On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:59:22 -0400 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I said it before. Heavy industry amplifies human will. High > technology amplifies the mind. They can amplify virtue or vice. True, but not really what I am getting at. It seems to me that 'you guys' the cypherpunks/technology optimists have a naive or shallow understanding of the very technology you are selling or promoting. > Neither care. > > Marx0s > > On 4/12/17, juan <juan....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC) > > jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>> From: juan <juan....@gmail.com> > >>> >better technology, better mass surveillance > > > >> That's a rather limited way to look at things. > > > > > > Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect? > > > > Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it > > is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented > > right now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and > > towards the military-industrial-government organizations. > > > > > >> Let's consider: Are > >> we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, > >> say, 1980? > > > > Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the > > corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, > > or wildly increased? > > > > > >> In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the > >> Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. > >> News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) > >> and local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, > >> generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than > >> face-to-face speaking. > > > > Political activism has been carried using printed media for > > a (long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly > > subverted by corporate-government madia. The fourth state > > is a branch of government. > > > > But at least printed media technology could be used against > > the government and it didn't allow the government to track people. > > Books don't spy on you. The intershit does. > > > > > >> If you simply accept all of the positives of the > >> subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus > >> solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get > >> conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance". > > > > No I don't think that's how the reckoning works. > > > > Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of > > subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is > > yes. Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are > > any), the fact of better surveillance remains. > > > > It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks > > counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and > > that enriches the government and corporate mafia. > > > > > >> But > >> one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the > >> public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments, > > > > > > Where's the evidence for that claim? > > > > > >> which > >> ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the > >> governments is very, very valuable. > > > > It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't. > > > > > >> I have no doubt that, for > >> example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their > >> actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to > >> the Vietnam war. > > > > I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim. > > > > > > And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I > >> think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >