NSA Data Mining: Good or Evil?

Data mining was thrown into the spotlight by Edward Snowdon when he disclosed it to the American public.  As with any new and important subject matter, the media has been struggling to get it's arms around it.  Let me see if I can help.

Is Snowdon merely a whistleblower (he disclosed a government project, but, unlike the Wikileaks gang, disclosed no details)?  Hardly.  The project he disclosed was classified and highly confidential.

But, does confidential mean important?  In this case, it clearly was.  Casting a net for gathering information as wide as what the U.S. government was able to do required an enormous investment in time, people and money. In addition, it relied on remarkable computing technology.  We can well imagine the extent to which China, Russia and other totalitarian governments would love to copy it, and, now, no doubt will.

The history of weaponry goes back a long way.  From sling shot, to cannon, to atomic bombs -- data mining is simply a part of the progression.  Culling data on the scale the U.S. has been doing is simply one more tool of war.  As with most weapons, it can be used either offensively or defensively.  So how do we deal with it?

The atom bomb provides a useful model for discussing this new informational weapon.  Nazi scientists were the first to give serious thought to an atomic bomb.  Fortunately, it slipped through their fingers when, towards the end of WW II, they were unable to marshal all the necessary supplies and resources needed for this project.  (Driving out leading Jewish scientists didn't help them much either.)

But, could America be trusted to be the sole possessor of such technology?  Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg thought not.    For them, Russia, then under Stalin, was a better kind of government.  I believe most historians today would disagree.  But, what about America as the sole possessor of such a powerful weapon?  Who knows?  But what we do know is that through their spies Russia knew America had the bomb and were quite comfortable with us using it on Japan.

Once again:  Is Edward Snowdon a whistleblower or a spy?  Here is where the media must get it's facts straight.  Thomas Andrews Drake was a true whistleblower.  He was appalled by the wastefulness of our government in the pursuit of new technologies.  He reached out to all the appropriate people.  And, in the end was hounded by our government for doing what any right-thinking American would do -- provided they also had nerves of steel.  (Going up against the government is not anything for the weak of heart.)

Today, you'll hear some U.S. representatives and senators complain they knew nothing about America's data mining of phone calls and internet activity.  But, they clearly know, or should know,  that it doesn't work that way.  Special congressional committees are set up specifically to review this kind of information.  Others in congress now say they should have known of it too.  Nonsense.  The American public has on a number occasion voted into office some pretty questionable people.  A special committee is therefore exactly the right way to go.

But, can the government be trusted to collect such information?  Good question.  I'd normally say yes.  But recent disclosures regarding the behavior of people within the IRS toward groups that speak against the administration suggest that this question not all that cut and dried.  The president's lenient attitude toward those in the IRS most closely associated with the agency's questionable behavior is especially troubling.  Obama must learn that like Caesar's wife, you not only have to be pure, you have to look pure.

Oh, and lest I forget the greatest irony of all:  Where does Edward Snowdon hightail it to?  Why, of course, to Hong Kong, a territory under the political domination of China -- that great citadel of human rights and free speech.  Give me a break.   Does Edward Snowdon, and his buddies who find him to be a noble soldier in the battle for transparency and human rights, have no shame?

  

Tom Friedman: Need I Say More?

What prompted this posting regarding the man who made famous the metaphorical expression, "The World Is Flat"; namely, Thomas Friedman, is his Op-Ed piece of 6/5/13, Israel Lives The Joseph Story.  Let me begin with his conclusions at the end of his piece.

He writes, "Three reasons (for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict):  1) to reverse the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel; 2) to disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it; and 3) to offer a model (of democratic government)."

His reasoning regarding resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show the same blindness as his the-world-is-flat story.  In that story, he suggests that the internet and other modern means of global interaction have put all nations on a level playing field.  What Tom fails to see are the formidable mountain ranges of cultural differences that remain.

But, let's get back to his flawed reasoning as to what, in his opinion, makes resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so imperative.

1. Reversing the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel.
Anyone following world events knows full well that efforts to delegitimize Israel has very little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Mocking those who point to anti-Semitism has become increasingly popular.  But, who can deny that for decades Saudi oil money has gone into establishing Islamic organizations, one of whose key messages has been the denigration of Jews.  (The late Senator Fulbright joined in this effort when he became a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government.)

The Swedes who have their hands full with their sizable Muslim immigrant population, nevertheless find time to denigrate Israel which has done a far better job bringing Israeli Christians and Muslims into the Israeli body politic.

And, does anyone think the Irish will ever become friendly to the Jews?  They, who failed to join in the western effort to battle the Nazis in WW II.

Current, and future, efforts to delegitimize Israel have little to do with sympathy for the Palestinians.  If it did, the pathetic Palestinian refugees in their deplorable camps would have been integrated long ago into the various surrounding Islamic nations and indeed also into West Bank communities.  And, what, one must wonder, accounts for western sympathy for Gaza when it rockets Israeli communities?

2. Disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it.
Impossible, and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians.  Indeed, the Jordanian king retains his throne only because the majority Palestinian population in Jordan does not want Jordan to be seen as the Palestinian nation that it is.

3. Allow Israel to provide a model (to Islamic nations)
A model for whom?  The ever diminishing Christian population in the West Bank makes clear that  Muslims see things differently than Jews.  The best chance that Abbas had to emulate the Israeli model was to have allowed Fayyad to forge ahead with his plans for developing a future Palestinian nation.  What did Abbas do?  He dumped Fayyad.

Tom's comments on Stephen Hawking seem to me to be meant to simply develop a bit of reader interest.  The only thing Tom seems to have to say on this matter can be summed by his quote from the Boston Globe,  "(Hawking's decision to boycott Israel was) a reasonable way to express one's political views.  Observers need not agree with Hawking's position in order to understand and even respect his choice.  The movement that Hawkins has signed on to aims to place pressure on Israel through peaceful means."

Dear Tom, someone ought to let the Boston Globe know that no one is arguing that Hawking's didn't express his political views in a reasonable way.  It's his views on the Palestinian issue that I and many others would take issue with.  What does it mean to "understand" his choice.  What I understand is that a great scientist has been bamboozled by a flawed Palestinian narrative.  It wouldn't be the first time that important men of science have gone astray politically -- not to mention ethically.  Respect his choice?  How, pray tell, is one to respect such foolishness?