Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the everything-is-good dept.

United States 261

An anonymous reader writes "Addressing the audience at the Freedom Online Coalition Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry defended NSA snooping actions saying: 'Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it. And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices. And that's why he then, after examining it and debating it and openly engaging in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful reforms, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us. And finally, transparency – the principles governing such activities need to be understood so that free people can debate them and play their part in shaping these choices. And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.' He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this debate, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history."

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sure, I guess I agree (5, Insightful)

robinsonne (952701) | about 3 months ago | (#46918835)

If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 months ago | (#46918851)

I would say that the US used to be, but the last decades have turned over to the dark side.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 months ago | (#46919569)

The US was ALWAYS the dark side.

There is NO "right side".

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about 3 months ago | (#46919601)

Based on what exactly?

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 3 months ago | (#46918899)

If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms

He says so right there:

He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it.

I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919013)

I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

They are on the "respect freedom" side, its just that you're not. Hes talking to the 1% who count.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (-1, Flamebait)

postbigbang (761081) | about 3 months ago | (#46919101)

"respect freedom" != "fuck liberty and privacy"

He never said it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919233)

I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

At no point he said explicitly this administration is on the freedom side. 1st rules of politics : make the reader read something he thinks he might read but in reality do not say anything. Reader are probably all assuming *what* the right side is. The funny things is, kerry at no point really explicitly said it.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#46919241)

I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.

I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#46919523)

I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

It is also a mistake to believe that what he thinks matters in the least. He is the secretary of state. He has no authority to set policy for the NSA, CIA or DIA.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#46919571)

I think it's a mistake to infer that he does think that, just based on him saying that.

It is also a mistake to believe that what he thinks matters in the least. He is the secretary of state. He has no authority to set policy for the NSA, CIA or DIA.

I'm not sure any of us thought he was speaking authoritatively. But he is a member of the administration, and is assumed to be parrotting the public position of Obama. And so we scream at him for his remarks' self-serving hypocrisy and self-contradiction, in effigy of screaming at Obama himself.

But, of course, your point extends to our screaming as well. Practically speaking, none of our protestations on a Slashdot comment system are at all likely to affect national policy or the general public's sentiment in any relevant way. We're feeling impotent rage, and it's a very unpleasant feeling.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 3 months ago | (#46919481)

"I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things."

He means respecting the freedom for the rich to do whatever they want, and for everyone else to suck it up.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (5, Insightful)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 3 months ago | (#46919061)

If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.

The right side? What a bunch of horseshit. The summary quotes Kerry as saying

And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.

Which I'm might be a typo ("the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people") but would be unsurprised to find out he actually said that, Freudian slip and all that.

What really infuriates me is the hypocrisy and the lies. Who is "win[ning] prizes" for holding the US government to standards? Snowden had to flee his country to seek asylum in RUSSIA for crying out loud.

The whole thing stinks and they (Kerry, Obama) have the gall to lie to our faces that they are going to do something about it.

I'm so angry I could spit.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919105)

Nah!!!

It has more to do with the reality distortion that Jobs spoke of so eloquently. If you move so far to the right, the left no longer exists in your view. So, you are right no matter what the left say.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 months ago | (#46919113)

Right side of history is Obama's administration's catch phrase.
Of course he also said that Romney was on the "wrong side of history" about Russia being a threat.

Translation.
Right side of history == people that agree with the Obama administration.
Wrong side of history == people that do not agree with the Obama administration.

Just what we need is a president with a catch phrase.

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 3 months ago | (#46919641)

Wrong side of history == people that do not agree with the Obama administration.

That's also a frequent definition of "racist".

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919215)

2009 analysis pretty well predicting this mess:
http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#46919447)

The "Right Side of History" is one of these overused statements to say He I Think I am right, while your side is wrong.

The problem with trying to look good for history, is that history looks back with filtered vision.
A lot of people at the time, even in the US, though Communism was a good idea, you look at Star Trek, Communism won! The hippy movement... As an ideal communism looked progressive and will bring the world into a better place... However the system had a fatal flaw it didn't account of peoples ambitions, so a people will have their own idea on what they need, and people who disagreed needed to be controlled, so a more totalitarian system came from it. You follow the party, if you disagree you are against the party.
However those more conservative groups, saw it is a threat and saw it for its danger, and kept it under control...

