tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8003872156901434004..comments2024-03-28T15:48:48.514-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: How to regain trust in the NSA era: The IGUS GambitDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19932209157318034442014-04-18T15:41:29.173-07:002014-04-18T15:41:29.173-07:00onward!onward!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49160865844562030502014-04-18T15:30:27.977-07:002014-04-18T15:30:27.977-07:00I agree with everything AlexT just said. Fine. B...I agree with everything AlexT just said. Fine. But what are the passable increments?<br /><br />Checking to see if Rod Serling is standing nearby… because I agree with locum (this time) as well.<br /><br />LarryHart: don't fear the village, make it a friendly-tolerant one.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75445444131139497412014-04-18T14:03:05.621-07:002014-04-18T14:03:05.621-07:00Paul451:
For some reason this appeals to me on th...Paul451:<br /><i><br />For some reason this appeals to me on the dystopian-SF level: Supposedly, criminals in the UK are using drones and IR cameras to identify marijuana "grow houses", then either stealing from or "taxing" the growers.<br /></i><br /><br />Jeez, how long before those things can identify (at a distance) things like gold bars buried in the back yard or dollar bills stuffed in your mattress? Heck, for all we know, the latest incarnation of US currency has little GPS-locators woven into the threads.<br /><br />With apologies to our host, that's a level of transparency I would not like to live to see.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42562191544823773162014-04-18T12:39:42.843-07:002014-04-18T12:39:42.843-07:00@DB …but the real answer is this. "What's...@DB <i>…but the real answer is this. "What's YOUR proposal?" A giant, all or nothing reform that can never pass? Something messianic? Or a cynical shrug?</i><br /><br />Nice try. Firstly you are begging the question of whether the problem even needs solving. You assume it does, and I don't disagree, but here is the Devil's Advocate argument against it:<br /><br />The stable state of the political economy is the oligarchic/monarchic model with high wealth/income inequality. Much like your "transparency" argument, the economic logic supports it (c.f. Piketty). Therefore, we should not be surprised that oligarchs will use all means at their disposal to reinforce their position. They aren't stupid either, they know that they must support laws and their enforcement to be protected against the time the tumbrels might be what the citizen's want. I find it interesting that the one revolution that worked, the American Revolution, is held up as a model that worked and is proof that revolutions can work. In contrast, there have been many failed revolutions (e.g. Europe's 1848) and revolutions that succeeded, but slipped back from democracy/equality - Napoleonic France, Britain's Restoration Period, Russia's Revolution, to name a few that come to mind.<br />There are many people who openly opine for a "strong leader" in the US and are happy to support oligarchy/dictatorship.<br /><br />Turning back to what might be a solution. Simple to formulate, hard to implement.<br />1. Strongly progressive taxation to reduce wealth inequality. Return to inheritance taxes for large fortunes. Remove tax incentives that aid cheating. Make hiding assets illegal.<br />2. Enforce the laws on even the connected. Nothing like knowing that real jail time is a possibility (non of this club Fed stuff either) to decrease the risk-reward ratio for cheating. This is the hard part. It requires the equivalent of Elliot Ness's "Untouchables". You want IG's. I would want teams in existing institutions charged with this task and given full support and no interference, whoever was the target. We know such people exist, as the are revealed when they are fired or moved to other positions when wealthy/connected targets complain.<br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86940940754493903652014-04-18T12:34:27.932-07:002014-04-18T12:34:27.932-07:00I forget where I saw it, but both the henchmen ris...I forget where I saw it, but both the henchmen risk and game theory explanation are true enough to help explain the complexity of our situation. The article went on to examine liberal democracies to see which ones were managing this best and to try to figure out why they were. Ultimately, it appears that cultures do best with this conflict if people believe they should 'do the right thing even when no one is watching.' If enough of us behave this way, it pushes the game theory best strategy toward a positive sum outcome because we believe others are doing it too. If few do it, we fall toward the negative sum strategies.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52728389143836505522014-04-18T12:21:59.259-07:002014-04-18T12:21:59.259-07:00@ greg bysehenk
