Skip to main content

who's on team edward?

so i tweeted this the other day:
sparkle sparkle

"ffs, edward snowden is not the issue!"

that was in response to the sudden shift in media priorities from the rightness or wrongness of the american government dropping in for a peek-a-boo at their citizens' personal exchanges to talking about the man who leaked details of the operation to the guardian newspaper. is he exaggerating the extent of the problem in order to get media attention? does he fancy himself a rebel in the mould of julian assange? is he trying to make a political point against a president he doesn't like [snowden is apparently a libertarian republican who supported the candidacy of ron paul]? should we, the onlookers/ victims treat him as a hero or traitor?

the point of my tweet was to throw my opinion out there: we shouldn't give a shit. because ultimately, what we should be talking about [and don't think that this kind of program is limited to the united states, just because that's the one that got leaked to the media] is whether or not we are willing to allow our elected representatives to appoint or hire groups to monitor our personal and heretofore private communications in the name of national and international security.

since virtually every aspect of the program is in dispute, it's virtually impossible to talk about the specifics of what was recorded, retained and used to what end. so what we're left with is a very general discussion of safety vs. liberty. but as much as it's a very general discussion, it's also a very realistic, practical one. it's about how much you trust people. not just the government. everybody.

and that's where edward snowden becomes very much the issue.

you can argue about the improved safety provided by monitoring web activities, emails, phone calls and text messages all you want. maybe they have helped. in fact, it's kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't help to some degree, provided you know where to look. but the fact is that edward snowden, a high school dropout who got hired at a contractee of the u.s. government was able, after three months on the job [still technically within the probation period in canada, although i don't know how that works in other countries- my point is that it's not long to be on a job], to download some pretty sensitive and incriminating files and apparently had access to this entire program. after three months.

yes, edward snowden's response to this was to grab as much information as he could and hand it over to the media to expose what he felt was an invasion of privacy. but he could have just as easily handed it over to the mob. edward snowden could have been just about anyone and apparently, the government's methods of vetting employees could use a little upgrading. i've been at my job for over a year and i'm not allowed access to our budget files. if i need to look at something, i get an electronic copy mailed to me so that there's no danger of me messing with the master document. and i don't think that's a lack of trust, either. i think that's just the realisation that it's not the best idea to give everyone the keys to the kingdom.

so the questions we're asking shouldn't stop with "am i comfortable with the government mining my personal communications" but should logically continue to "am i comfortable with anyone that my government might contract and any of their employees having access to my personal communications?"

in my case that comes down to a simple hell no.

you could make a case that monitoring increases security, but my argument would be that as long as anyone who has access to your systems can lay their hands on the information [and remember, it's not like edward snowden hacked into a mainframe from a remote location- he just downloaded files, like we all do at work and at home], you're actually decreasing security in another very serious way. because all of the information collected [and we will probably never know how long it's held for] can be captured and given to anybody. how secure do you feel now?

so no, the specifics of who edward snowden is- his beliefs, his motivations, his goals- aren't particularly important. but his role as an employee and his access to all of our private communications absolutely is. because we don't know how many other edward snowdens there are, downloading that data and sharing it with their friends, their political allies, people offering them money or people threatening them. we don't have a way of finding out who all the other edwards are and we don't know who's on their team.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

long suffering

i've been meaning to write this post for a while, but, every time i get started, something happens that makes me rethink portions of it, to add or subtract or consider a different way of looking at things. the post was originally going to be my take on a #metoo statement, but i ended up making that post on my personal facebook page. [it's not that i don't love you all, but there are a few things i'm not comfortable putting in the entirely public sphere.] but beyond joining the #metoo juggernaut, i wanted to write something about the wave of sexual assault revelations that continues to swell over the north american media landscape that wasn't about me. then i realised that that was a little more complicated than just writing "so, lotta sex rapes happenin' these days, ain't there?" or whatever it was that i was going to say.

so i tried writing something about just a part of it: the media coverage or the entertainment industry or the politicians or …

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: getting cheeky

blush might just be the last thing that a beauty lover comes to appreciate, seeing as it can be a matter of slight degrees that separates one product from another, and it's most difficult to tell from just swatching a product how it's going to look. and it did take me a long time to appreciate that, despite loving my refined pallor and believing that my natural rosy flush was more than enough of a blush for me, blush is my friend. it softens, sculpts, perfects and, although you might not see it at first blush [yuk yuk yuk], it is something that subtly harmonises with the other colours in a look to make it "complete". yes, it's the most tricky thing to pull off when you're wearing something that doesn't mesh with your own undertones. but it's also the thing that can take a face from gloomy to glowing with a swish of the magic wand known as a makeup brush.

highlighters are an even trickier lot, since many of the more brilliant ones have a tendency to e…