Eric Schmidt, war crimes apologist and colossal hypocrite

[Cowicide]

Judging from the article title, which you and I know is the only part of the article that 95% of people read, you wouldn’t know it was about other sillicon valley players: EXCLUSIVE: EMAILS REVEAL CLOSE GOOGLE RELATIONSHIP WITH NSA

Now it appears you’re going to blame the journalists because (according to you) a whopping 95% of the public doesn’t RTFA?

The journalists didn’t get ahold of emails from other silicon valley players. They got email exchanges from Google and the NSA.

And, despite that, they still mention the others in the very first paragraph that you previously ignored until I corrected you… and now here you are disingenuously trying to shift the goal posts away from that fact yet again by shifting to a focus on the headline (which is accurate despite your derisions for it).

They aren’t public relations for Google. There’s no need to create a massively long headline in order to coddle Google. The mention of others in the very first paragraph and throughout the rest of the article is quite enough.

It’s not a defence of Google it’s an assault on journalists

Which, in my opinion, is a distraction from the point I made about Google in context of Cory’s post. You want to derail the thread and talk about anything except Google’s infractions and point at others instead. And, frankly, it’s obvious.

[jsroberts]

@doctorow

We believe, however, that this is a dangerous model, especially given that there is always going to be someone with bad judgment who releases information that will get people killed. This is why governments have systems and valuable regulations in place that, while imperfect, should continue to govern who gets to make the decision about what is classified and what is not.”

From a risk management perspective, you can’t discount the possibility that revealing classified information will have these effects, even if the whistle-blower has no intention of doing this. A large government like the USA will have many people that are in a vulnerable position if information about them is shared. So, if it’s a significant threat, you’d expect some evidence of people being killed or put at risk by Manning or Snowden’s leaks, or by those of other whistle-blowers in the past.

On the other hand, what is the risk of this secrecy being used to cover up war crimes or other actions that deserve to be known and criticized by the American people or the international community? What is the risk that this culture of secrecy could be used to undermine the democratic process or destroy people’s lives without fear of consequences? Where you are comparing people’s lives who could be destroyed by either model, should those of government employees who willingly placed themselves in a risky situation and are protected by the US government be valued higher than those of civilians who have their lives destroyed by a drone stroke based on faulty information? Do the people involved in making that faulty call deserve protection from criticism or even a diplomatic incident? Should the strategic value of the information be placed so highly that there is no consideration for the idea that an employee might find cover ups morally repugnant enough to require its release? Of the two models, only one seems to be struggling to find evidence to support its claims, despite the fact that it is also the side with all the information.

[dacree]

I was kind of hoping someone would actually make the links. I don’t like Schmidt and was hoping for a good reason to call him a war crimes apologist.

I’m aware of the leaks you mentioned but I’m not sure they demonstrate clear evidence that Schmidt was in possession of any knowledge about war crimes which were covered up by state secrets. It’s just as possible that this guy lives in a bubble (which it kind of seems like he does) and was therefor unaware of war crimes being covered up by the use of state secrets.

[anon50609448]

@dacree

It’s just as possible that this guy lives in a bubble (which it kind of seems like he does) and was therefor unaware of war crimes being covered up by the use of state secrets.

That was my take. There are a lot of kinds of “unaware.” I think there is a good chance that George Bush was, in a sense, unaware of the torture of detainees. He ought to have been aware, and he certainly had all the information he needed about it to be aware. But addicts are often unaware of their own drinking/drug/gambling problems. People are unaware that they are in love with other people. It’s amazing what people can be unaware of.

Few people are Machiavellian, and pretty much everyone is no smarter than slime mold. A war crimes apologist is someone who actually offers a defence of war crimes. I don’t like going into war-crimes-apologist-by-implication.

[chenille]

@anon50609448

Few people are Machiavellian, and pretty much everyone is no smarter than slime mold.

Somewhere between Machiavellian and unaware, though, is being actively indifferent to a problem. That often goes with being hostile to the people who would have you care, and that seems to be the ground many apologists for things from war crimes to environmental damage spring from.

[Cowicide]

I’m aware of the leaks you mentioned but I’m not sure they demonstrate clear evidence that Schmidt was in possession of any knowledge about war crimes which were covered up by state secrets.

I don’t think that was the point of referring to Schmidt as a war crimes apologist. The war crimes were already public knowledge before Schmidt decided to focus his spite against whistleblowers and cozy up with war criminal Condoleezza Rice in the process.

Does war criminal apologist have a better ring to it?

When someone in Schmidt’s position pushes aside the good that whistleblowers do in exposing war crimes and instead claims that the whistleblowers themselves are the problem, that’s a pretty damn good apologist and/or enabler for future war crimes.

I mean, we’re talking about war crimes here. People have suffered from torture, died and the crimes have made our nation weaker and less safe in the world because of it… and this asshat is angsty on the messengers instead of the actual war crimes.

If war crimes apologist is too strong of a word, then I would suggest “megalomaniacal, securitocracy lapdog”, but it just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

I also have another suggestion, maybe we should all focus more of our angst on those who enable war crimes instead of those who call them out on it? All this angst for Cory who has actually stood up against war crimes while there so much focus on the fragile sensibilities of a megalomaniac who disparages those who exposed said war crimes.

Some priorities are incredibly out of whack here.

And, maybe it’s about fucking time we start backing our whistleblowers instead of rushing to defend powerful, embedded people like Schmidt who disparage them?

Speaking of priorities, ust something to mull over (an oldy but a goody)… this is how we got here:

How to create an Angry American

And, please do notice Eric Schmidt’s buddy, Condi Rice (war criminal), in the video…

[teapot]

And all you want to do is rail on google. It’s getting old bro.

@Cowicide
I’d actually typed a whole response but it was snarky so I deleted it all as I refuse to participate in stooping to your level of personal insults to score points.

I expect your anti-google cheer squad to continue but it’s kind of fun to watch anyway since it’s not like they’re going away any time soon and your crusade to convince us all that they’re evil and dangerous is going to have precisely no effect on anyone.

[Cowicide]

I accept your defeat.

In response to your ninja-edit:

I refuse to participate in stooping to your level of personal insults to score points.

Please stop projecting.

it’s not like they’re going away any time soon and your crusade to convince us all that they’re evil and dangerous is going to have precisely no effect on anyone.

Like I said, I accept your defeat. When you don’t have a good argument to support yourself resort to attacking me instead. Unfortunately for you and Google, spreading information about their misdeeds is working against them and will continue to do so despite naysayers like yourself.

Your shilling for Google is getting old, bro.

[Cowicide]

Speaking of Google…

Google has most of my email because it has all of yours

Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours

FTA:

… A few years ago, I was surprised to find out that my friend Peter Eckersley — a very privacy conscious friend who is Technology Projects Director at the EFF — used GMail. I asked him why he would willingly give Google copies of all his email. Peter pointed out that if all of your friends use GMail, Google has your email anyway. Any time I email somebody who uses GMail — and anytime they email me — Google has that email.

Since our conversation, I have often wondered just how much of my email Google really has. This weekend, I wrote a small program to go through all the email I have kept in my personal inbox since April 2004 (when GMail was started) to find out. …

Read more