So according to your analysis, cor...@ greg bysehenk<br />So according to your analysis, corruption should be almost non-existent. And yet the real world is a counterfactual. BTW, Robert Axelrod did some game theory on "rotten apples" effect in organizations and showed that without punishment, the problem rapidly spread to the the stable state of everyone becoming bad.<br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52006797042292125172014-04-18T12:04:24.115-07:002014-04-18T12:04:24.115-07:00I suspect Snowden would have tried to go to work f...I suspect Snowden would have tried to go to work for the IGUS if it had existed. I don't doubt he would have brought what he knew to them if they were capable of political independence. That's enough of an argument in favor of an IGUS for me to consider it an experiment worth trying.<br /><br /><br />As for Nixon going to prison, it didn't happen formally, but he was treated in many of the same ways. Shunning a person who lives for the feedback they get from people around them (politicians) is pretty harsh. That might not be enough for those who want to extract a tooth for a tooth, but it is the next best thing.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33373201454262129482014-04-18T08:48:16.400-07:002014-04-18T08:48:16.400-07:00I agree with David that "it is the process of...I agree with David that "it is the process of dividing authority, then dividing it again, and using transparency (and reciprocal accountability) to sic elites against each other" is a good tactic for dealing with the oligarchic rise, but I habour serious doubt about the appropriateness of this 'Divide & Conquer' strategy if balkanization & fragmentation is not your stated goal because 'A House divided against itself cannot stand'.<br /><br />I do think that we can make a difference, save the planet (as it were) and reclaim our hope for a future past but, in order to do so, I believe that we must reexamine our most treasured & reflexive assumptions about our motivations, our polity & our once 'diamond-shaped' system. <br /><br />Conversations for a later time:<br />Assume that most 'Small Businesses' are not small, that most of the polity are wage slaves and that Middle Class is dead. How did this happen? Where did they come from? Where did they go? And how can we help them rise again?<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9143763680271991902014-04-18T07:25:36.014-07:002014-04-18T07:25:36.014-07:00I'd have higher hopes for such a "IGUSA&q... I'd have higher hopes for such a "IGUSA" once campaign finance can be reformed to the point where government would more or less representative again. Another point, unlimited campaign spending has ill-served conservatism as much as liberal-progressive politics, you only see what enormous money considers "Conservative" forget any conservative value that lacks immediate profitability.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2522614653207474192014-04-18T00:49:43.381-07:002014-04-18T00:49:43.381-07:00I'd like to believe that transparency is enoug...I'd like to believe that transparency is enough, but I think Cory Doctorow pointed out that transparency by itself in not the same as action, and not enough. <br /><br />Nixon never went to prison, nor Kissinger, MacNamara, George W. Bush, Wolfowitz, Rice, Gonzales, Yoo, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Blair, etc.<br /><br />What good is knowing about their crimes, all of them, some of them, *any* of them, if there is never accountability?<br /><br />I don't want to preach defeatism, but given how often "they get away with it" and given how the bill of rights and constitution as a whole seem to be "inoperative" these days, I'm not seeing a lot of cause for optimism. Obama keeps sending drones, the government keeps spying on everyone, and denying it, Guantanamo is as much open for business as it ever was, and so it goes, and so it goes, and so it goes.Jonathan Rothnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13504540617112765032014-04-17T23:25:10.347-07:002014-04-17T23:25:10.347-07:00For some reason this appeals to me on the dystopia...For some reason this appeals to me on the dystopian-SF level: Supposedly, criminals in the UK are using drones and IR cameras to identify marijuana "grow houses", then either stealing from or "taxing" the growers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shropshire-criminals-using-unmanned-drones-and-infrared-cameras-to-find-illegal-cannabis-farms--and-then-steal-from-the-growers-9267587.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shropshire-criminals-using-unmanned-drones-and-infrared-cameras-to-find-illegal-cannabis-farms--and-then-steal-from-the-growers-9267587.html</a><br /><br />[Note: The article set my BS detector is tingling, but it amused me anyway.]Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7510359914053014392014-04-17T20:27:56.841-07:002014-04-17T20:27:56.841-07:00gregb nailed the "henchman effect". Al ...gregb nailed the "henchman effect". Al we gotta do is make it too dangerous to trust more than 5 people in a criminal conspiracy.<br /><br />Though I admit my "Manchurian GW Bush" conspiracy only needed two or three.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1319594115464897822014-04-17T19:56:37.681-07:002014-04-17T19:56:37.681-07:00Alex Tolley wrote:
