How Spyware Reaches Oppressive Governments 109
New submitter blando writes "Between February and March of 2011, at the height of Egypt's tumultuous revolution, protesters stormed the offices of their feared State Security Investigations Service in Alexandria and Sixth of October city, on the edge of Cairo. It was there, amongst evidence of detentions, torture and surveillance at SSIS's headquarters, that information first came to light regarding a sales pitch by UK-based Gamma Group to Egypt's security agency for their FinFisher spyware."
Another revolution? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a depressing fact that oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, only to show that what they really wanted was just what the former rulers wanted: to oppress others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not *op*press, *de*press! (Score:3)
It's a depressing fact that oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, only to show that what they really wanted was just what the former rulers wanted: to oppress others.
When I heard news on the radio about the Egyptian elections, I was utterly baffled why they had elected Morrissey as their new President; I thought they must have taken a turn from oppression to depression.
Then I saw the headlines -- "Oh, Morsi , not Morrissey. Muslim Brotherhood, not Emo. That makes more sense."
:-P
Re: (Score:3)
Except no one really believes the MB is in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Except no one really believes the MB is in charge.
Well, except for the MB and the Egyptians, that is.
But what do they know, right?
Strat
When audiences do the selling. (Score:1)
It was there, amongst evidence of detentions, torture and surveillance at SSIS's headquarters, that information first came to light regarding a sales pitch by UK-based Gamma Group to Egypt's security agency for their FinFisher spyware.
So what you're saying is that companies should adopt the same ethics as the reading audience and allow or deny selling based upon that?
Re:When audiences do the selling. (Score:4, Informative)
So what you're saying is that companies should adopt the same ethics as the reading audience ...
How about we individuals adopt the same valueless ethics in our dealings with them for as long as it takes us to take them down? We can then go back to treating other individuals with the respect they deserve. Whatever works? It's basic game theory. I'll treat you like !@#$ until you stop treating me like !@#$, ...
Re:When audiences do the selling. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The "I'll treat you like !@#$ until you stop treating me like !@#$" theory of life simply results in a whole lot more !@#$ ...
No it doesn't. The theory is:
i) First chance, treat them nice.
ii) If they treat you shitilly back, treat them shitilly back.
iii) In theory, they get sick of being treated shitilly at which point they treat you nice, at which point you treat them nice.
That Russian dog figured this out (Cf. Pavlov). Humans ought to be able to too. Yeah, that's kind of tangential, but it sounds nice.
But really, "I'll treat you like !@#$ until you stop treating me like !@#$" makes more sense than anything I've ever seen.
O
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck is !@#$?
Anything the !@#$ that you want it to be.
It reaches them like software reaches anyone else (Score:1)
How Spyware Reaches Oppressive Governments
It reaches them like software reaches anyone else.
(1) The source code is available.
(2) They buy the software.
(3) They pirate the software.
If (2) is not an option then they will go with (3) just like they do with any other piece of software.
Have sanctions and embargoes worked against such regimes? The ordinary person on the street may suffer from them but are these governments truly denied the things they want?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea of such sanctions is technically the bleed the populance dry to the point where they uprise against the regime, we see how well that worked in North Korea.
if you are capitalist in a western nation (Score:4, Insightful)
the fruits of your labors are made possible by, and are protected by, a certain set of ideals
it should not be legal that you be engaged in a business which actively undermines those ideals
you should have your business punished, fined, shut down, or, at best, you, asshole, should have to relocate your business to the kind of country that would use your products against you. if they don't like that idea, maybe they shouldn't be pedaling their products to tyrants
there is a line, that any company will face, when engaging in business in foreign lands with bad attitudes about fundamental human freedoms
if you cross that line, i, and others in your home country, will not forget it, and will not let you get off the hook for your championing of profits over principles that made your riches possible in the first place
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
cute, now what are you going to actually do about it?
yea ... thought so
Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation (Score:5, Funny)
i'm going to hide my name and lurk on internet forums and cast mindless negativity and hateful judgments at anyone who proposes anything concrete or positive in the world, without knowing anything about the person or what they are doing
what do you think? because i think a person like that is awesome
Re: (Score:2)
argh, now how am I going to get the cola-snot out of my keyboard?!
Re: (Score:2)
people have values and principles. if they believe in these values and principles, they enforce them. what happens next is world history, and a contest between values and principles plays out. the strongest values and principles win. these strongest values and principles are known to you as unicorns and ponies
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... the fruits of your labors are made possible by, and are protected by, a certain set of ideals ... it should not be legal that you be engaged in a business which actively undermines those ideals ... principles that made your riches possible in the first place
The ideals and principles that made the British wealthy were to oppress and exploit places like Egypt. So this particular British company seems to be perfectly aligned with those principles.
Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation (Score:5, Insightful)
some day, certain loudmouthed useless assholes will learn to judge nations as they currently behave, not as they behaved in ancient colonial or cold war history
let's put it this way: in the era of the british empire, whatever nation you are proud of, was doing nasty things you should be ashamed of. i know this for a certainty, because there exists no nation on this planet without a black stain on its past
therefore, randomly picking a dark era and judging a country entirely from that just makes you a useless asshole. because on the measure of a nation's past nasty behavior, all nations suck in this world
how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?
i know: crazy, wacky idea
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
if you took all of the economic spoils of the colonial era, of all of the european nations together, it would be a drop in the bucket of today's economy
additionally, this wealth dissipated very quickly over one or two generations. world war i and ii pretty much wasted it all, and then some
no: britain owes its current economic standing to its social values and political institutions that make current business ventures possible
economic might is a sum of current economic efforts and interests, and the values o
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
nothing you said refutes what i said. nothing you said supports the ridiculous idea of yours that britain's current riches is something they stole from a country they colonized over a century ago
just admit that one country is poor and another is rich because of a particular country's values. nothing more. nothing less. history matters not one damn bit. any country anywhere can adapt better values (or lose them) and therefore get richer (or poorer)
it is not a zero sum game, where one country is rich because
Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation (Score:5, Insightful)
how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?
For the same reason I never forget anything you've ever screwed up: It comes in handy when there's a fight and you need to lose. Granted, it's a dysfunctional way of doing things, but it's popularity remains unchallenged. If the British pipe up and say "Oi there, over there in the colonies, you sure ronnied that bit up!" we can just shout back "yeah, how's Palestine working out for you?" See? No different than a couple arguing... each side loads up on ammo, and blasts at the other until nobody, not even the participants has a clue what's going on. It's a convenient way of maintaining the status quo -- neither side loses face, and anyone with an emotional interest in the outcome will bury themselves in the rhetoric until exhausted. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
yes, the world is an awesome place when you bury yourself in hate and recrimination and resentment. the idea is to learn from history, not be trapped in it. i said it once, i'll say it again: find a country without a black stain and you will have a point. until them you are a useless whiner. everything you wrote tells us more about your own failed mentality than actual reality
Re:if you are capitalist in a homey nation (Score:4, Insightful)
So which "home country" should a multinational corporation be beholden to?
the proper question in today's world is what multinational corporation should your home country be beholden to?
i say this with sadness, not snark
Re: (Score:1)
Actually,
Why are companies immune to prosecution for this? The "botnet controller" gets prison time, Why doesn't "Finwhatever" get jail time - I don't see a difference between the two. They install the software without the permission and understanding of the owner and communicate for their own purposes. I mean, if a company installs this software on all of their computers, fine. But if an individual finds this software on their personal system, then the executive of the software company should be liable to
IBM and Nazi Germany (Score:5, Informative)
This has been going on for decades.
IBM assisted the Nazi Holocaust by providing the card reading/sorting technology which Nazi Germany used to locate and kill the ethnicities that the Germans wanted wiped out. (Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, etc.) "IBM's German subsidiary (was) known as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft"
The actual punch card code for each concentration camp were:
Auschwitz — 001; Buchenwald — 002; Dachau — 003; Flossenbürg — 004; Gross-Rosen — 005; Herzogenbusch — 006; Mauthausen — 007; Natzweiler — 008; Neuengamme — 009; Ravensbrück — 010; Sachsenhausen — 011; and Stutthoff — 012.
