On 10/20/2016 10:26 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
> Thanks for the reply! I will consider these things.
>
> The only thing that worries me is the proposal that we use the same
> criteria as the people we are claiming to be criminals. Implicate the
> whole family for the sins of one... It just don't seem like an
> improvement to me.

It isn't. But it's a starting point to hold the people who accumulate
power for self-advantage (ie psychopaths) accountable for their power by
not allowing them a right to wield that power without panopticon-like
observation.

It implies that people who are born to privilege are
> incapable of seeing the problems with the system and escaping it.

Some people 'escape'. It's usually glaring obvious who those people are,
and there aren't many. Even fewer manage to avoid falling back into that
comfortable 'nest' of affluence.

 I'm
> not sure that's the best way, but at the moment I don't yet have an
> alternative, so I will just think about it for a while.

We need to start somewhere. Start with the people who have the power and
have the ability to violate OUR privacy at their government-legitimized
whim.

Let's get some equality between the gander and the goose so to speak, or
OUR gooses get cooked. Recently there's been a reporting, by the
Intercept and ACLU notably, about the violation of NODAPL's privacy and
safety by COINTELPRO-like ops and data gathering on activists by, ahem,
Cloudflare, and others. Leonard Peltier, in his letter of support for
the Sacred Stone encampment made a POINT of warning everyone that the
end result of that sort of domestic spying may create more "Leonard
Peltiers". The same is very true for the BlackLivesMatter folks. They
COULD very much end um the next gen of "Geronimo Pratts" and other Black
Panthers. Imprisoned for decades for crimes they had no part in because
the government was able to fabricate 'circumstances'. I suspect the
Useful Idiot organization New Black Panthers are tasked with that
endeavor whether they understand it or not.

Rr

>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On 10/20/2016 01:16 PM, Razer wrote:
>>
>> On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
>>> Hello Razer,
>>>
>>> I actually don't disagree with you at all. I  agree with the
>>> "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so
>>> ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the
>>> line between the powerful and the weak.
>>>
>> For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal
>> rights is delegated to a government.
>>
>>> There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for
>>> government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need
>>> transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one
>>> powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful?
>>
>> Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on
>> certain parts of the South American economy.
>>
>>
>> If so, at
>>> what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be
>>> considered powerful?
>>
>> What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill
>> whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to.
>>
>> Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the
>> bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct
>> relationship to terrorism.
>>
>> Is there something other than money or political
>>> power that can be considered a source of power? These are just
>>> considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your
>>> take on it was.
>> Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just
>> substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't
>> mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though
>> it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left)
>>
>> I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power
>> (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society
>> and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling
>> the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands
>> of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway.
>>
>> That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared
>> voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in
>> private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is
>> essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that
>> the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates'
>> Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the
>> masses that they have the right to rule.
>>
>>
>>> My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just
>>> a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it
>>> offended you.
>>
>> No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of
>> a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters
>> in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
>>
>>
>>> To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree
>>> with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of
>>> things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
>>>>> This is an interesting argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives
>>>>> or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who
>>>>> their parents happen to be?
>>>>>
>>>> Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive
>>>> liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone
>>>> assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never
>>>> been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who
>>>> just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
>>>>
>>>> Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human
>>>> scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their
>>>> corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
>>>>
>>>> Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can
>>>> really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their
>>>> right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
>>>>
>>>> So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
>>>>
>>>> Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a
>>>> HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have
>>>> relegated and delegated power over our lives?
>>>>
>>>> RR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>>>>>> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
>>>>>>> youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted
>>>>>>> substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the
>>>>>>> archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was
>>>>>>> published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive
>>>>>>> have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously
>>>>>>> secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate
>>>>>>> herself. While the significance of particular stories has been
>>>>>>> debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a
>>>>>>> valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great
>>>>>>> political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be
>>>>>>> among the most powerful officials on the planet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist
>>>>>>> Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and
>>>>>>> other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort,
>>>>>>> particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of
>>>>>>> someone’s personal emails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it
>>>>>> applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public
>>>>>> person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic.
>>>>>> Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck
>>>>>> of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out
>>>>>> a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or
>>>>>> president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor should they.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rr
>