On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 04:55:23PM -0400, dan@geer.org wrote:
| You appear to assume the intelligence community is | "independent", which appears false to me. | | IMHO the intelligence community have boss/es outside | of it, which are definitely not poor. | | Pretty sure this is true for Bulgaria (member of EU). | | The intelligence community is just a tool, like an | admin is. | | Maybe our definitions of "rich" differ.
Here, as everywhere, in a public policy document or debate it is all over after the definitions page. The rest is mere mechanics. Perhaps we do need to hash out what rich means though on a whole-world scale the majority of the readers of this list are at the top of the heap. The (my) speech I cited is what I had to say on the record, and is the best that I've (currently) got; I'll revisit when time permits. Here, though, is Paul Krugman in a similar vein three weeks ago today:
[PK] Paul Krugman, "Apple and the Self-Surveillance State," New York Times, 10 April 2015 krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/apple-and-the-self-surveillance-state
--dan
Definitions depend on context. You mix "rich" and "intelligence" in one sentence -- in this context the majority/almost all of this list is likely not rich, though they may have sufficiently money. Also "intelligence community" appears non-standard definition. Intelligence is military organization -- soldiers follow orders depending on their rank. This is not the civil definition of "community", maybe unless you consider Obama "community of one".