Unless you can guarantee that t...Alex Tolley wrote:<br /><i>Unless you can guarantee that teh corruptible will only be a tiny minority of the institution (nothing can be perfect), then this idea won't fly.</i><br />I'd suggest that the beauty of David's IGUS idea is that actually just the opposite is the case.<br /><br />Corruption 'works' when those in power support it (or look the other way), and those lower in the order have no incentive to uncover it. It is hard to keep corruption or conspiracy running when anyone you might involve could be an honest person, with the ability and the duty to make things public.<br /><br />Even assuming only one honest person in ten, how many would be willing to take a chance at lining their pockets a bit if the odds were even one in ten that they would be caught and prosecuted? (And the real odds are likely to be much worse for the corrupt, in a number of different ways.)greg bysehenknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86103398361928047142014-04-17T18:39:39.877-07:002014-04-17T18:39:39.877-07:00AlexT did I ever say it would be easy? Or that it...AlexT did I ever say it would be easy? Or that it ever WAS easy? <br /><br />At this critical phase, we must settle for nothing less than transparency all over the world, so that conspiracies will always be forced to be small and their henchmen very few, always lured by whistleblower rewards.<br /><br />And that is the answer to the IGUS critics. Are you blind to that basic fact? That when you multiply the number of ways for plots to be seen and reported it hurts bad guys far more than in inconveniences decent folk?<br /><br />IGUS by itself could be suborned and captured. Combined with other reforms and sousveillance methods, it could be powerful limiter on abuse of power.<br /><br />I put it forward first because it it trivial to implement using current structures, and it would seem less threatening to agencies who already have IGs…<br /><br />…but the real answer is this. "What's YOUR proposal?" A giant, all or nothing reform that can never pass? Something messianic? Or a cynical shrug?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70662545600313610832014-04-17T18:02:08.563-07:002014-04-17T18:02:08.563-07:00Cynics who claim this cannot work -- while living ...<i>Cynics who claim this cannot work -- while living in precisely the oasis of freedom and opportunity and relative accountability in which is HAS (partially) worked -- are at best myopic and at worst simply hypocrites. We know this is possible because it has happened and we are living proof.</i><br /><br />To quote from financial prospectuses: "Past financial performance is no guarantee of future performance". That we have had a desirable democracy is no guarantee of its continuance. Just ask the Ancient Romans, who had a republic for 500 years, then lost that government to rule by an emperor and never regained their republic. A roman at any time for perhaps 100 years after Julius Caesar seized power could have made the same claim that because Rome had been organized as a republic, only cynics and hypocrites would say that it couldn't be returned to this form of government. Yet it never did. <br /><br />The IG gambit is not going to work, IMO, for the reasons stated. The onus is on DB to show why the IG + other things will work, why the obvious points of failure are untrue and what specific features will ensure it works correctly for a reasonable period into the future. So far I do not see the case as even close to being convincingly laid out, and certainly with nothing as logically compelling as "inevitable transparency".<br /><br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44107139268010915712014-04-17T17:15:17.691-07:002014-04-17T17:15:17.691-07:00locumranch's non-evil personality:
Joseph Hel...locumranch's non-evil personality:<br /><i><br />Joseph Heller called this a 'Catch 22'. Barry Malzberg used this as a recurrent theme in his science fiction (see 'Final War'). Want freedom? Get money. Want money? Get education. Want education? Well, that takes lots of money, so you'll have to 'work it off' unless you are already rich. Employment is not guaranteed, btw. It is a privilege. It is also a binding 'obligation'. So, get to work, you dunce, because you've forfeited your freedom by your attempt to gain it.<br /></i><br /><br />To me, the fundamental flaw in the system is the failure to distinguish the commons (which we all share) and private property.<br /><br />Air and water are two easy examples of what should belong to all who live here. It should not be the case that a private individual or corporation owns the means of survival, and that they can prevent others from drinking or breathing just because they can find other, more profitable uses for water and air than letting other human beings use it to continue their lives.<br /><br />In an economy of scarce resources, it might make sense that hard work is a requirement for continued living. After all, if you are going to consume scarce material, you should at least do the work required to replenish it. If you're going to eat food, you have to do the work to grow it--that sort of thing.<br /><br />It's a different sort of thing altogether for a handful of private entities to own <b>all</b> the food (or water, or shelter, or the money required to acquire any of those things), and to assert that your right to the very means of survival is something you must bargain with <b>them</b> for on <b>their</b> terms.<br /><br />Arguments about "willingness to work" and such always conflate the two cases as if they are the same thing. If the latter is really true, then what's the point of even throwing around high-sounding words like "freedom" and "liberty"? In what sense is anyone free if they have no access to the means of survival other than through the grace of a master? And what does it matter whether that master is a government official or a corporate one?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5544698181071630982014-04-17T11:14:47.580-07:002014-04-17T11:14:47.580-07:00How do I DO it?? I mistook one of Paul's missi...How do I DO it?? I mistook one of Paul's missives as being a return to cogency by locum… and lo! The next missive from locum is… cogent!