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 3 months ago | (#46919539)

Communism yes, Fascism even more. Progressives commonly supported and were intrigued by Fascism in the 20's and 30's.

Right:sizing (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 3 months ago | (#46919459)

Lets not hold back progress with regressive definition of the English Language, mmmkay?

Re:Sure, I guess I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919563)

Says Kerry, a man that has been in government for like 50 years and a multi-millionaire .

If Might Makes Right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46918837)

maybe he's correct.

Re:If Might Makes Right (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | about 3 months ago | (#46918901)

Since the US, by controlling in the Internet, more or less is capable of re-writing any history that is less than praising of its methods, I suppose the US is on the right side of history. They can write the history, after all.

Re:If Might Makes Right (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46919175)

Since the US, by controlling in the Internet, more or less is capable of re-writing any history that is less than praising of its methods, I suppose the US is on the right side of history. They can write the history, after all.

He was just misquoted. He meant the US is on the "write" side of history. As in the US is going to write the history and paint it as completely wonderful.

"In the dark times, national security was hampered by not knowing what every citizen was doing at all times. Roadblocks such as warrants prevented our wonderful security organizations from looking up information on anyone at anytime. This meant that threats could come from anywhere at any time. Those tasked with protecting our security wept over such horrible restrictions. Thankfully, the restrictions were removed and our wonderful security overseers can now look up information on anyone at any time for any reason without having to deal with trivial minutiae like court-issued warrants, probable cause, or fact-based evidence linking the person to a crime. This means we live in the most secure times imaginable. Just ask anyone (who doesn't want to be dragged off in the middle of the night for speaking out against the security agencies)."

Right? (-1, Troll)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 3 months ago | (#46918843)

Right as in the GOP side of rigid control and lack of transparency? Yes, we are totally on the "right" side.

History... (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46918853)

History is written by the victors - not necessarily the good guys.

Bingo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46918921)

And in other news, a high-ranking Walmart representative assures us that Walmart is on the right side of consumerism. Furthermore, lo and behold, a high-ranking Exxon Mobil representative assures us that Exxon is on the right side of environmentalism.

Re:Bingo (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 3 months ago | (#46918955)

Walmart saves the American consumer well over $200 billion a year, greatly exceeding as a benefit all the "corporate welfare" charges ladled on it, "to help their underpaid employees".

Re:Bingo (1, Troll)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46919131)

And they use a lot of their money to push corporation control of the education system (e.g. corporate run charter schools). After all, what better way to prep the next generation of loyal consumers than by getting to them (and making a profit off them) young?

Re:Bingo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919329)

Just one store costs the American taxpayer about $1 million in Medicaid expenses.

Two years after a Walmart opens, two thirds of the businesses in the area have shuttered.

Re:History... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#46919063)

The victors are always the good guys. They get to decide who the good guys are.

So lets be Open about it. (5, Insightful)

delt0r (999393) | about 3 months ago | (#46918861)

As far as i can tell, if there was no Snowden there wouldn't be any discussion at all.

Re:So lets be Open about it. (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 3 months ago | (#46919009)

Exactly. This hypocrisy really pisses me off:

I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.

So please stop being a hypocrite and free Ms. Manning, give her a medal for her bravery.

Re:So lets be Open about it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919199)

"I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."

Like Manning, and Snowden if some of our elected officials get a hold of him?

Re:So lets be Open about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919181)

As far as i can tell, if there was no Snowden there wouldn't be any discussion at all.

But is that a bug or a feature?

Feature: Yes, we're having a debate about the surveillance society we've built.

Bug: Just as with the warrantless wiretapping scandals of the previous administration, the response is: "So, SOPA, no wait, CISPA, nope, we'll call it CISA this time! When CISA (Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014) passes, any company that sells information to us for $0.01 can no longer be sued for fucking over its users! The corporations that fought us on SOPA/CISPA will no longer be able use the excuse that they could be sued, and we can simply threaten to Nacchio/Qwestify anyone who still doesn't want to play ball with us."

Irony (5, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#46918869)

From TFS:

"I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes"

So, Snowden isn't due for jail-time if he were to return to the USA, Mr. Kerry?

