"They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin 
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
1. The NSA debate is as much
The Email Service That Refused to Bow to NSA
3. 'Psychopaths': GOP Lawmaker,
Former NSA Chief
About Putting Snowden on 'Kill
4. ..The NSA Has EVERYONE Under
5. back at you, EU…
Today the first four links
are to things that fit in the crisis series, while the fifth and last
is about psychiatry, especially as practised in the U.S., and therefore
fits in the DSM series.
The NSA debate is as much about journalism as surveillance
The first item today is by
Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian:
In fact, it is mostly about an
interview he had on the BBC's Newsnight, with an extremely bad and
partial interviewer, who really, like most of her colleagues these
days, does neither have the wit nor the looks to do this, except that
she also is older than most of her equally incompetent colleagues.
Anyway... Greenwald's written bit starts as follows:
In late June, the
economist Dean Baker astutely
observed that our NSA
reporting was "doing
as much to expose corrupt journalism as to expose government spying."
Indeed, from the earliest stages of this reporting, back in Hong Kong,
we expected (and hoped) that the reporting we were about to do would expose
conflicts in how journalism is understood and practiced as much as
it would shine light on the NSA's specific surveillance programs.
But the important part is the
interview, that follows, which is quite good:
That, I think, has
clearly been the case.
It takes nearly a quarter of an hour, but at least Greenwald speaks
2. Lavabit: The Email Service That Refused
to Bow to NSA
Next, here is some more on a
story I have given some attention to repeatedly, the last months,
namely about the founder of Lavabit, who acted quite well. This is by
Sarah Lazare, who writes for Common Dreams:
It starts as follows:
The head of
Lavabit, the email service used by Edward Snowden, shut down his own
company rather than comply with FBI
orders to expose its 400,000 users to direct surveillance, newly
unsealed court documents show.
Also, a bit later on, with
bolding added by me:
"[P]eople using my
service trusted me to safeguard their online identities and protect
their information," founder Ladar Levison declared in a statement
posted to his Facebook page Wednesday—the day that his gag order
was lifted and the court documents released. "I simply could not betray
that trust. I simply could not betray that trust."
In his statement
released Wednesday, Levison slammed the vast secret
surveillance dragnet allowed to function virtually unchecked.
And that is one of the reasons
why the U.S. indeed seems to be changing into a police state: Secret
courts, doing secret things, on the basis of classified
documents - that to the best of my knowledge go against the
constitution, but that also cannot be tested.
GOP Lawmaker, Former NSA Chief Joke About Putting Snowden on 'Kill List'
Next, here is Jacob
Chamberlain on Common Dreams, about the precursor of general Keith
Alexander as NSA chief, namely general Michael Hayden:
It starts as follows:
the former NSA employee known for blowing the whistle on the agency's
unconstitutional dragnet surveillance practices, should be put on the
"kill list" used by the Obama administration to take out assumed
enemies, former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden jived
Thursday during a panel discussion on cybersecurity hosted by The
And it was "a joke"
- except that it clearly corresponds to his sincere wishes.
..The NSA Has EVERYONE Under
Next, an article on Washington's Blog, with a far too
long title, although it has the advantage of saying it:
Here is a relevant bit from
You'll have to check out
that "shown", if you want, but I may pick up Lanchester's article
tomorrow. (It depends. I did read it, but I have only so much time and
Security expert Bruce
what we’ve been saying for years … don’t get too distracted by the
details, because the government is spying on everything:
Honestly, I think the
details matter less and less. We have to assume that
the NSA has EVERYONE who uses electronic communications under CONSTANT
surveillance. New details about hows and whys
will continue to emerge — for example, now we know the NSA’s repository
data — but the big picture will remain the same.
John Lanchester writes
in the Guardian:
This is the central
point about what our spies and security services can now do. They can,
for the first time, monitor everything about us, and they can do so
with a few clicks of a mouse and – to placate the lawyers – a drop-down
menu of justifications.
As shown below, Schneier
and Lanchester are right.
5. back at you, EU…
As my last item today, I have
an article by a pensioned American psychiatrist, that does not belong
to the crisis series, but to the DSM-5 series (both series with more
than a hundred entries). It probably is interesting only for people who
have an interest in psychiatry:
Also, I am only concerned with
the first paragraph here:
In case you
haven’t noticed, European [and World] psychiatry is pulling away from
American psychiatry at a fairly brisk pace. Reform of the alliance
between the pharmaceutical giants and medicine is centered in Europe
[the EMA, the British Journal of Medicine, AllTrials, etc]. Articles
critical of the DSM-5 are common in the European journals, but almost
absent in ours. The DSM-5′s failed attempt at a paradigm shift to a
neuroscience base fooled no one on the other side of the pond, and the
DSM is appropriately spoken of as an enterprise past its time.
I hope this is true, but I do
not know this. Also, it is formulated a bit strongly: There seem to be
plenty of European psychiatrists, for example, who like the DSM-5
and/or who see it as little different from the DSM-IV. But there is
criticism and there are critical articles - while it certainly
another sign that something must be rotten in U.S. psychiatry if one
reads that "Articles critical of
the DSM-5 are common in the European journals, but almost absent in ours".
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, thay the governors do not rule, or at least, should
not rule: The laws rule, and the government, if good, is part
of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any of the citizens: upon the same
principle, if it is advantageous to place supreme power in some
particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and
the servant of laws.
(And I note the whole file I
quote from is quite pertinent.)
About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.:
The "/CFS" is added to
facilitate search machine) which is a disease that I have since 1.1.