it was an FBI agent that confirmed the practices I described and that it had been ongoing for some time. It is only getting more intense.

I have personal experience that the FBI monitors all public correspondences (i.e., forums such as this). It is not a stretch to think that all electronic correspondence such as emails and VOIP are also under the microscope (legal or not).

How the government deals with your correspondence just depends on how much of a threat or PITA you are perceived to be. Again, we are seeing one form of that with the IRS scandal and another with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who is the infamous author of the video, Innocence of Muslims.

Nakoula technically violated his parole when he used a "pen name" for his video. Nakoula is not exactly a saint, however, he does remain as what is essentially a political prisoner, locked in prison and denied bail on a convenient technicality.

It is going to be interesting to watch how this progresses and to see if there is a point where there is a public backlash. However, the genie is out of the bottle and I do not think there will ever be any way to contain it again. Right now the general public sentiment is such that trading some liberties for safety is acceptable, particularly after 9/11 and other public horrors.

I couldn't agree with you more.

.

It is going to be interesting, perhaps even terrifying.

1. The federal government is not very interested in petty crimes

The Federal government,.......... Or in this case this administration isn't very interested in major crimes either (such as the IRS) especially when they get caught.

I don't think this is constrained to any administration.

The present circumstances are more likely due to a culture of political bias that has been cultivated by leadership in Washington. I don't think that it was intended to manifest quite in this way, but when you sow hate and disdain, hate and distain will grow as readily as fertilized wheat.

You are right....

Norms of society change, when they are not challenged or go unchallenged.

Releasing that info to the public no doubt means they already possess spy flies, flee assassins, not to mention Killer tomatos. S.M.

Very similar title to a paper I wrote on radiation leaks some twenty plus years ago. Not sure that someone watching someone is not always a bad thing, but it depends on ones take on big brother.

We need to cloak our activities.

Let's do a little simple math to determine how small of an object that can be detected:

A city block is roughly 500X500 feet,or 250,000 square feet,or 36,000,000 square inches.

1.8 billion pixels divided by 36,000,000= 50.Or 1/50 inch per pixel.Or roughly .5 mm.

That is, based on their own numbers.

Now, if the telescopic lens allows an even closer zoom (and it can),the resolution is even greater.

They could read the time from your watch if the angle was right,and no clouds got in the way.

24 hour surveillance?Coming to to a neighborhood near you.! Don't miss it.See yourself on tv!Everyone is a star.

Privacy?Forgetaboutit!

There are a couple of flaws in your math:

A 500 foot square does indeed contain 36,000,000 square inches, but divide that into 1.8 billion (US interpretation of billion, (1e9)), and you get 50 pixels per square inch. √50≈7, so you have ≈1/7 of an inch pixel width, or roughly 3.5 mm.

Second, you assume they are either flying at an appropriate altitude or using an appropriate lens system to photograph a single city block. This is of course conceivable, but in the samples shown, the full image showed something closer to a 10 block image width, so the pixel width would be roughly 1.4 inches or 35mm.

If they do attempt to fly lower or use a longer lens, then the stability of the platform becomes a problem. The drone or other vehicle must have a ground speed close to zero, and the platform must be essentially free of vibration. I'm aware of image stabilizers, but that is for single CCD or similar sensors. When there are hundreds of CCD's, they must all be accurately aimed to produce a coherent image. I can't imagine each sensor having its own stabilizer...

You are correct about the math.My mistake.Still, 3.5 MM is scary.And who says that is their limit?

As for stability,since all of the pixels are mounted on the same platform they should experience the same vibrations,so only a single correction factor would be required for the whole array.A strain gauge attached to the CCD array could provide a signal to synchronize the stabilization process.

If the image is scanned at a rate and direction matching the relative ground speed, then the image is effectively stationary for this interval. Multiple scans can be recompiled to form a "live" video...

Addendum to my previous post:

The technology was described as a collage of many photos,each having the stated resolution.Or maybe I did not understand the presentation.