And why has the Obama administration brought charges against more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? (Six by Obama, three by all previous administrations combined)

Re:Irony (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46919145)

That was a total WTF statement, who was he referring to? Obama? O_o

doublespeak (4, Insightful)

VMaN (164134) | about 3 months ago | (#46918875)

"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."

But that is precisely what is going on.

Re:doublespeak (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 3 months ago | (#46918907)

It's a balancing situation... we can't have criminals talking to each other without being intercepted, but we also can't have people managing our lives for us...

sure, but.. (3, Insightful)

VMaN (164134) | about 3 months ago | (#46918941)

If that is the case, be honest about it.
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security CAN come at the expense of cyber privacy."

See? Now THAT would be an honest statement, and I could rightfully criticize it.

Re:doublespeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919185)

Why not? When what is and what is not a criminal is arbitrarily defined by the people surveiling through secret courts and legalese, and where you can be suspected of terrorism for just about anything. Is it honestly fair to say it is just to stop criminals and to process their data?

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/02/15/you-may-already-be-fbi-terror-suspect-85-things-not-do

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/war/terrorism_war/news.php?q=1323968706

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/u-s-military-may-consider-you-a-potential-terrorist-if-you-are-young-use-social-media-or-question-mainstream-ideologies.html

Setting up our government to have this power, is going to allow them to have the power to crush any and all dissent. Which is a valuable power for those who rule.

On top of agencies doing things like this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffirstlook.org%2Ftheintercept%2F2014%2F02%2F24%2Fjtrig-manipulation%2F&ei=faZnU7efC-bbyQGnooHwBA&usg=AFQjCNFZnRYlvoVI3VRAwj2WFJdqgmIlaw&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWc ?

Re:doublespeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919279)

Really? So in other words, we cannot have people talking to each other without the government listening? Because how would they know if they are criminals or not? Here's the deal. If two criminals want to talk without being snooped on, they can. It's as simple as that.

Re:doublespeak (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#46919123)

"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."

But that is precisely what is going on.

Since Obama came on the scene, I've learned that when a politician prefaces a statement with, "let me be clear," chances are good that he's going to be anything but.

Re:doublespeak (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46919421)

Well, this isn't something Obama invented... It's just new to those that were young or uninvolved in the political process. Obama brought in a lot of new voters that could learn what the rest of us did years ago. It's fun to be disappointed by your political heroes for the first time.

How did that song go?

We wont be fooled again!
*pause*
New boss, same as the old boss.

So "The Who" figured it out 40 years ago, but we're still re-learning it every 8yrs.

Re:doublespeak (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#46919525)

Well, this isn't something Obama invented...

Perhaps not, but he has latched onto it as his personal catch phrase. [google.com]

Just like how Bush Sr didn't come up with the phrase, "no new taxes," but when I hear that phrase he immediately springs to mind... or rather, Dana Carvey's dead-on impression of him.

Eh? (3, Interesting)

xtal (49134) | about 3 months ago | (#46918881)

"I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Don't worry. The internet will deal with this because there's money on the line, and the US should understand this. If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.

The outcome from this will be an even harder to stop internet. This may have be an unintended effect, but may end up being a net positive gain for personal liberty in the long run. History is full of reasons why this is a good thing, and why we must never lower our guard.

Interesting times.

Re:Eh? (1)

jbrown.za (2935583) | about 3 months ago | (#46918987)

This would mean a whole lot more if Obama hadn't spent months defending the current practices ...

I guess that this is good news for Edward Snowden. The US is clearly not a place where he would go to jail for holding the government to account?!?

Re:Eh? (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#46919037)

If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.

Math, such as crypto algorithms, is awesome, but implementations are not. Nerds have been aware for well over a decade (the EU Parliament's ECHELON report came out in 2001) that certain states seek to monitor and store as much online communication as possible, but coding practices even in sensitive privacy-defending applications have continued to be lax, as the recent Heartbleed episode shows.

Re:Eh? (1)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#46919351)

Meh. Implementation bugs can be fixed. It's designing for security and privacy that matters, and once we address the flaw that CAs represent, SSL is a pretty good design (and that fix is in the works). That said, I'm a lot less confident in the ability of math to beat guns than the GP. Technology can't work around policy problems, not directly. It can be used to raise awareness so that public opinion can then be used to fix the policy problems.