Re: (Score:3)
i've heard this.
one thing i've noticed in business, is you are seldom asked by a supplier what you would like the equipment for.
given it took a computer far more sophisticated than IBM's efforts at the time (and Alan Turing himself) to reveal just what the Godwins were doing, one could find a doubt that IBM could be given the benefit of.
just saying - i haven't researched the topic in depth, just seen it referred to in a documentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Just vague recollection here, but I seem to recall the german subsidiary solely designed it for this task. How much IBM proper knew, I'm not sure.
This type of profiteering is so common during war... Sweden sent bearings and the like to Britain, while at the same time shipping iron ore to Germany for their tanks, for example. No shame, I guess.
Re:IBM and Nazi Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Just vague recollection here, but I seem to recall the german subsidiary solely designed it for this task.
I think the opposite is true. The technology in question was developed for the US Census. Germany wanted such equipment for its own census. A census is a quite legitimate thing for a government to undertake. That this census information was useful in locating jews was tragic, but it seems a misuse of the data.
From the wiki article the GP cites: "Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."
Re: (Score:2)
How much IBM proper knew, I'm not sure.
Good point. Even some German companies didn't know what their stuff was being used for...
Thomas Watson (chairman and CEO) actually went to Germany in 1933 to assist on the deal. We will probably never know how much IBM knew.
Re: (Score:3)
They're obviously in alphabetical order.
Re: (Score:2)
Something seems odd in your post, the reported numbering. Ordered more for historical notoriety? Dachau as #3, it was up and running in the early 1930s. Auschwitz as #1, it was in Poland so its obvious from the war period.
I would guess the card implementation happened after all the camps were up and running (or at least this particular coding). That's how they were able to keep it in alphabetical order.
Re:IBM and Nazi Germany (Score:4, Informative)
But that goes in all directions. Germans were killed using German-made guns and ammo, Americans were killed by Germans using American-made guns and ammo. As a matter of fact, most of the companies that are still around today had some kind of hand in the atrocities of WWII (which was on all sides, concentration camps were in the UK, US, Japan, Russia as well as Germany). Just to throw some names around who were on all sides: Krupp (sold weapons on both sides), IBM, Kodak, Hugo Boss (clothiers), JPMorgan, Chase, Goldman Sachs, Ford, Bayer, Iveco (truck manufacturer, delivered portable gas chambers), Coca-Cola, Standard Oil, Boeing, Mitsubishi.
In the end, the only people benefiting from war are the corporations that sell the goods.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM made small arms for the American side. M1 carbines, IIRC... among other things.
If the nazis did one thing right, partnering with hugo boss might have been it. As much as I hate fascists, I have to admit that the black SS uniforms looked pretty sharp.
But yeah, war is a racket. Even the cold war, 'humanitarian missions' and non-war are big money for the military industrial complex. Wonder what sort of ROI they get on their lobby dollars.
Quite the setup... Unless of course, you're the taxpayer footing the
Re: (Score:3)
IBM made small arms for the American side. M1 carbines, IIRC... among other things.
If the nazis did one thing right, partnering with hugo boss might have been it. As much as I hate fascists, I have to admit that the black SS uniforms looked pretty sharp.
But yeah, war is a racket. Even the cold war, 'humanitarian missions' and non-war are big money for the military industrial complex. Wonder what sort of ROI they get on their lobby dollars.
Quite the setup... Unless of course, you're the taxpayer footing the bill.
Great post. Of course, this went on constantly in almost every conflict. During WWII we were selling scrap metal to Japan.
My point was only about how technology and tyrants have been in bed from the beginning.
Great reference to "War Is A Racket." For those of you who've never read it, it's a brilliant skewering of the military industrial complex, before the term even existed.
Written by a U.S. Marine Corps Major General, who received the Medal of Honor twice, and the only man to be awarded the Brevet Medal
Re: (Score:3)
"concentration camps were in the UK, US, Japan, Russia as well as Germany"
uh... the germans had extermination camps for the purpose of mass murder of millions. other countries had internment camps. small difference (as in, a sarcastic way of saying really fucking huge difference)
i'm not excusing the usa's treatment of japanese americans, for example. but i am saying equating camps like those in the same breath with germany's killing machine is pretty lame. the germans were purposefully engaged in the system
IBM were HINDERING Nazi Germany (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone whose used IBM kit knows that actually they were trying to HINDER Nazi Germany by slowing down the efficient Germans with business speak and Business Process Gurus.
