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."
"Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men
almost always bad men."
1. Greenwald vs NSA's
Hayden: Glenn Wins in a Slam Dunk
2. Technology law will soon be reshaped by
don't use email
3. German Chancellor ‘Humiliated’ at Frosty News
Conference With Obama (Video)
Removed Encryption Protection for Email
Attachments, Researcher Says
Willful Blindness Keeps Everyone Living a Lie
This is the Nederlog of May 4.
It is a crisis issue.
It also is a Sunday, on which there tend to be less crisis materials.
But I found five items, and 7 links: On Greenwald winning from Hayden;
on the lack of tech know how, especially about computers, in the
Court; on Merkel and Obama; on Apple's laziness (?); and ending with a
video on willful blindness (that explains part
of Frank Zappa).
vs NSA's Hayden: Glenn Wins in a Slam Dunk
The first item is
article by the Common Dreams staff on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows (and
doesn't have much more):
In fact, I have reported
on this before, and was this time lured by the promiss of a video or
two, namely of the debate and of a contribution by Edward Snowden, but
if they are there I cannot display them, also not on Munk Debates.
Greenwald, who brought the Edward Snowden documents to the world,
debated former CIA and NSA head Michael Hayden last night in
Toronto. The debate was hosted by Munk
also featured Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and rightwing lawyer
Before the debate, the
audience voted 33% in favor of the statement, "Be it resolved state
surveillance is a legitimate defense of our freedoms," while 46% voted
against. After the debate, 59 percent of the audience agreed with
Greenwald and Ohanian.
I do not know whether this is due to the NSA. There are more videos
on", which is indeed true, and which I will not change either. But this
time I just don't get them, without any reasons being given.
Then again, I did find Edward's Snowden contribution on Youtube:
And I also found
is quite good:
This is a TEDTalk in which
Snowden appears on a telepresence robot, which works rather well,
seeing it comes from Russia. This is from March, and I hadn't seen
it before. It is several times funny, as well.
2. Technology law will soon be reshaped by
people who don't use email
The next item is an
article by Trevor Timm on The Guardian:
This starts as
There's been much
– and derision
– of the US supreme court's recent forays into cellphones and the
internet, but as more and more of these cases bubble up to the high
chamber, including surveillance reform, we won't be laughing for long:
of technology and privacy law will undoubtedly be written over the
next few years by nine individuals who haven't
"really 'gotten to' email" and find Facebook and Twitter "a challenge"
Well... yes and no.
First the yes. I do
suppose that most of the lawyers on the Supreme Court do not known much
about computing and programming, and also have used it rather less than
most younger people. I also agree that this is not at all a happy
situation, for it means that when they are judging things in which
computers figure largely, they have only partially adequate ideas.
Next, the no.
However, I do not think their relative ignorance is very important, and
I also do not think their ignorance makes them innocent. I think they
are quite capable of deciding whether a secret service
has "the right" to secretly gather everyone's personal
data, completely regardless of the Fourth Amendment, and my own reading
is that the majority of the Supreme Court thinks they have or should
have "the right".
holds for many other decisions the Supreme Court, or indeed ordinary
judges, make: They may not have much relevant knowledge of the
technologies involved, but then their being good judges also does not
What I am much more
afraid of than relative ignorance of the technologies involved in cases
they must judge, and what does seem to me to be the case in the
majority of the Supreme Court, is that they are political
judges who judge things politically, and who in this case often
side with the few and the strong, not because of any legal
argument, but because that is what they think is politically right,
correct or desirable (after which they pen something legal to uphold
Another Supreme Court
may well judge otherwise, but unfortunately quite a few of the present
judges were made members of the Supreme Court not on the basis
of their legal excellence, but on the basis of political
allegiances, and they often judge by allegiance rather than by valid
There is rather a lot
more under the last dotted link.
Chancellor ‘Humiliated’ at Frosty News Conference With Obama (Video)
next item is an
article by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truth dig:
This starts as follows:
Angela Merkel and
President Obama put on a thin display of unity against an assertive
Russia during the chancellor’s “awkward” visit to the White House on
Friday, much delayed on account of revelations that Obama’s NSA had
bugged her communications.
The Guardian reports:
After a long, cold
winter, a new relationship was supposed to be blossoming.