NO! it was an array of (if I recall correctly, 368) cell phone cameras! Each individual camera has the same sensor, and therefore the same resolution, as it had in the cell phone. 1.8e9/368 = just under 5 megapixels per camera.

_{Er, 50 pixels per square inch gives a pixel size of roughly 1/7in by 1/7in, or just over 3mm by just over 3mm, or about enough to detect a large zit.}

I would not be surprised to see them use Foveon type CCD arrays,which because they combine all 3 colors onto one pixel, instead of 3,the signal requires less processing power to determine the true color and shape of an object,which results in a cheaper,lighter camera.Each pixel is equal to 3 normal pixels,(Techinically, each pixel space contains 3 CCD's but they are stacked on top of each other,with the longer wavelength(red) at the bottom,etc.),so multiply the actual pixel number by 3.

There is always ambiguity when part of an image falls between pixels,and software has to do some estimating, or averaging based on surrounding pixels.

Since there are only 1/3 the number of actual pixels, the estimations,and possible errors, are reduced to 1/3 of a conventional CCD array.

This results in ultra fine resolution and color rendition.Theoretically, they could determine the shade of lipstick or fingernail polish a woman was wearing.

I thought Foveon technology would be a game changer, but it has not. I am not sure if that is because there are still some technical challenges in the way, but Bayer technology is still king of resolution.

Foveon does seem to have an advantage with rendering color, but color is not the most beneficial attribute compared to resolution and definition.

Foveon does have an advantage in color rendition, but the benefit or reducing the "dead zone" between pixels,by requiring less pixels per unit of surface area increases the resolution of the image.When an image is processed, in order for the image to be processed, each pixel is compared to the ones surrounding it(in the case of a image covering a fraction of a pixel),and a guess is made(by software,using a predetermined algorithm, as to whether the pixel should be considered "light, or dark" ,"on or off." This guess work allows minute,but sometimes significant errors to creep in.Especially if you have only one shot to get it right.Multiple scans with overlapping areas can eliminate this problem, but more software and hardware are required,hence more weight and cost,both critical in an airborne technology.A single ounce multiplied by thousands of hours and miles will add up to a lot of fuel.If solar powered,even more critical.

The benefit of stacking the CCD's is two fold:It gives better color, but also better resolution,even if strictly monochrome.

Foveon, although cheaper to manufacture,has decided not to allow their chips to be used in low-end equipment.The result is it is only currently found in professional grade cameras.

Just out this morning:

The National Security Agency appears to be collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of American customers of Verizon, one of the nation's largest phone companies, under a top-secret court order issued in April.

The order appears to require a Verizon subsidiary to provide the NSA with daily information on all telephone calls by its customers within the United States and from foreign locations into the United States.

Between all the behind the scenes activity of intercepting anything electronic (including facial recognition and brain waves) by the NSA, FBI, DIA, and DHS, I always wear a Tin Foil Hat 24/7 (=31). Hehehehehhe

Then there's the Alien presence, but that's another completely different issue altogether! Brahahhahahhahahaaaaaa!!!!!!!

Welcome to Big Brother's 1984 (29 years late in the making)!

I think now a tin foil helmet might be needed. To cover brain waves and facial recognition.

I have tried tin foil it does not work. I could still feel their presence. Use a metallic screen charged with high voltage DC as a liner for a construction hard hat,powered by a 9volt battery.This way you can travel incognito.

The only side effect is a slight static discharge when rubbing you cat or dog, or shaking hands,which is easily explained without blowing your cover.(The dog will forgive you right away, however,the cat may sulk for a few days).

Gotta go now, I have a message coming in on my blue tooth.(Not THE Bluetooth,but the temporary filling the dentist installed last week in my lower molar.)