Big Fat Liar (2)

johnsie (1158363) | about 3 months ago | (#46918889)

The US is so far on the wrong side that it is in the ditch.

Sen. McCarthy said the same thing in the 50s (3, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 3 months ago | (#46918911)

US Gov gives itself a stellar report card. What a surprise.

Re:Sen. McCarthy said the same thing in the 50s (2, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 3 months ago | (#46918985)

This is true, but 1950s or today, I'll take the US over anywhere else. See, all governments give themselves stellar marks. Very few can make a case they even partially deserve it.

Re:Sen. McCarthy said the same thing in the 50s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919485)

Anywhere else?

US over anywhere else (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919633)

> I'll take the US over anywhere else.

This is all well and good. But why do you take the US over anywhere else? Just because you have the right to unwrong wrongs.

So fucking make use of that right, before it disappears. This right was achieved with blood, remember.

A couple of wrongs to unwrong: Gitmo. Manning in jail. Snowden in exile. Drones killing people by just their IME, no judicial oversight. So start now!

ahem (4, Insightful)

Major Blud (789630) | about 3 months ago | (#46918917)

"And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices after they were leaked to the world."

FTFY.

Re:ahem (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#46918953)

We need to review the process and prevent such leaks from ever happening again.

Re:ahem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919153)

you are right man http://zencleansetrusted.com/

STFU, you goddamned liar. (3, Informative)

jcr (53032) | about 3 months ago | (#46918919)

one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. ... and we all know which side the Ketchup Gigolo is on.

-jcr

Arrogant, incompetent boob (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46918929)

John Kerry in 1971 Doonesbury comics [abstractdynamics.org]

Some things never change

Absolutely transparent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46918945)

"Absolutely transparent" is not possible when talking about a security agency. So everything he says is complete bullshit. What a sorry ass liar. The NSA has proven that they do not even care about laws. And he wants to discuss laws to stop them from doing bad thins? Yeah, that seems like the proper way forward.

censorship is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46918981)

it's still obsoletely fatal spiritual suicide http://www.youtube.com/results... [youtube.com] as in uncreative

History is nice, but... (1)

chiknkoop (3637781) | about 3 months ago | (#46918995)

With domestic spying, and the allowing of things like the Comcast-Netflix deal, what side are we on for the future?

What is the point of posting this article? (0)

amosh (109566) | about 3 months ago | (#46918999)

Just to give people something to fling tomatoes at?

Stop policing! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919007)

".... including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us."

Here's a crazy thought: How about you stop starting wars, being the unwanted world-police, and generally just conclude that the world doesn't need your dictation. Maybe then people would stop hating you and trying to "do injury [sic]".
Final conclusion: no meddling = no hate = no need for NSA.

Yours anonymously,

Coward

Hey (3, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 3 months ago | (#46919015)

Mr. Kerry,

We do not need a panopticon, either real-world or virtual on the Internet. And there are solid reasons never to build one. See the writings of your forefathers in government, or George Orwell.

If it doesn't exist, and government is forbidden from making it, it can't possibly be misused. It's the same reason nobody should ever build a "continent buster" cobalt bomb.

Re:Hey (0)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 3 months ago | (#46919111)

The Russians have built "continent buster" cobalt bombs. It's their Doomsday weapon, per Fred Kaplan, built to guarantee that the Rodina will never fall to an invader, like it almost did to Nazi Germany. Just the mere presence of those makes me think that we need to be able to have intelligence gathering capabilities to insure we know where those are, and if someone else is attempting to build them. I don't know where the balance is between freedom and security, nor do I know how many billions of lives would have to be lost before we find that line, but it's a conversation we should have.

Re:Hey (2)

stewsters (1406737) | about 3 months ago | (#46919261)

If they have a doomsday device, they will tell us. There is no point in building a doomsday device if your opposition doesn't know you have it.

See the movie "Dr Strangelove" for reasons why.

Re:Hey (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 3 months ago | (#46919517)

But, it was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises!

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919609)

There is no balance. If the constitution does not explicitly give the government a certain power, it does not have it. Spying on foreign enemies is something that the government has the power to do. Spying on citizens is not.

