Two senior US military officials are sitting on a bench at a private golf course out of uniform, they seem to be taking a break from the game and having a talk - 201305210749

KA: This is not a good situation
CG: Do you think it such a terrible situation or are you still talking the walk?
KA: What do you mean?
CG: Aww, come now K****. It was a matter of time before this sort of program leaked. Do your really think that everyone who works on PRISM is 1000% loyal to the lofty goal of giving security by taking away freedom?
Do you really forget so easily what the most cherished and precious concept we promote incessantly to all Americans is?
Have you ever heard of the land of the FREE?
KA: Freedom is a luxury in today's dangerous world.
CG: You really believe it to be?
KA: I have to.
CG: That is not the same thing, so you have not answered my question.
KA: What do you want to hear from me?
That we can sit and ignore the terrorists who are using the very infrastructure that we invented and deployed around the world to discuss how and when and where they will hit us next?
CG: There are several things wrong in your understanding of this situation, but alas they are all subjective and this would lead to an endless debate with less and not more understanding in the end.
KA: I know C******. I am not so naive as not to see this paradoxical companionship between freedom/danger and security/safety.
I know that to all intensive purposes we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but we have no choice.
CG: That belief, that we have no choice, is where the argument falls apart.
It does not go without notice here that the very price the average person pays for security is being judged for him or her by less and less accessible and accountable entities. The very secrecy being the motivation for non disclosure.
We are now so tangled in our little web of secrets that many of us supposedly "in the know" so to speak are not entirely sure we see the whole picture. This is a great problem in itself.
KA: I disagree. I believe that there are a lot of responsible and mature, level headed patriots who primarily have the best interest of the whole who are aware of the entire extent and capability of the security apparatus we have.
And these people carefully weigh every decision they make to cause the least disruption to the innocent while at the same time obtaining the best intelligence that the entire apparatus is capable of collecting.
CG: Again this is a matter of interpretation.
A question: How sure are you that there are no American's data, or communications, or logs, or "meta data" of such being collected?
KA: Absolutely
CG: Now I have known you for many years and of the many admirable traits and skills you possess, a deep enough knowledge of IT which would allow you to be independently positive on that point is not one of them.
KA: I know and neither do you.
CG: That's true. But when I am not sure of something I am very reluctant to make iron clad comments such as what you told the world yesterday.
KA: We both are products of the military, right?
CG: That statement is basically true.
KA: Then you know how information is aggregated and diluted in order for decision makers can encompass complex multifaceted issues - we trust our subordinates to be both truthful and patriotic.
The entire construct that is the modern military machine relies on this like a body needs blood.
CG: OK so this is your way of saying that your people have assured you in a manner that made you comfortable to make the statement you made?
KA: Is there any other way it could be?
CG: Off course
You could try to seek some independent source of advice that is not enmeshed into the entire complex. Hell, there are so many IT specialist and consultants around. Oh but I forget, this entire program is secret - or was.
KA: You love to poke holes into my world don't you?
CG: You think I am just having some fun with you?
KA: Starting to.
CG: I warn you that I am at the furthest point away from making a funny case out of what could become the most serious issue facing our republic.
I have 2 things to share with you to make sure you completely understand with what seriousness I refer to this issue:
I have a friend who's daughter is an IT security specialist. And even though I know so little about this world that I may mistake a shit for a chocolate bar, I know that this girl is up there with the best. What I am sure about her is that she would be able to make a pretty good guess as to what the NSA is up to and how they do it. And I mean technically.
I met with her at a social event and we discussed this issue in some depth.
She was totally incredulous at the official public statements in regards to this issue.
Let me recap just a few of the points she made:
There is absolutely no way for anyone to be certain of the citizenship of the party either sending or receiving any electronic communication over the net.
The extreme high probability of false positives in any algorithmic analysis of data aiming to extract connections to terrorist plots would render any such methods at best useless  and at worst would result in the the invasive investigation and in absolute worst case, the punishment of innocent people for some of the worst crimes.
As a foot note to her comments, she strongly expressed the thought that if even a part of the resources that are spend on developing this infrastructure to spy were to be redistributed to honestly humanitarian issues, especially those that affect the groups most likely to be described by our system as terrorists, then we could actually plan for an end to the war on terror someday. The way she sees it is that this war on terror is a euphemism for geopolitical domination and control.
KA: And now who is sounding paranoid?
CG: We are not talking about paranoia. We are talking about the technical possibilities and limitation of the NSA surveillance apparatus.
-pause-
CG: And don't try to turn this into an argument of who's information is better. Not only does it not achieve anything, but you will LOOSE.
KA: I understand. I am sorry I made that comment.
CG: I know exactly why you said what you said to the world.
You believe you had no choice. Your choice of reaction was so curtailed by the enormous momentum of our entire approach to foreign affairs and our hegemonic roll in the world that you could have had a child give the speech, if only they were respected enough to be taken seriously.
And here we come to the true paradox...
Your course of action is as fixed and inflexible as that of the lowliest private on the battlefield. One who has been ordered to make the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield in a no win situation and give his life for his country.
But you're not a grunt! You are part of the command of the most powerful military force in the world. Someone who's function in the machine is to decide what to do next.
Your choices are made for you by the overwhelming momentum of the policies of the state.
Some general hey?
KA: With all due respect I am offended by this comment.
CG: Calm down, I am as much a cog in this machine as you are.
But I have not forgotten that I am also a human with an independent mind and able to comprehend what I do beyond the next step and word. See and grasp the bigger picture.
