Surveillance forces journalists to think and act like spies

[guninski@guninski.com (Georgi Guninski)]

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 04:55:23PM -0400, dan@geer.org wrote:
>  | You appear to assume the intelligence community is
>  | "independent", which appears false to me.
>  | 
>  | IMHO the intelligence community have boss/es outside
>  | of it, which are definitely not poor.
>  | 
>  | Pretty sure this is true for Bulgaria (member of EU).
>  | 
>  | The intelligence community is just a tool, like an
>  | admin is.
>  | 
>  | Maybe our definitions of "rich" differ.
> 
> 
> Here, as everywhere, in a public policy document or debate
> it is all over after the definitions page.  The rest is
> mere mechanics.  Perhaps we do need to hash out what rich
> means though on a whole-world scale the majority of the
> readers of this list are at the top of the heap.  The (my)
> speech I cited is what I had to say on the record, and is
> the best that I've (currently) got; I'll revisit when time
> permits.  Here, though, is Paul Krugman in a similar vein
> three weeks ago today:
> 
> [PK] Paul Krugman, "Apple and the Self-Surveillance State," New
> York Times, 10 April 2015
> krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/apple-and-the-self-surveillance-state
> 
> --dan

Definitions depend on context.
You mix "rich" and "intelligence" in one sentence --
in this context the majority/almost all of this list is likely
not rich, though they may have sufficiently money.

Also "intelligence community" appears non-standard definition.

Intelligence is military organization -- soldiers follow
orders depending on their rank. This is not the civil
definition of "community", maybe unless you consider
Obama "community of one".