It is not accept to infringe upon people's fundamental liberties to keep them safe, no matter how real the security is. There cannot be a "balance"; we're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not the land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice their freedom for security and then pretend they're free.

Bit Flip: J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919029)

American history is full of examples where the guys in charge don't really care about the American People. The tools and frameworks being laid down today are powerful anti-terrorist tools, but all it takes is for another J. Edgar Hoover to bit flip the system and completely annihilate his enemies.

Ha Ha, Charade You Are (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 3 months ago | (#46919039)

Ah yes, the man picked to lose to GWB, the "get Hilary out before she can't be elected in 2016"-shield, Mr. Company Man's Company Man, Mr. 1%er's 1%-er wants me to know that the US, as ever, has got my back with this freedom shit, yo.

Thomas Jefferson said.... (5, Informative)

ToasterTester (95180) | about 3 months ago | (#46919067)

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"

Re:Thomas Jefferson said.... (4, Insightful)

tom229 (1640685) | about 3 months ago | (#46919401)

Sadly, I don't think the government has feared the people in quite some time. Even worse, I've noticed an increasing trend of this generation looking towards the government as a sort of surrogate parent to take care of them in their adult lives. We have big brother, because we've asked for it.

Hamilton *TO* Jefferson; strangely pertinent today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919409)

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or intended, from abroad." - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 1798

On the right side of history? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919099)

Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom

Bollocks.

Leak their secrets go to jail (3, Insightful)

Flicker (4495) | about 3 months ago | (#46919107)

"go to jail rather than win prizes"

Kerry doesn't seem to have noticed that our government, particularly his boss's administration, is not giving prizes to leakers but rather jailing them. In particular Snowden's prize did not come from the U.S. government, but the mad scramble to capture and punish him certainly did.

its just an attempt at damage control (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 months ago | (#46919137)

what do you expect them to do or say?

there has been enough talk about the US 'losing the cloud' and this hurts BUSINESS. that finally got their attention.

now, if they will do anything real about our national conversation about online privacy, that I kind of doubt. we are essentially having the conversation amongst ourselves, but no one who can make laws is really stepping up to meet us and talk honestly about this.

so, we're at step-1, I guess. we admit there is a problem (ie, loss of business revenue, now and in the future) and they are scrambling how to best 'fix' this and yet not really fix it where it counts.

we don't trust you and we may never trust you again. but lets see if anything does change. maybe economics, over a long enough time, could course-correct us and put us back on the freedom track again.

Re:its just an attempt at damage control (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 3 months ago | (#46919557)

we are essentially having the conversation amongst ourselves, but no one who can make laws is really stepping up to meet us and talk honestly about this.

I'm really curious how the next two elections will go. I imagine every candidate is going to have to answer the question, "where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping and the collection of email and phone data for all Americans?" I wonder how many (if any) votes incumbents who voted against defunding the NSA's collection efforts or voted for the Patriot Act will lose? Their opponents will certainly make an issue of it.

The next two elections will really decide the future of privacy. If a candidate (like Obama) who thinks spying on every American is just fine wins, then he will have a "mandate" to continue and expand such programs, and we will know privacy is truly dead and the fourth amendment is worthless. I'm not saying a candidate who promises to dismantle the apparatus of the surveillance state will actually do so once elected, just like Obama kept his promise to close Gitmo, but at least America will have expressed its displeasure at being ass-raped rather than begging for more.

Aren't you supposed to be on the left? (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#46919147)

Yes, I agree that this administration is on the right side of history, but this is very annoying to people who elected them to be on the left! It's pretty annoying when the only two realistic candidates are the right and far right candidates.

Sure (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 3 months ago | (#46919159)

...but, don't look back. Look forward. Let's keep the freedom intact.

Is he ignorant, stupid, or lying? (2)

alispguru (72689) | about 3 months ago | (#46919179)

Unfortunately those are the only three choices here.

more choices (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 3 months ago | (#46919541)

There may be only three categories, but there's nothing to say he only fits one of them

Re:Is he ignorant, stupid, or lying? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#46919619)

Pick any two? Problem is some of them are all three at the same time.

Double speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919209)

The freedom they talk about is the freedom for you to do what they tell you.
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me.

obama admin is funny (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#46919225)

they say nice things and then continue the bush/cheney agenda. fascism.