<br /><br />I don't fundamentally disagree, except he completely misses the forest for the trees. That it is the process of dividing authority, then dividing it again, and using transparency to sic elites against each other in reciprocal accountability that is the only thing that can fight back against and (partially) prevent "capture." By oligarchs or any other conspiring power.<br /><br />No single reform -- such as IGUS -- will be safe from conniving capture. So? Then watch the watchers of the watchers! And keep doing it "all the way down." <br /><br />Moderate, sensible but relentless paranoia is the only thing that can prevent REAL paranoia from coming true.<br /><br />Cynics who claim this cannot work -- while living in precisely the oasis of freedom and opportunity and relative accountability in which is HAS (partially) worked -- are at best myopic and at worst simply hypocrites. We know this is possible because it has happened and we are living proof.<br /><br />Is it HARD? Are there always forces striving to end-run or suborn or corrupt or connive or capture…? Um… duh?<br /><br />Dig this, I am the most radical and militant fellow on… this… freaking… planet. I just have a pretty clear historical perspective on what can and has worked. And it is NEVER the tempting allure of simplistic, dogmatic cynicism and doctrinal radicalism.<br /><br />One thing has worked. And it is the things that I am a hollering radical about. Moderate and reasonable but utterly relentless reciprocal accountability. Transparency.<br /><br />Encouraging citizens to be citizens. Us.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10306160782944624742014-04-17T08:52:20.908-07:002014-04-17T08:52:20.908-07:00David & I agree on many things, including that...David & I agree on many things, including that the USA has become (or is becoming) an Oligarchy, but unlike David (who appears to hold the system blameless), I believe that the problem is 'The System'.<br /><br />Through the gradual modification of the social contract, the average citizen has been into manipulated into a classic 'double-bind' situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical or self-contradictory rules & conditions.<br /><br />Joseph Heller called this a 'Catch 22'. Barry Malzberg used this as a recurrent theme in his science fiction (see 'Final War'). Want freedom? Get money. Want money? Get education. Want education? Well, that takes lots of money, so you'll have to 'work it off' unless you are already rich. Employment is not guaranteed, btw. It is a privilege. It is also a binding 'obligation'. So, get to work, you dunce, because you've forfeited your freedom by your attempt to gain it.<br /><br />And, for the record:<br />(1) Sitting US Legislators are immune from civil arrest, being subject only to criminal arrest by the governmental (IE. 'federal') agencies that they were originally in charge of (see US Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: Privilege from Arrest)<br />(2) The NSA charter includes all encrypted communications, all governmental computer systems, including those of the FBI, interagency data coordination and data surveillance at home & abroad; and<br />(3) Educational debts are non-dischargeable under US Law.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Best.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65023527129400935182014-04-17T08:47:40.501-07:002014-04-17T08:47:40.501-07:00Judges are also independent of agencies, yet someh...Judges are also independent of agencies, yet somehow they become corrupted and complicit too. If judges cannot be trusted, why should we trust a newly created, "independent" IG?<br /><br />Far more likely the IG will bought by teh oligarchy, much as they bought other government branches, including teh judiciary.<br /><br />Unless you can guarantee that teh corruptible will only be a tiny minority of the institution (nothing can be perfect), then this idea won't fly.<br /><br />As for regaining teh public trust, well one should bear in mind teh saying "It takes a lifetime to build a reputation, and a single day to lose it". We see that problem in institution after institution, including, nations. You are going to need a generation, at least, for the USA to rebuild trust in its institutions. I won't hold my breath.<br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88173299956554021592014-04-17T01:50:43.963-07:002014-04-17T01:50:43.963-07:00Locum's been renditioned to Australia? (sorry ...Locum's been renditioned to Australia? (sorry Paul ;*)<br /><br />About 15 years ago the (Lib*) Vic govt, exercising evangelical zeal about corporate efficiency, decided to privatise the office of Auditor General and put it out to tender. <br />Unfortunately the AG bit back. There was an election due and, to everyone's astonishment, the govt lost.<br />Pundits will state various reasons for this, but it's a matter of record that reinstating the AG as an independent body was the first order of business.<br />I guess old ladies like their flies.<br /><br />* Libs are Australian conservatives. ALP are, by US standards, screaming socialists. Except it's a little more complex than that.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42226334456150870072014-04-16T22:44:59.620-07:002014-04-16T22:44:59.620-07:00oops. mistaken identity on my part.
never mind.