They almost succeeded too, if only they'd held that last six sigma analysis pre-meeting agenda discussion review, they'd have made it through the war!
Have you ever heard of any project IBM has been involved in, that actually HELPED the customer???? ...QED.
Re:IBM and Nazi Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
In hindsight, it's easy to see what they were doing was wrong. At the time, not so much.
Here, it would have been easy to see it is wrong before they did it.
When Putin started seizing control of the newly-free media, he hired a US firm to manage them. Another proud moment.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dachau concentration camp in Germany was created in 1933 whereas Auschwitz in occupied Poland was not built until 1941.
How did the Germans know in advance that Dachau should be given code '003' to leave room for two camp names that preceded it based on alphabetical order?
Re: (Score:2)
(Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, etc.)
Not Catholics. Most Nazis were Catholics, at least nominally. You're probably thinking of Jehova's Witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets confusing...
Hitler himself claimed to be a good Catholic, but just at Dachau they had almost 2,600 Catholic priests, deacons, and bishops imprisoned then killed.
Overall they killed Jews (6,200,000), Poles (2,000,000), the disabled (including children) (250,000), Ukrainian children (8,000), Slavs (25,000), Gays (15,000), Romani (1,500,000), blacks (25,000), pacifists, Belarus (1,670,000), Communists, Soviet POWs (3,000,000), U.S. POWs (2,038), Catholic priests, monks, nuns, lay brothers and seminaria
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time a disproportionate number of nazi leaders were catholics (about 46% versus 32% in the general population, source: http://www.luebeck-kunterbunt.de/TOP100/Nazi-Katholiken.htm [luebeck-kunterbunt.de], article in German). So it seems that the priests killed in Dachau were people who were following their convictions and the teachings of the bible instead of the Vatican, apparently the first "country" to officially recognize Hitler's regime (source: http://www.theologe.de/katholische-kirche_holocaust.htm [theologe.de], also in German).
...along, of course, with the current pope, Ratzinger, who served under Hitler in the German army.
Stalin once said ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno if Stalin did said the following or not, nevertheless, it does sound valid for this case
Stalin once said: " A Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with. "
The creation of spyware and the selling that spyware to governments will only end up with all people in all countries being denied their basic human rights - including England, where the maker of the spyware, the Gamma Group, originated from
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, this is the exact quote I had in mind when reading the summary.
Typical cancer, putting profit over all else. Same folks that run the west, more or less. And people wonder why it's getting harder to get by...
Re:Stalin once said ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...
Capitalism is neither good nor evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...
Yes, "profit over all else" is one of the cornerstones of free market capitalism, but you have to remember that capitalism is neither good nor evil.
For the situation at hand, it would appear that, at the time Gamma Group made the sales pitch:
1) There was a possibility of short-term profit
2) There was a fair likelihood that the sale would not be discovered
3) If discovered, there was a fair likelihood that it would be so far in the future that the persons responsible would be unaccountable
4) Well-connected companies tend to get lenient, slap-on-the-wrist penalties anyway
It is not capitalism per-se which is the problem here, it is items 2 through 4 which allows capitalism to be used for immoral ends. If we really value morality over profit, then we should strongly discourage immoral acts which use capitalism as a tool.
We don't. Blaming capitalism is avoiding the real issue, which is that morality is more important than capitalism (or rather, it should be).
It's like the old adage - any technology can be used for both good or evil.
Re:Capitalism is neither good nor evil (Score:4, Insightful)
"capitalism is neither good nor evil." says the capitalist who wishes to keep sleeping at night without having to even think about the effect of his/her way of life on his fellow man and the planet as a whole.
And that capitalist is right. Let us not forget that the bullshit about holistic thinking is another pseudo-moralistic gimmick. It's an easy way to introduce fairly unprovable statements into an argument.
But it's worth noting that when one actually attempts the exercise, one sees that the rest of the world has seen a remarkable rise in standard of living and wealth, not just for their wealth, but for the rest as well. Capitalism and global trade are far more likely to be responsible for that.