Meaningless drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919259)

My understanding is that Obama was a major signatory of these powers and now is trying to distance himself through his voice piece (VP) ; )
The government no longer needs the majority vote as citizen united allows unlimited corporate money so We the People no longer need be consulted regarding our interests or intentions. We will be informed by the corporatocracy of the US what our beliefs are to be. And the government corporate partnership wants all your data, forget the laws of the land and your right to privacy.

Let me be clear (1)

Taylor123456789 (1354177) | about 3 months ago | (#46919353)

I simply have no idea what John Kerry said of substance here.

Sum up (4, Insightful)

tom229 (1640685) | about 3 months ago | (#46919377)

So, if I can sum up his entire speech in a sentence:

"Hey, we're not as evil as a lot of other countries out there! PS. Turrirrists"

Kerry is irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919383)

What Kerry says should be taken with the understanding that Kerry
is a man who doesn't understand the idea of actually serving his
country.

Kerry serves himself by saying whatever seems to be politically expedient.

Today in America (1)

GlennC (96879) | about 3 months ago | (#46919403)

Anybody still want to argue that there are major differences between the two major political parties here in America?

Re:Today in America (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#46919611)

Yes.

the Republicans are richer than the Democrats. The Democrats are disorganized housecats. The Republicans tend to be more organized and directed towards a single broadly defined goal.

Both sides will fuck over the poor (bottom 80%) in a heartbeat to make their Corporate masters happy.

Ya. No. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919439)

I believe I speak for the entirety of humanity when I say, "No John. Fuck off, you puppet."

Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919463)

" I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."

That's HILARIOUS that he said that, because if the government had its way, Snowden would be in jail right now. He would not have won any prizes. Yet the fact that Snowden eluded capture and then won recognition for his action is now being trumpeted by the United States as a human rights victory? HILARIOUS!

Red Flag Phrase (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919521)

I've noticed that "Let Me Be Clear" is something of a trigger phrase.

To the media, it means "We expect you to treat the following statements as fact. Plan accordingly".
To the rest of us it means "We are about to lie to you more concisely than usual. However, you should pay attention because this will apply to you".
 

Getting ahead of himself (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 3 months ago | (#46919531)

History is written by the victors. However for this guy to proclaim "victory" by starting to write the history already, before the "battles" have even begun, is a little presumtuous

My usual test (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#46919565)

I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.

1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count.
2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water.
3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.

It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.

Kerry is old guard.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#46919575)

He is an extremely rich person that wants the poor watched. All rich people think this way. Keep those grubby poor people away from my money. And yes you Making $80K a year, you are one of the "grubby poor" to these people.

Actually, you're all looking at this wrong... (3, Insightful)

dsavage (645882) | about 3 months ago | (#46919597)

He said that America will be on the right side of history... and it probably will. You have to remember that "History is written by the winners." - George Orwell

OK, so we're all pissed... (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 3 months ago | (#46919655)

Now what? Are people going to engage in any kind of activism at all or vent on Slashdot? People simply don't give a crap about privacy and the polls show it. Everyone has the "hey, I'm not a terrorist so why should I care?" attitude.

I've been trying to maintain it for my own online experience and the tracking is insanely pervasive. I can't even create a YouTube account without giving out my phone number. I've actually written my representatives to complain about it, but I know I'm in a small, quiet minority in this country. I just get tired of reading all the incensed comments and articles about the loss of online privacy when it amounts to nothing more than another rant.

More accurate summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46919669)

"Addressing the audience at the Freedom Online Coalition Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry defended NSA snooping actions saying: 'Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to bullshitting it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can bullshit doesn't mean that we should bullshit. And that's why he ordered a thorough bullshit of all our bullshit practices. And that's why he then, after bullshitting it and bullshitting it and openly bullshitting in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful bullshit, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are bullshit and others who are seeking to bullshit all of us. And finally, bullshit – the principles governing such bullshit need to be understood so that free people can bullshit them and play their part in shaping bullshit. And we believe bullshit can positively help us to distinguish bullshit from the legitimate bullshit. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the bullshit that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who bullshit go to jail rather than win prizes.' He added: 'This bullshit is about two very different visions: one vision that bullshits and another that bullshits. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this bullshit, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>