Remember the articles on the new NSA security site being built in Utah? Need to find the link. I believe this storage site is the storage unit for most of this data. Also, this technology is really starting to look like the current CBS TV series, "Person of Interest", which is actually quite good. The squares being isolated, and blown up are exactly the same as in the Series... Have a look, as long as your TV isn't a reverse monitor, just looking at YOU.....

This news article punctuates the point of surveillance.

Apparently, the NSA getting Verizon's phone records was actually a renewal of what they were doing already.

I find it EXTREMELY fascinating at how little one dimension of paranoia about our surveillance society is barely mentioned in all the foregoing.

Why do we have a cow over what our government tries to find out, but can barely even acknowledge the risks implied by what private corporations continue to find out about us?

After all, if you don't like what the government's doing, quitcher bitchin and go fix it. You have that legal right and power as a citizen. If you don't like what a corporation (Experian, anyone?) is doing with the data you leave behind, you can, well, write an angry letter that will quite possibly never be read by anyone. Or maybe contribute more to election campaigns than they do. Good luck with that.

Private enterprise is not what worries me. They are individual companies and do not wield the power of a centralized government. It isn't private enterprise that is targeting and punishing citizens for their political beliefs nor has private enterprise condemned over 100 million men, women, and children to their deaths is the 20th century.

Few people really care what is going on in Washington as long as it doesn't interrupt their TV programming, so curbing the loss of liberty and our individual rights is not going to happen without the hearts and minds of the many, which are too engaged with Dancing With the Stars to care.

So, don't worry, the numbers of people that are having "cows" is a relatively small and insignificant segment of the society. Most people do not even know that today is the anniversary of D-Day nor really know what it represented - sadly.

You reply with strong points. However, some"one" like Experian, Verizon or Google can ruin your day with nearly the same speed, effectiveness and lack of accountability as any given government apparatchik.

To me, the big concern is the agenda behind their actions. Our government's agenda is, both notionally and in a real sense, OUR agenda. We have a voice, though it's been whittled away little by little over the years. A corporation's agenda is the corporation's, embodied in a small group of self-interested people. We can only choose to take our business elsewhere, but that means little when the corporation is such a fundamental institution like the credit bureaus, big banks or other infrastructure providers.

I've heard it noted that Europeans are more suspicious of corporations than they are of their government. It's the other way around in America. I think there are good, fundamental reasons for the European model, especially in any democracy.

FYI:

http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-top-secret-spying-order-affects-millions-of-americans-faq-7000016489/?s_cid=e589&ttag=e589

Read 'em and weep.

think there are good, fundamental reasons for the European model, especially in any democracy.

Interesting, I always felt that the actual intention of our founding fathers that the United States was set up as a republic, not a democracy.

That's a trite and very over-used distinction.

Its only seems trite to the ones that don't understand the difference.

http://www.tmra2.org/images/democracyvsrepublic.pdf

Also, Your response is redundant.

I appreciate your updating my understanding of "trite." Perhaps you should explain the relevance of the distinction between "republic" and "democracy" in this context. Both terms apply to our system of government.

Whatever you call it, we the people are empowered to create, modify and administer our laws, in this case those pertaining to surveillance. We do so through elected representatives, and we are all qualified under the law to serve as representatives.

The short version between the distinction is between the two.:

Where a democracy is a government of the masses, all is not equal, and the minority is basically run over.

Where on the other hand, a republic, each individual whether in a minority group or a majority has equal rights, which is what this country is based on......... Or supposable based on.

This country I think has a slight hybrid of the two. The link does have a better detailed explanation, and is what I thought the differences between the two is.

Imo, the description of using Democracy was used to describe our form if government, started if for one reason was that it sound better. :/

First, you have a choice as to whether you want to patronize a specific private enterprise or not.

You wrote, "Our government's agenda is, both notionally and in a real sense, OUR agenda."

I don't think that really is the case nor did our founders think that it would be. Government's number one concern is and has always been self survival. This is exactly the reason that governments monitor their citizens and others.

