Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

[Kevin Gallagher]

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.

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? If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be
considered powerful? 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.

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.

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

-- 
Kevin Gallagher
PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
New York University Tandon School of Engineering
2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (757) 202-8961
Email: kevin.gallagher at nyu.edu
Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3  BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161020/001cab56/attachment-0002.sig>