[discuss] Perception, "facts", and solutions (was: Problem definition 1, version 4)
Dr. Ben Fuller
abutiben at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 19:00:18 UTC 2014
On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> The facts are:
> 1. the NSA has an internal organization and "privacy" problem. How Snowdenia was even possible? Two options. For Gov professionnals (not journalists or societal engineers):
> 1.1. either do not trust the NSA and the USA capacity to protect a secret. This is now a dangerous and in any case weak ally.
> 1.2. or Snowdenia is an USCC (cyber command) operation, Brazil, China, UK, France, Germany and Russia at least were previously informed and are partnering into. Its target is to introduce some common sense in the Congress brains and prepare opinion to their decisions.
> 2. Snowdenia shows that (1) the state/private digital intelligence agencies job is far too easy to accomplish and (2) US citizens had no protection against NSA, i.e. against other digital intelligence agencies or hacker forces. It means that the US and the rest of the world is digitally vulnerable.
> 2.1. The Internet technology must be urgently harden.
> 2.2. The digital thread on the US, its economy and military stability has increased.
> 3. Trust in the US capacity to hold a secret had decreased with Wikileaks (DoD), the incapacity to protect itself from a Snowdenia individual or foreign operation, has still decrease for the countries that have not been informed et proven it was a planned operations. This commonly accepted distrust as such weakens the State Department credibility in the world and could affect the world international policy.
> 4. Trust in the US technological capacity has also decreased. The US have left the world engage into an unsecure internet while they themselves used the S/NIPPRNET without passing improvements to the users. There is an opportunity for Internet industrial developments in software leaders (Eastern Europe/Russia, China, Brazil, possible Western Europe).
> These are facts from facts.
> At 16:14 21/01/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:50:39AM +0000, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>> > that does not make the statements themselves fact). We should not
>> > treat either opinion to be valid (i.e., to have a basis in fact, as
>> > opposed to perception).
>> Unfortunately, I'm not sure I agree. I do believe that we should
>> address practical problems. The problem in this case is that other
>> governments have expressed the concern that they don't trust the US
>> government to act completely distinterestedly, and that as sovereign
>> nations they shouldn't have to be subject to the US in this way. This
>> is a practical problem insofar as it presents an obstacle to solving
>> other (in my opinion, more important) practical problems we may have.
>> Whether the mistrust of the US is based in any actions of the US is
>> almost beside the point; but in any case, the recent revelations of US
>> activity (never mind whether every nation capable does or would do
>> these things too; the point is that the US was caught) has eroded such
>> trust as there was. One has to deal with the actual political
>> realities regardless of "fact, as opposed to perception".
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
Dr. Ben Fuller, Dean
Faculty of Humanities, HIV and AIDS and Sustainable Development
International University of Managment
bfuller at ium.edu.na, ben at fuller.na
More information about the discuss