Everything from the consumption of resources to the concentration of wealth is both inequitable and distorting of politics and world trade to the detriment of every country and individual in those countries that happen to not be at the top of the chain.
To the contrary. A lot of those effects from those who claim to be "fixing" capitalism. If there's a lot of regulation, then the big company that can navigate the regulation (say by have a huge legal staff for doing so) and bribe the right people, is going to fare better than the small company that can't.
Distorting politics and world trade? There's a ton of single issue voters out there doing a far better job of political distortion than any bribe. Distorting world trade? That's a traditionally anti-free market job.
You view the capitalism as it stands is not evil either means you are at the top or the crumbs that fall from the table of those that are have left you smug and contented and intentionally blinkered, (just like me.)
And the traditional whining about crumbs from tables. Until you can make those "crumbs" yourself, you'll always be subservient to those who can. It doesn't help your case that all those attempts to regulate and constrain businesses also make it harder to make your own "crumb".
Frankly, I think this is a disease that is mostly a result of the attempted cure rather than of capitalism.
Re:Capitalism is neither good nor evil (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's worth noting that when one actually attempts the exercise, one sees that the rest of the world has seen a remarkable rise in standard of living and wealth, not just for their wealth, but for the rest as well. Capitalism and global trade are far more likely to be responsible for that.
You must be referring to the way that capitalism led to a cure for polio. Except that it did not, and Jonas Salk gave the cure away to improve the world. In fact, the improvements in standards of living around the world have more to do with the hard work of scientists and engineers than with capitalism.
No, capitalism did not pay for that research; capitalism is bad at paying for long-term projects that have no clear or immediate profitability. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs that have really improved the standard of living in the world -- cures for diseases, better ways to grow food, etc. -- were paid for either with tax money or with some private endowment/gift money.
A lot of those effects from those who claim to be "fixing" capitalism.
No, those are the effects of unregulated capitalism. Unless you think that everyone is equally ruthless, intelligent, educated, and that they have equal amounts of capital, the "little guy" is going to be crushed by the "big guys" in an unregulated market. That is why, every so often, we break up monopolies (though lately we seem to be forgetting to do that): so that we can reset the market and start the competition again.
If there's a lot of regulation, then the big company that can navigate the regulation (say by have a huge legal staff for doing so) and bribe the right people, is going to fare better than the small company that can't.
If there is no regulation, the big company will crush the little company by selling its products/services at a loss until the little company has no customers left. The big company will also offer grossly inflated salaries to the most intelligent people at the little company. The big company will make deals with other big companies, to lock the little company out of the market.
That is what happens when one player has vastly more capital than the rest.
Until you can make those "crumbs" yourself, you'll always be subservient to those who can
That's funny, because in capitalism, the people who bake the bread are usually subservient to the people who own the oven. The winners in capitalism are those with capital, not the scientists and engineers who solve societies problems and not the workers who put those solutions into action.
Frankly, I think this is a disease that is mostly a result of the attempted cure rather than of capitalism.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the regulations we placed on businesses stopped child laborers from being killed and maimed, gave smaller, more innovative businesses an opportunity to compete, and raised our standard of living.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be referring to the way that capitalism led to a cure for polio. Except that it did not, and Jonas Salk gave the cure away to improve the world. In fact, the improvements in standards of living around the world have more to do with the hard work of scientists and engineers than with capitalism.
As the AC replier noted [slashdot.org], the money for researching polio didn't come out of thin air. It came from taxes on a capitalist system or from capitalist actions such as private endowments and gift money (keep in mind that the definition of capitalism is private ownership of capital and one consequence of that is the ability to gift that capital to causes of your own choosing).
And such was the case with the Salk vaccine for polio. The research was originally funded by the National Foundation for Infant Paralysi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stalin once said ... (Score:5, Informative)
isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism?
No, at least not according to Adam Smith. As with all ideologies practice can vary considerably from the theory. I would guess that not many people who read The Wealth of Nations take the time to first read The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and presumably can not then understand the context it was written in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments [wikipedia.org]
The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith. It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be. Heard an interview with the chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band, http://oibdc.ca/ [oibdc.ca] One of the most successful bands in Canada and probably N. America. Philosophy was simple, jobs first. They're running a bunch of successful profitable businesses and everyone in the band has a good job as well as a few hundred people outside the band.
Take away the sociopaths (and committees which seem to be social-pathetic be definition) and Capitalism would be really wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reasons our comments have disappeared !!
I've tried to access the story at slashdot - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/10/0245230/how-spyware-reaches-oppressive-governments [slashdot.org] - and still can't find your comment nor mine !!
Democracy as a permanent form of gov't (Score:1)
Corporations have royally f'd up some things but its harder to get by largely due to gov't actions not corporate actions. Of course politicians would like you to believe otherwise.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury
Re:Democracy as a permanent form of gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
The rich took over the govn't, and then voted to quit taxing themselves and their interests. They even voted to bail out their companies on the backs of middle class citizens. Is that what you are referring to?
Because it sounds to me like you are implying social programs are bleeding us dry, which is a joke. Drop in the bucket.
Re: (Score:1)
"on the backs of middle class citizens", because that's not who pays the taxes.
if you mean the middle class doesn't pay it's share of taxes, you are wrong.
-citation [taxfoundation.org]
If we're talking about the 99% vs 1%, the 99% is paying a close to 2/3 of the taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collpases over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."
This inevitable outcome sure seems to take a long time in coming. The US has been a democracy for over 200 years, the UK for over 300. Both are still going quite strong, and are nowhere near collapse and dictatorship. Heck, the Iroquois Nations were a democracy for something like 800 years up until the Brits and the French and the Dutch showed up and ruined things.
As it turns out, the mere fact that a given quote is oft repeated doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has been a democracy for over 200 years
This is incorrect.
The US is a representative republic not a democracy, and designed intentionally so, precisely for the reasons outlined in that quote.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The person who posted the quote was clearly implying that western democracies (e.g. the US and the UK) are faltering because people have "voted themselves largess from the treasury" in the form of social programs.
Your pedantic focus on the differences between republics and democracies is irrelevant.
No, you're not going far enough back in the thread. The original posit was that US politicians used promises of government entitlement programs and other such to buy votes. From there it descended into blaming democracy, which is incorrect.
I mean, if you want to have a discussion without regard to facts or history, we could always talk about how admirably honest politicians are and how Germany won WW2.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Then you made the irrelevant comment that technically the US is a republic, and therefore the quote used by the person talking about politicians buying votes was accurate.
This is where the confusion exists. The politicians buying votes is accurate, but it's not because of democracy, as the US is not and has never been a democracy.
Then I pointed out that clearly that person has meant his definition of "democracy" to include the American system of government.
Which is incorrect as I stated.
We may actually be agreeing, just experiencing semantic confusion.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Stop splitting hairs, there are very few democracies in the world if you are going to stick to Pluto's definition.
There is a list of countries that are considered to be democracies, I only looked at about half the list but they are pretty much all contitutional monarchys or republics. Pepper those terms with "parliamentary" and "presidental" and you cover the lot of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Stop splitting hairs, there are very few democracies in the world if you are going to stick to Pluto's definition.
Words and their meanings matter. They are what carry ideas from one mind to another. Without definite and common word meanings there can be no meaningful or productive dialog possible, because ideas are not communicated accurately. Much propaganda and political rhetoric used to deceive and distract depends on taking advantage of and promoting such distortion in communication between people.
There are many that advocate for and believe that a democracy is the best system of government, and others that seek to
Re: (Score:2)
Strat, you don't need to sign your posts. Your username appears in the header of each post.
If you do want to sign your post, please use a sig, because my settings have the sigs turned off.
Thanks, I'll see about adding my sig along with signing my posts in the text area, just to annoy you.
Strat
Modern Progressivism & Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
Re:Stalin once said ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that those pursuing profits tend to operate a greedy algorithm [wikipedia.org]. They're constantly chasing after short term goals (local optima) at the expense of long term benefits (global optima). You see this at every level of government & corporations where they chase quarterly targets without ever considering that something that might be hugely beneficial in the future may cause pain in the short term.
It's a sad state of affairs when we've spent decades formulating non-greedy algorithms in machine learning when the real world is full of people who operate in a greedy manner. If you ever needed evidence that humanity is doomed come the robot revolution ...
Total non sequitur (Score:2)