I want to measure your true feeling on this most crucial subject, not the rote message that is regurgitated to the world by the state apparatus. For those at a decision making level, the more they come to blindly believe the rote message, the more useless they become.
Unable to see past the facade, convinced it is true so deeply that the contradictions vanish along with their ability to analyse any new information that is not fitting this reality.
It is the model that must adapt and rationalize the facts and not the other way around.
KA: And how do I measure up then?
CG: Come now, this is not an examination, but a realignment of understanding. My understanding, your understanding, our common understanding of our common challenge.
KA: But you agree that my speech was basically reflecting the collective reaction of the state to this event, and it contained no ambiguity with regard to our opinion on Mr Snowden or his actions.
CG: I feel like I am talking to a robot. We are not on camera and I am not recording what you are saying.
But here in lies the true crux of the paradox and the dangerous nature of this policy.
It is that you may be able to trust me to not consciously record your words here because we are old friends, but you cannot be sure that this conversation is not being recorded by default and being caught up in a much larger net by the surveillance apparatus that you are currently defending. One that we helped create!
And you can also not be sure that anything you say will not be regurgitated and connected to some other comments, or events that at some point in the future will be distorted and combined with other distortions and on and on. In the end you are painted to be a villain of proportions that you could not even imagine. Totally innocuous comments will take on a significance they never had to incriminate you.
This is no new invention of mine, fiction and philosophy has covered this subject in great depth for a very long time.
Consider the case of lawers and judges placed in a position to pass judgement in a pedophile. Their professional mandate will most probably lead them to try to understand the case which could very well lead them to view child pornography themselves. That very act could also be their undoing! 
KA: Hmmm.
(pause)
I know, Plato and Machiavelli. But this is not what is going on.
We have a asymmetric enemy that is extremely hard to eradicate. They fight with no rules and innocent victims are acceptable results from their actions.
Information is the only weapon that can stop them. Knowing what they are planning and thwarting them before they can strike. We are the unsung heroes because our major victories on this new battleground cannot be so easily shared and lionized by the very people who have been protected by our actions. There are no victorious returning armies, tales of valor, proud war stories.
Instead our heroes and heroics are done in secret and must stay so, so that we can profit from their effectiveness and continue to use these tactics.
One thing that we know about our enemy, they are nimble, and change strategies much faster than our lumbering organizational bulk. I am sure they have already taken concrete actions to stay out of our surveillance net.
CG: The classic Russian tale of the bear and the little dogs.
KA: Don't believe I have heard that one.
CG: Quite simply it is about a hunter that uses small, seemingly inappropriate dogs to go and hunt a giant bear. The bear is awesomely powerful. One swipe of the bears claw would immediately kill a little dog, but the dogs are fast. When they attack the bear, he is too slow to retaliate. But their attacks make no meaningful impact at all. He swings as fast as he can but the dogs are too fast for him. Hours of nipping and snapping have the bear exhausted while the dogs are unhurt. The hunter has an easy job of dispatching the bear once it is in this state.
I think the analogy is clearly seen here.
KA: But we have the technological edge, and until just last week they were not aware of how much we could know. How weak their tactics were.
CG: Yes and they had underestimated how willing our leaders were to trample our constitution in order to fight them.
The problem is we have trampled the thing we were trying to protect - our freedom
-pause-
CG: The second point I wanted to make before was the analogies with the rise of the Third Reich in Germany in the 30's. A close look at the events that proceeded the totalitarian power Hitler assumed in Germany could lead you to some rather uncomfortable parallels.
The real fear I have, and here I will spell it out for you so we have a clear understanding of my meaning:
The construction of this surveillance state, the process that we are well on progress with, will result in a mechanism of control which is unparalleled in history. The power of this apparatus could so easily be turned against its own people given the correct reconfiguration of the power structure. Remember we live in a paper thin democracy. Our democracy is not the robust plural structure with a well tuned set of checks and balances which we like to believe. It is a shaky young thing which has been brought crashing to her knees in our recent past. I am obliquely referring to the 2000 election.
This was probably the most serious negative precedent that has occurred in our young democracy.
But even ignoring this event, our system is rotting at its core, and that rot is called money. Money has distorted the basic principle of 'one man - one voice' which is what so many of our brothers in the past gave their lives to protect.
So if you are still trying to join these dots, then let me make it easy.
An election can be bought in the US. We have proof now.
So power has a price. And there seems no short supply of those with the desire and the means.
And once there, the apparatus to stay there, aka: our new beloved surveillance apparatus now gives, allows the lucky punter the ultimate way to slant the scales in our 'robust' democracy and stay there for ever. A new autocracy.
KA: I cannot help but have the word paranoid pop up before me.
CG: You are a good soldier. You will fight and die with no hesitation if ordered by your superiors.
Your death would most likely not be physical, but death none the less if it serves the whim of the higher. The difference now is their power is so much greater as our every thought becomes known.
I am old. I am not much longer of this world.
My legacy weighs on me. What will I be remembered for?
This sounds so cliche, but it is the only project that seems to matters to me now.
I have amassed influence and money. Everything and more than most dream of.
But the human animal is uncomfortable with contentment. He is ever toiling for improvement. But once in the twilight of life, he looks at what is the net worth of his life. What is achieved? What is left for his genetic prodigy?
What I now see - and see with the luxury of clarity that many are deprived of by our corporate media monolith that is more concerned with power than truth - is a dangerous slope ahead. One that would be very difficult to climb out of if we were to fall in. Why we continue going over the edge is my concern.
 




*(transcript is not word for word but an English adaptation. All effort has been taken to avoid paraphrasing yet present a readable English version of this exchange).

Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post and on this site is fiction. Any connection to real people or events is purely coincidental. This site is only for entertainment purposes.*