Your comment made me think of something.. Let me ask you:
THe NSA in specific and the intelligence community in general clearly believes that the information about, opinions of and actions by equate to "a person" -- if they did not, they would not be surveilling what they are.
Your question of whether I respect the "people" or their "arguments", appears to me, to be loaded.
It's as if you're attempting to determine if I make a distinction between the people in the positions of NSA staff vs. the actions they take as a willing person under employ.
I respect people: human beings. As a human being I see myself as a part of a singular species on a, thus far, singular planet in our universe. I am not an enemy of humanity - I am an advocate of it. The opinions arguments and actions of planetary governments though appear to actually be at odds with humanity and its longevity.
So, on the one hand we have an agencies actions which distill a person to their digital DNA; analyses, evaluates and judges it coming to a conclusion in whole as to what that person "is" and a schism in our culture that you appear to be attempting to exploit: your question is attempting to play to my "humanity" with these being people who are just making decisions and arguments in line with the "orders and directives" of an institutional body such as the NSA/USG.
Let me be very clear; I don't care who anyone works for, if you are attempting to control, oppress, exploit or succeed at the expense of people as a whole - you are an enemy to humanity.
You could be an individual, a group, a corporation or a government. I stand for both my individual sovereignty and the collective well being of my species and civilization.
This is what sets us apart from the insects; we are capable of thriving as collective individuals as opposed to hive-minded slaves.
So the mathematician at NSA who developed the SHA-1 algorithm that underlies a lot of higher-level crypto primitives... is he an oppressor or an individual making a positive contribution to the collective good?
How about the janitor who sweeps the bathroom floor at the NSA? Is he or she an enemy of humanity?
Hopefully you would conclude otherwise for both, but now you run into the situation where you have to judge individual actions and not just collective membership when assessing who is, or is not, an enemy of humanity. Note that I haven't even had to try to stick up for those 'just following orders'.
By all means, judge people on what they do; judge ideas on their own merits; that's all I've ever asked for myself. Just remember that sometimes good work may come from organizations that you consider evil. Imagine how we would have thought of the infamous Nazi Oskar Schindler, before we knew the real story of his factory.
Likewise, good people may have bad ideas, and those with good ideas are not necessarily good people trying to lead you to a good goal.
If you retread my comment, I specifically said I have no respect for the people at the NSA (and USG in general) who have worked to create a global surveillance state.
Your question about the "janitor" is ridiculous. While he's the lowest on the pawn totem, I am specifically talking a out those who know that they have created the systems designed to spy on every man woman and child on the planet.
If you cannot separate these people from those in a janitorial position, then you're clearly attempting to sideline the discussion.
> If you retread my comment, I specifically said I have no respect for the people at the NSA (and USG in general) who have worked to create a global surveillance state
Well all I ask is that you keep that in mind next time you decry someone for working at NSA, or FBI, or any of a number of other agencies, unless you actually know what they've done.
People are all too willing to offload rational thought to the simple act of labeling. The Bush-style logic of "You're either with us or against us" was wrong when talking about terrorism, and it's still wrong when you're talking about the NSA, or even government in general.
Let people be evaluated for what they actually do, not merely for where they showed up for work. In case you're wondering, this does mean that I don't support excluding Feds from a conference just because they're Feds, arrest powers or otherwise... though you could ask the agency not to send their employees on official duty since we oppose the agency's actions itself.
THe NSA in specific and the intelligence community in general clearly believes that the information about, opinions of and actions by equate to "a person" -- if they did not, they would not be surveilling what they are.
Your question of whether I respect the "people" or their "arguments", appears to me, to be loaded.
It's as if you're attempting to determine if I make a distinction between the people in the positions of NSA staff vs. the actions they take as a willing person under employ.
I respect people: human beings. As a human being I see myself as a part of a singular species on a, thus far, singular planet in our universe. I am not an enemy of humanity - I am an advocate of it. The opinions arguments and actions of planetary governments though appear to actually be at odds with humanity and its longevity.
So, on the one hand we have an agencies actions which distill a person to their digital DNA; analyses, evaluates and judges it coming to a conclusion in whole as to what that person "is" and a schism in our culture that you appear to be attempting to exploit: your question is attempting to play to my "humanity" with these being people who are just making decisions and arguments in line with the "orders and directives" of an institutional body such as the NSA/USG.
Let me be very clear; I don't care who anyone works for, if you are attempting to control, oppress, exploit or succeed at the expense of people as a whole - you are an enemy to humanity.
You could be an individual, a group, a corporation or a government. I stand for both my individual sovereignty and the collective well being of my species and civilization.
This is what sets us apart from the insects; we are capable of thriving as collective individuals as opposed to hive-minded slaves.