...oops. mistaken identity on my part.<br /><br />never mind.<br /><br />carry on.<br /><br />db from another computerDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9214261724204046922014-04-16T21:33:31.798-07:002014-04-16T21:33:31.798-07:00Tacitus, you know that swiveling to diss lefty fla...Tacitus, you know that swiveling to diss lefty flakes is one of my trademarks. Indeed, one of my dreams is for the conservative side of the American personality to go back to having a huge wing that's like you. Similarly able to turn their heads.<br /><br />It is fused spine disease that is ruining America. And here I must agree with Pau451. Liberals (as opposed to leftists) are ill disciplined and frequently can change their minds. Many now support cautious nuclear power. Many bought arms under Bush.<br /><br />If Clinton had done actual malfeasance of office, I'd have wanted him impeached.<br /><br />== as for a comment two layers above this one… "Who are you and what have you done with locumranch?"<br /><br />..actual…. cough.. sputter… good and cogent points….David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21837661892549992522014-04-16T21:12:26.626-07:002014-04-16T21:12:26.626-07:00Tacitus2,
You speak as if liberals don't alrea...Tacitus2,<br />You speak as if liberals don't already criticise their own side.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40748561561032884292014-04-16T21:04:05.999-07:002014-04-16T21:04:05.999-07:00Locumranch,
"We swallow the IGUS to catch the...Locumranch,<br /><i>"We swallow the IGUS to catch the NSA, we swallow the NSA to catch the FBI, we swallow the FBI to catch our legislators and we swallow our legislators to catch our will though corruptions wriggle and jiggle and tickle inside us."</i><br /><br />Except the NSA wasn't created to watch the FBI. The FBI wasn't created to watch legislators.<br /><br />So your old-lady-who-swallowed-a-fly analogy fails at its first and every step.<br /><br />Duncan,<br />It's worth repeating that David's IG system already exists, but each IG is employed by the agency they are overseeing (or auditing...). Hence their career depends on those they are watching. David's proposal is really just to shove them all in the same group, independent of their respective agencies. To make their careers external to their individual agencies, make them answerable (at the first level) to each other. An analogy is the GAO.<br /><br />[Making the IGUS a uniformed branch is silly, IMO. It gives them a authoritarian <i>self-importance</i> that they shouldn't have. That way lies abuse of power. We want them to be rats digging in the filth, despised by all; not show-ponies strutting around... errr, despised by all.]<br /><br />Personally, I'd also set up another, completely separate "inspector"/"auditor"/"rapporteur" division which would be a part of the Congressional oversight system. Rather than (or in addition to) calling heads of agencies to committee meetings on the Hill, the committees would delegate free-roaming independent agents to operate within the overseen agencies, reporting back. The President should have something similar (cabinet is meant to serve this role, in part, but most often doesn't.) So "Inspectors General", "Congressional Rapporteurs", and "Presidential Auditors", all competing with each other to be the ones to root out the next Big Lie.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64418873901791743512014-04-16T20:57:46.002-07:002014-04-16T20:57:46.002-07:00One final word on the voter ID debate that has spr...One final word on the voter ID debate that has sprawled across the last couple of threads.<br /><br />Having spent a little time perusing the changes proposed by the R controlled legislature here in WI I find them.....excessive. More than necessary to deal with the issue.<br /><br />It is part of an ongoing, quiet political war here in Badgerland. I get scolded for proposing "equivalence" but on my home turf I claim a degree of expertise. And trust me, the degree to which the D side is twisting the judicial system is no prettier.<br /><br />But as a fair person I have to be honest when what you all seem to insist is "my side" goes too far. So stipulated. <br /><br />I suggest you be as gracious when behaviour on the other end of the political spectrum warrants a rebuke.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.com