If those activities actually protect citizens, that is more of a secondary concern. Obviously, any government needs citizens to survive, but the idea that governments are solely devoted to their citizens is not quite true. It would be if every voting citizen did vote and did so based on critical thinking.

Our Constitution was written as a document that describes the rights of the citizens, not the rights of its government (although some in Washington think that is in error and should be rewritten).

We. Are. The. Government. You say "government needs citizens to survive," when it's really "citizens need government to survive." That means some minimal form of government, not any particular kind.

I think this setting up of "the government" as an "other" is just a crutch relied upon by people who are either:

rousing the rabble to serve their interests or

much more prepared to complain about a problem than to fix it, while pointing the finger at some largely imaginary scapegoat.

One can substitute "the Illuminati" in for "government" in most of these complaints and charges, and the statements are just as useful.

How many corporate bylaws are written to give the customer, client, unwilling provider of data, etc. a RIGHT to act to change those same bylaws?

You wrote, "You say "government needs citizens to survive," when it's really "citizens need government to survive.""

I would agree. It really is a symbiotic relationship. I think there is convincing evidence that it has become a little lopsided, and that is why we se some of the nanny security measures.

A lot of these Big Brother measures came into practice in response to 9/11, which is understandable. Others are a mere consequence of the law evolving much more slowly than technology. I am very uncomfortable with some of them, but have faith that our system will self-correct eventually. At least, I think the government is likely to, if we (citizens/government) are too bothered by any of it. By contrast, corporations will do whatever's legal and makes a buck. Or rather, whatever is not illegal. I think that last distinction is what leads me to trust government more than a company.

'.... I think that last distinction is what leads me to trust government more than a company....'

.

What gives you comfort that your distinction between what is government and what is corporation isn't arbitrary?

.

What gives you comfort that the natural people who arguably are now classified as the second class citizens (in view of things like taxation, ability to contribute to political campaigns, and access to limited liability) remain in control of the government and have not instead ceded control to the unnatural corporate first class citizenry?

Government and commerce still play by different rules. (Government of course makes the rules, we are the government, etc.) Commerce has just gotten REALLY good at influencing government.

"Corporations are people, my friend." Not in MY world!

Don't like a misspoke quip (not the best definition) or a slip, paint the whole picture.

As far as we are the government, I think there was always a problem with keeping that, and that is it always has to be challenged to where the government acts for the best of its people. And not an agenda of a few.

I think that last distinction is what leads me to trust government more than a company.

Having dealt with government buearacracy and the mentally of the people in thei buearacracy machine one deals with, that in my opinion is a missplaced trust.

What I experience is that they only can deal with routine, a routine with No problems, until they can collect their pensions. As opposed to a business, where their survival is highly dependent upon return customers.

Fortunately, my experience is different. I entered government at a higher level and more recently than many. I still have some idealism left. But there are a lot of earnest, patriotic people around me trying to make this unimaginably huge and complicated thing work.

I do have to agree to a degree, (hard to truely express myself with my interface (iPad)).

But when there is a lot relying on good quality service from a public servant, and you get very poor service. Ones life can literally can be torn apart, and the biggest reason is that in the government agencies by-laws, that the public servant or its agencies is not held accountable, with the exceptions of very rare occasions.

As opposed to where as in a corporation, they are.

'...As opposed to where as in a corporation, they are....'

.

Except when the screw-ups are monumental/really important. See recent bailout(s).

I was going to post that,........ But that's why it always has to be challenged, and where i agreed with some of Lynn's accessmeant

Why?, did you hear something?......

Many people would be surprised to know that all first class envelopes are scanned and image-lifted.These images are supposed to be deleted after processing by the letter sorting machines.There is no direct evidence that they are not deleted,but copying the front side of an envelope would be considered "Meta Data" and legal under present law.

Theoretically,they could associate "from" and "to" correspondence from any time period,right down to the time of day the mail was processed,and where it first entered the system.

