Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 08:14 AM Nov 2013

Mistaking Omniscience for Omnipotence

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/12-1



The Eye of Sauron could "see all" but it was not, as it turned out, all powerful. "If we live in an era of no privacy," writes Engelhardt, "there are no exemptions; if, that is, it’s an age of no-privacy for us, then it’s an age of no-privacy for them, too."

Mistaking Omniscience for Omnipotence
by Tom Engelhardt
Published on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 by TomDispatch.com

Given how similar they sound and how easy it is to imagine one leading to the other, confusing omniscience (having total knowledge) with omnipotence (having total power) is easy enough. It’s a reasonable supposition that, before the Snowden revelations hit, America’s spymasters had made just that mistake. If the drip-drip-drip of Snowden’s mother of all leaks -- which began in May and clearly won’t stop for months to come -- has taught us anything, however, it should be this: omniscience is not omnipotence. At least on the global political scene today, they may bear remarkably little relation to each other. In fact, at the moment Washington seems to be operating in a world in which the more you know about the secret lives of others, the less powerful you turn out to be.

Let’s begin by positing this: There’s never been anything quite like it. The slow-tease pulling back of the National Security Agency curtain to reveal the skeletal surveillance structure embedded in our planet (what cheekbones!) has been an epochal event. It’s minimally the political spectacle of 2013, and maybe 2014, too. It’s made a mockery of the 24/7 news cycle and the urge of the media to leave the last big deal for the next big deal as quickly as possible.

It’s visibly changed attitudes around the world toward the U.S. -- strikingly for the worse, even if this hasn’t fully sunk in here yet. Domestically, the inability to put the issue to sleep or tuck it away somewhere or even outlast it has left the Obama administration, Congress, and the intelligence community increasingly at one another’s throats. And somewhere in a system made for leaks, there are young techies inside a surveillance machine so viscerally appalling, so like the worst sci-fi scenarios they read while growing up, that -- no matter the penalties -- one of them, two of them, many of them are likely to become the next Edward Snowden(s).

So where to start, almost half a year into an unfolding crisis of surveillance that shows no signs of ending? If you think of this as a scorecard, then the place to begin is, of course, with the line-up, which means starting with omniscience. After all, that’s the NSA’s genuine success story -- and what kid doesn’t enjoy hearing about the (not so) little engine that could?
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mistaking Omniscience for Omnipotence (Original Post) unhappycamper Nov 2013 OP
Yes, exactly. bemildred Nov 2013 #1

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
1. Yes, exactly.
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 09:13 AM
Nov 2013

Collecting a big pile of data is easy, and useless. I've lost count of the times I've tried to explain to the products of our business schools that when it comes to data, more is not better. Just what you need just the way you need it is better. But that is a much harder problem.

They never get it, and they are always "stunned" when their acquisitive fantasy collapses around their ears. They think you can just buy anything, and quantity is the measure of success.

As Englehardt says, all you have to do is look at US History since WWII and it becomes clear that our national security "leaders" have been quite unsuccessful, unless one defines success as spending boatloads of money to accomplish one of the shortest imperial declines in recent memory, 50 years flat (1963-2013).

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Mistaking Omniscience for...