Here is another example of 132. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi (that which is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the ox).

1. We, the Oxen

A. Whistleblowers are… traitors?

Let’s see how this makes sense. Snowden is a traitor because he fled the country in the face of imminent arrest for treason. He committed treason by being a whistleblower who did not first ask permission to blow the whistle. And he revealed details that certain people claimed without proof to be harmful to America’s intelligence efforts.

There are just two problems with this story, the third one being that it appears on who, one would think, would know better.

  • The claim of profiting from criminal activity is not supported by any fact. It is the movie maker, not the subject of the movie, who stands to gain monetarily. And whether the story is true or not, whether the story is fiction or a documentary or not, whether a traitor is made into a hero or not, the movie maker has a First Amendment right to make a movie and to make it any way he likes. We the public have the right to ignore it and not pay to see it.
  • No media coverage ever provided even an illustration, let alone a list, of precisely what details Snowden revealed that are so harmful to the national security if they were made public, or how the revelations have been harmful to the national security after details have been revealed. Do you think some facts may be in order?

Anyone who’s ever watched the television series “NCIS” or “The Good Wife” or similar shows, has been exposed to an endless stream of examples of the databases kept by the government and private entities, and routinely accessed by investigators. If Snowden actually revealed anything, it was at worst a confirmation of what’s been common knowledge for a long time. No, not because of mistaking entertainment shows for documentaries, but because of common sense:

Anyone who’s ever looked the least bit into how the internet is designed, based on streams of packetized data, already knows that the technology not only lends itself to interception (“spying”) but in fact is deliberately designed to be that way. The internet was intended to assure communication without interference or interruption in wartime or peacetime. That goal is achieved by a surprisingly simple elegant design:

(1) A data stream (text, picture, voice, video) is broken up, packaged and sent as a series of packets (like a shipment of furniture, box 1 or 5, box 2 of 5, etc.). Every data packet carries identifiers such as source and destination addresses, the stream id, and the sequential number within a stream, so that packets arriving at the destination, even if out of order, could be reconstructed into the original message.

(2) Data packets may arrive at the destination out of order because packets may take different paths through the network. The network consists of a large number of nodes. A node is a server, the job of which is to receive (that is, save) packets and pass them on to other nodes. The internet would not, could not work otherwise. The internet was designed with great built-in redundancy in order to survive direct hits on its components in case of war, on the assumption that the enemy could not possibly hit every single node at the same time and therefore enough nodes would survive to maintain end-to-end communication. In peacetime the redundancy helps speed traffic because if one node is busy and ignores the incoming packets, another node would receive them and pass them on.

(3) A node is just a server which means it’s just another computer, and therefore it can do what any computer does; that is, store and analyze whatever it receives — hence the NSA, hackers, Wikileaks, etc. They can monitor you at the source, the destination, or anywhere in between.

So what’s really new here? I’m not telling you anything you can’t learn on Wikipedia, or deduce for yourself.

Simple logic dictates that, in the course of performing its legally assigned duties, the NSA most certainly has to intercept and look at every possible stream of data; all e-mails, phone calls and web searches before being able to decide who’s a terrorist. And of course they’d have to apply algorithms to decide which streams to look at and which to ignore, given the sheer volume of traffic; you absolutely have to automate the process as much as you can. You can’t be such an off-the-cliff libertarian as to deny that the NSA would not be able to do their job any other way.

The question may still be whether the NSA does or does not need to do this job. Assuming that the issue is settled and the answer is yes, it does, then the question is NOT how it gets its job done; the question is, always, how does the government use and misuse all that data?

B. It’s just good business?

A complementary side of the Snowden or Wikileaks story is that PRIVATE data aggregators such as Google, Amazon, FaceBook and others ROUTINELY have been doing the same job, or worse. They not only spy on and even censor your communications, but they also aggregate data from other sources, in order to “improve service” and “tailor it to customer needs.” And then it gets worse:
This Company Has Built a Profile on Every American Adult

  • all known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses; 
  • every piece of property ever bought or sold, plus related mortgages; 
  • past and present vehicles owned; 
  • criminal citations, from speeding tickets on up; 
  • voter registration; hunting permits; 
  • names and phone numbers of neighbors. 
  • photos of cars taken by private companies using automated license plate readers
  • which politicians you donate to, what you spend on groceries
  • snapshots tagged with GPS coordinates and time stamps
  • purchasing and behavioral data
  • The site also asked if I suffered from arthritis, asthma, diabetes, or depression

IDI, a year-old company in the so-called data-fusion business, is the first to centralize and weaponize all that information for its customers ….. it’s already built a profile on every American adult, including young people who wouldn’t be swept up in conventional databases, which only index transactions. “We have data on that 21-year-old who’s living at home with mom and dad,” ….. “The cloud never forgets, and imperfect pictures of you composed from your data profile are carefully filled in over time,”

The obvious question is, is Bloomberg also guilty of treason for publishing THIS article? Why not? This story is no different from Snowden’s or Wikileak’s, and in fact provides many more and far more frightening specific details.

2.  Jupiter  — Guess who?

The flip side to the story of the whistleblowers, leakers and the selective outrage and retaliation against them is, alas, who else but Clinton and her e-mails.

Oh, in this case, most certainly people DID die…

Cotton: Hillary Had Emails About Executed Nuclear Scientist in Iran

PRINCE: Clinton E-Mail ‘Very Likely’ Caused Scientist Execution…

State won’t discuss Clinton email link to Iran executing nuke scientist spy | Washington Examiner

Expert: Hillary Clinton’s Tech Initiative Spawned Russian Spying on US

Benghazi movie reignites ‘stand-down’ order debate – POLITICO

Just for the sake of completeness at the very least I also have to mention other cases such as General Petraeus and many lesser known people in civilian and military service who have been severely punished for security violations far less egregious than those committed deliberately and premeditatedly by Hillary. What would happen to you or me if we had done anything like that?

CLEARLY we are the oxen, and Hillary is the Jupiter around whom the media circled their wagons to protect her no matter what. What difference does it make now that there were a few victims, even if they were unimportant inconsequential people such as an ambassador, some special forces, or a nuclear physicist? It’s all for the greater good of electing HER as president.

3. How could we possibly leave Trump out of this?

In what amounts to a confession of massive confusion, people who should know better accuse Trump (of course) of inviting Russia to commit espionage… What’s wrong with THAT spin?

(1) The Russians don’t have to be told to do what they do anyway.

(2) Hacking into the DNC is NOT the same as hacking into the DOD, for the simple reason that the Democrat PARTY is NOT the same as the United States GOVERNMENT. 

(3) Of course, ASKING the Russians to SHARE what they’ve already got or we think they got — which is the only thing that Trump did —  is NOT the same as inviting them do more hacking and spying.

(4) And Trump did not ask them to leak the missing Clinton e-mails to HIM, he asked the Russians to make them PUBLIC.

(5) Or maybe the Russians did not do it? Assange Suggests Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks Source

Oh, but their hatred for Trump never fails to blind the #NeverTrumpers to simple facts.