True privacy is an archaic word,the definition of which is lost in the rubble of the twin towers.

I work for the gov't.

I am at work right now..."monitoring" CR4...

We have many heads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0

I get a false sense of pride when I hear that the average citizen thinks how omnipotent, all-powerful, all-knowing and fully capable of tying-my-shoes-on-my-own that I am because I work for The Government.

But then, I hear Megyn Kelly (and The Five) on Fox News say we are all just a bunch of bumbling idiots...recycled from academia to gov't to academia, etc., and I get all depressed.

Which is it? Am I an uber-intelligent Numb3rs, JAG, or Castle who can defuse a dirty bomb with a pull of the wires? Can I track down bad guys by using my white-hat computer hacker skills and my AI programming skills on computers that still go beep-bloop-beep? Can I solve cyber-mysteries is short order by using my spy satellites so the Prez and SoS can watch in real-time?

I wish I knew...

Mu!*

.

There is a general failure to understand or even allow for the possibility that large organizations may have characteristics beyond the quirks of the comprising individual and influence events in ways beyond the intention or possibly even the recognition of the individuals making up the organization.

.

People don't seem to have a problem with this realization so long as it is brought only up to their own level off organization. You probably have mastered at least basic arithmetic and the fundamentals of writing in English. You also are likely to understand this mastery does not necessarily transfer downward to the various parts that comprise you.

If some terrorist group, displeased with the things you write, kidnapped just your right arm, no matter the demands it made of your right arm, you right arm would not be clever enough to type its way out of the predicament.

.

All your cells will be replaced in something like 7 years. Interestingly you will retain many of your quirks after that time, enough such that someone who hasn't seen you in 7 years will still recognize you as you.

Large organizations, like GE or the US government, are not so different. Even after a total replacement of people comprising those organizations, the same or very similar quirks and characteristics exist. Beyond that, large organizations influence events in ways that are not necessarily always observed or understood by those comprising the organizations.

.

There is no need for each component of an agent to have the competency required for or cognizance of the entirety of any act of that agent.

.

.

_{* See the Mumonkan, first koan, "Joshu's dog".}

Individual influence only goes so far. The pyramid does have a point.

I have no failure to understand any of what you postulate...that information is intrinsic to working in the intelligence field as an analyst.

I just wish the rest of the population understood the basic underpinnings. The lemmings would understand why the fall occurred.

Basic math and English? You wish.

--------------------------------

And, from my earlier post: "I"... http://davidgodman.org/rteach/whoami1.shtml

I didn't use an asterisk, I thought that was day one stuff.

I'd wouldn't be saying much if the messages I send are beyond the ability of the intended recipients to comprehend. Even beyond that, your response is reassuring.

.

I have no doubt that you and many people on CR4 have mastered proficiency in tasks far exceeding basic math and English skills. I also realize that CR4 is far from representational of the population as a whole.

.

I think you understand mostly what I am saying, but there is also something important that your point on the pyramid analogy is at odds with. Perhaps you will be willing to give me your opinion on this line of thought:

.

Contrary to the precedent set in large part by the Nuremberg Trials, specifically that individuals and only individuals are ultimately responsible for each and every action taken by large organizations; I think some biases, predispositions, characteristic reactions/interactions, and important patterns of attraction or avoidance are not within the realm of intentional decisions or sometimes even awareness of individuals in the organization...even the very top of the pyramid.

.

I think that large organizations competing for limited resources (like influence and cash flow) might behave similarly to organisms competing for limited resources (or any of several genetic computer algorithms used in optimization.

With new variations of organizations continually being introduced and the weak organizations being killed or consumed by the strong aggressive organizations the system is evolving organizations that tend to be more aggressive in gaining and controlling the various limited resources. The organizations of the world are much more like MRSA than the cowpox virus if you ask me.

.

So tell me, does that seem to breach the line from thoughtful to tinfoil hat grounds?