But as soon as the
event began, it was evident that Merkel, who rarely speaks English in
public, was placed at a considerable disadvantage by White House
headphones provided to reporters – and the world leaders – for
Obama’s remarks were
clear. But when Merkel spoke, she was barely audible over a suspicious,
crackling noise. Bemused reporters tapped their headsets, wondering
aloud if they were listening to something they shouldn’t.
Merkel had refused to
come to Washington for months, saying she would not show up until trust
was restored between the two governments in a mutual “no-spy
agreement.” She also wanted to know what was in her NSA file. On both
counts, she was not satisfied.
There also is a video of
over 44 minutes, in which Merkel and Obama are being interviewed.
I didn't see all of it (and
don't have the patience to sit through 44 minutes of mostly propaganda)
but what I saw showed that while Merkel's German was very hard to
follow (because the qualities of the microphone used, presumably,
and not because of my German, that is quite good) the translator was
easy to hear.
Then again, Merkel did not
look happy, and I think it was not in Obama's interests to - I quote -
"humiliate" her. (He also may not have realized Merkel was raised in
4. Apple Removed Encryption Protection
for Email Attachments, Researcher Says
The next item is
- again - an
article by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truth dig:
This starts as follows:
There is more under the
last dotted link. I must add that I am not amazed: lying seems
to be quite normal for Apple, and started with the late Steve Jobs, who
even defrauded Steve
Wozniak (<- Wikipedia, and it is under "Early life and career").
Then again, I do not know why Apple is not doing what they should do in
the present case (that helps others to read the private data of
The tech giant withheld
safeguards from parties seeking access to users’ email attachments in
the latest versions of its operating system for the iPad and iPhone,
contrary to claims made on its website, an independent security
research firm based in Germany reports.
NESO Labs CEO Andreas
Kurtz explained in an April 23 blog post that Apple’s
still visible statement that data protection “provides an
additional layer of protection for email messages attachments” for
“iPhone 3GS and later, all iPad models, and iPod touch (3rd generation
and later)” was determined false by an inspection he performed. Kurtz
was able to access all email attachments without encryption or
restriction, using “well-known techniques,” he wrote on his blog.
Kurtz told Apple of the
issue and went public when it failed to commit to fixing it.
5. How Willful Blindness Keeps Everyone
Living a Lie
The next item is not an article but a video. It is an interview of Margaret
Heffernan (<- Wikipedia) by Abby Martin, on the subject of
Heffernan's book "Willful Blindness":
The reasons it is here
are the following two.
First, I have seen very great amounts of willful blindness,
specifically about the dealing of illegal drugs in the
Netherlands, where everyone who ought to see it - mayors,
aldermen, policemen, judges - has not seen anything amiss
whatsoever, for over 30 years now, guaranteeing at least a 250 Billion
euros turnover in illegal soft drugs alone (who would have
profited? only the drugsmafia?), and about 25
years of total blindness in the Dutch universities, where the
courses are halved, the prices tripled or more, and that
were for 25 years in the students' hands, who used it to act as if they
as if truth did not exist ("everybody knows that truth does not exist":
professor M.A. Brandt opening the academic year 1978-79), as if
everybody is equal ("everybody knows everyone is equivalent"), and as
if all morals are wholly relative ("everybody knows the socialist
states are just another equivalent way of running a society").
No Dutchmen, except for a very few, see any problems with a
halved education or illegal drugs dealing worth billions each year, and
nearly everyone who is old enough hasn't seen any problem with
education or drugs for 30 years now.
seen very much more willful blindness, but the examples I mentioned
were very prominent for me, and cost me over 25 years of much
worse health than I would have had otherwise, and made me never
earn anything but a minimal income or lower (in spite of an excellent
M.A. in psychology and an excellent B.A. in philosophy, where I was
removed briefly before my M.A. because I questioned things,
which disturbed the vision of those who removed me).
The Dutch are still very busy looking the other way, that is, where
they can not see any problems, and must hope nobody sees that
they avoid seeing. Since they see almost only Dutchmen, who nearly all
are busy to look in the same direction as everybody like them, it is
obvious that in Holland there are no problems with drugs (but billions
worth are illegally sold every year, since over 30 years)
problems with education (but university students can't spell or do
elementary arithmetic: "the computer does it for you", it was said
already in the 1980ies).
Second, this gives some background to the piece I wrote about Frank
Zappa on May 1, 2014: Many of the
lies, falsehoods and deceptions on which the society I live in are
based are maintained by willful blindness and conformism.
P.S. May 5, 2014: Changed an "of" into an "or", as it
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, that the governors do not
rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the
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 one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: