snowden and the billionaire monkeys on our back
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;) https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey... Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of these people, this "clash of ideals" - " [... snip ...] I mean, you have an amazing scene where they’re listening to Edward Snowden on some Transatlantic communication; he was also listened to at the TED Talk and so forth. And at one point, they think hey, he’s one of us. And he tries to set them correct, no, I’m not out to rip people off, I’m out to help their freedom. AG: I went on a cruise ship called Summit at Sea for 3,000 or so entrepreneurs who believe they are changing the world. I was interested in what happens when you have this kind of density of people who are convinced that they’re making the world a better place, and that growing their businesses is how you make the world better, and you make the world better by growing their businesses. This total idea of the win-win. And one of the events was the talk by Edward Snowden via videoconference from Russia. Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley who’s been very, very successful, was his interlocutor. So Chris kind of stood on stage looking up at this big screen asking Edward Snowden questions. And this hasn’t really been reported ever, so it’s kind of new in the book. And the scene where Snowden is talking and explaining this kind of powerful vision of why he did what he did–he kind of gave an explanation of it that I hadn’t heard before, which is that he is convinced that the opportunity to dissent, to call out something untrue in a society, that that act requires a certain freedom to think thoughts, exchange ideas with others that are not visible to the government. If we live in a world in which every communication is surveilled and interdicted, potentially interdicted by government, we’re going to live in a world in which change becomes very hard to make. Because as soon as someone has a truly heretical idea, they’ll be neutered; if not in the United States, then certainly in many countries. It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well, the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal. And what was so fascinating to me, given the cultural collision between this man who deeply believed, whether you like him or not, in sacrifice and in taking a risk for what he felt to be the greater good, who believed in fighting the power structure–he was standing there talking to these 3,000, or you know, however many were in the room–kind of entrepreneur types, whose biggest goal is to, like, make $1 billion in a way that serves humanity. And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth, and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their own pockets." -- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of these people, this "clash of ideals" -
[... snip ...]
It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well, the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal.
And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth, and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their own pockets."
Um, that's not what it reads like to me. I see Snowden saying he wants to accomplish all these wonderful things that enable political dissent and freedom via network technology. Then he refuses to have anything to do with implementing that vision, going so far as to pretend that he does not understand that building and distributing software and infrastructure is HOW to achieve goals like the ones he mentioned. It sounds like he chose to literally "play dumb" when presented with a room full of people who wanted a shot at implementing his ideas (vs. memorized talking points) in real life. The more I look at Snowden, the less sense he makes: Both in terms of what he says (see above), and in terms of a biography and current public presentation that more or less defy explanation. To date, the only Snowden scenario that makes sense to me portrays him as a spokesmodel: In effect a sock puppet passed from hand to hand. Did he have anything at all to do with "borrowing" certain documents and handing them off to Glen Greenwald? I have no opinion on that. The documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins for the U.S. intelligence community. In my view whether that means Snowden failed or succeeded remains an open question. Pending additional information, I would more likely trust a guy named "Mendax" than him. :o/
On December 5, 2018 6:47:55 PM CST, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about
faux-philanthropic
leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of these people, this "clash of ideals" -
[... snip ...]
It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well, the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal.
And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth, and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their own pockets."
Um, that's not what it reads like to me. I see Snowden saying he wants to accomplish all these wonderful things that enable political dissent and freedom via network technology. Then he refuses to have anything to do with implementing that vision, going so far as to pretend that he does not understand that building and distributing software and infrastructure is HOW to achieve goals like the ones he mentioned. It sounds like he chose to literally "play dumb" when presented with a room full of people who wanted a shot at implementing his ideas (vs. memorized talking points) in real life.
I think the discussion was trying to shoe-horn Snowden into some sort of heroic role that fits some ideas in the book, maybe. I've not read it, and as you say Snowden is a really bizarre case. Greenwald etc. cashed the fuck out, Snowden is living seemingly happily in Russia (the only person any "progressive" grants an immediate pass for happily working and living in Russia), and the whole affair more or less does look like a win for the US security services. I did glance at the book's Amazon listing, and it has a hilarious little blurb from Bill Gates about being a must read, which seems hilariously ironic, based on how the book is touted.
The more I look at Snowden, the less sense he makes: Both in terms of what he says (see above), and in terms of a biography and current public presentation that more or less defy explanation.
To date, the only Snowden scenario that makes sense to me portrays him as a spokesmodel: In effect a sock puppet passed from hand to hand. Did he have anything at all to do with "borrowing" certain documents and handing them off to Glen Greenwald? I have no opinion on that. The documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins for the U.S. intelligence community. In my view whether that means Snowden failed or succeeded remains an open question.
Pending additional information, I would more likely trust a guy named "Mendax" than him.
:o/
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:47:55PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of these people, this "clash of ideals" -
[... snip ...]
It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well, the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal.
And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth, and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their own pockets."
Um, that's not what it reads like to me. I see Snowden saying he wants to accomplish all these wonderful things that enable political dissent and freedom via network technology. Then he refuses to have anything to do with implementing that vision, going so far as to pretend that he does not understand that building and distributing software and infrastructure is HOW to achieve goals like the ones he mentioned. It sounds like he chose to literally "play dumb" when presented with a room full of people who wanted a shot at implementing his ideas (vs. memorized talking points) in real life.
The more I look at Snowden, the less sense he makes: Both in terms of what he says (see above), and in terms of a biography and current public presentation that more or less defy explanation.
To date, the only Snowden scenario that makes sense to me portrays him as a spokesmodel: In effect a sock puppet passed from hand to hand. Did he have anything at all to do with "borrowing" certain documents and handing them off to Glen Greenwald? I have no opinion on that. The documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins for the U.S. intelligence community. In my view whether that means Snowden failed or succeeded remains an open question.
Pending additional information, I would more likely trust a guy named "Mendax" than him.
Indeed. The very first "fundamental" step (besides, supposedly, choosing to leak/ whistleblow) was how to leak, or in his rather pathetic (from op sec pov) case, who to leak to and choosing to "leak" to only one person, Greenwald. Firstly he failed to also leak through any dark network means, and chose meat space leakee "sneaker net". Secondly he chose to leak to ONE person only. Thirdly, and fatally from before he even took the action of leaking, he chose an MSM publisher in the face of YEARS of problems that the likes of Assange had already experienced. "Bloody idiot" springs to mind, but why attribute to stupidity when "compromised bastard" comes to mind... and by the looks of all the silliness around his flight to our Russkie bros, he was not only literally "granted safe passage" (witness Putin's personal quotes on the incoming flight) but likely had a death threat on his arse in the first place - enough motivation to get him moving away from home base (deep state cannot have a leaker appear to be allowed to leak and live, or live a normal life, you see). Stinks, stinks and oh, by the way, it all stinks. Did I mention the Snowden saga stinks?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:17:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:47:55PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
is there a snowden video in that page? If so can I have a direct link? =) Thanks!
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:17:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 07:47:55PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about faux-philanthropic leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
is there a snowden video in that page? If so can I have a direct link? =) Thanks!
No video in the truthdig article that I saw, no. I'd be curious to see it too :) I did a very quick search - it was the 2015 Summit of the Sea, there's a pretty crass article I found here - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328277/Silicon-Valley-sea-Titans-t... And no doubt more shit about it online, maybe a video of the Snowden talk somewhere... if you find it, send me a link. -- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:45:40 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
is there a snowden video in that page? If so can I have a direct link? =) Thanks!
No video in the truthdig article that I saw, no. I'd be curious to see it too :)
Oh damn. i guess I'll have to read the article then and get some second hand info. Anyway, here's a kinda recent and somewhat interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8 "Edward Snowden Interview with Peter Van Valkenburgh of Coin Center | Blockstack Berlin 2018 " Snowden makes a weird comment about tor, complaining it's slow. Comment seems rather weird to me because it should be obvious to somebody like snowden that the 'faster' tor is, the easier it is to track. He also says, IIRC, that he transferred his famous docs to greenwald by means of an 'anonymous' server 'perhaps' paid with bitcoin.
I did a very quick search - it was the 2015 Summit of the Sea, there's a pretty crass article I found here -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328277/Silicon-Valley-sea-Titans-t...
Thanks. Such a cruise looks like a very nice target. Perhaps the passengers could all 'accidentally' eat some poisoned food or something...
And no doubt more shit about it online, maybe a video of the Snowden talk somewhere... if you find it, send me a link.
On December 5, 2018 4:47:55 PM PST, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:20 PM, John Newman wrote:
Long interview with guy who just wrote a book about
faux-philanthropic
leaders of the new gilded age (or something ;)
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/silicon-billionaires-are-the-lethal-monkey...
Interesting part where he described Snowden talking to a bunch of these people, this "clash of ideals" -
[... snip ...]
It was a very interesting vision, and as he started describing, well, the way I’m going to do that is I’m going to build all these tools that would allow dissidents to actually operate more freely. A communication tool so you can message without getting caught, a Facebook “like” tool so you can socially network without losing your privacy, some kind of tokenized identity so you can make clear to different websites that you’re the same person without revealing which person you are–various things. Snowden was describing the creation of all these things because he wanted to live in a world in which dissent of the kind that he made is possible, in which it’s possible to go up against power and not be interrupted in that quest; that’s his motivation, his goal.
And it’s like they couldn’t process him; they couldn’t process his set of motivations. And so Chris Sacca says, wow, you sound like you’re designing a lot of tools that, they sound like apps, or startup–do you want to build a startup? I mean, there’s a lot of people here who would like to be your investor. Snowden just looked at him, puzzled, like–what are you talking about? I’m talking about freedom and heresy and truth, and being a dissident, and how a society corrects itself from manifest injustices through allowing people who have an uncomfortable truth to tell it. And you’re talking about startups? And it was just this wonderful collision between someone who believes in real changes, and these people who kind of believe in the pseudo-change that lines their own pockets."
Um, that's not what it reads like to me. I see Snowden saying he wants to accomplish all these wonderful things that enable political dissent and freedom via network technology. Then he refuses to have anything to do with implementing that vision, going so far as to pretend that he does not understand that building and distributing software and infrastructure is HOW to achieve goals like the ones he mentioned. It sounds like he chose to literally "play dumb" when presented with a room full of people who wanted a shot at implementing his ideas (vs. memorized talking points) in real life.
The more I look at Snowden, the less sense he makes: Both in terms of what he says (see above), and in terms of a biography and current public presentation that more or less defy explanation.
To date, the only Snowden scenario that makes sense to me portrays him as a spokesmodel: In effect a sock puppet passed from hand to hand. Did he have anything at all to do with "borrowing" certain documents and handing them off to Glen Greenwald? I have no opinion on that. The documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins for the U.S. intelligence community. In my view whether that means Snowden failed or succeeded remains an open question.
Pending additional information, I would more likely trust a guy named "Mendax" than him.
:o/
"The documents Greenwald released triggered a massive controversy over a small set of political / legal issues that all ended with decisive wins for the U.S. intelligence community."
Publicly. Snowden PUBLICIZED it. That seems to have been his role. Publicist. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
participants (5)
-
John Newman -
juan -
Razer -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness