We’re back on the self-publishing beat today…In today’s episode, you’re going to learn about two fantastic services you should consider if you’re self-publishing a book.Even if you’re not writing a book, if you’re an avid reader you’ll love these websites too. They’re how you can find some of the world’s best “hidden” authors in the […]
Is Democracy really all its cracked up to be? Does Hong Kong really need it? That’s the question Chris Campbell ponders today as he observes the protests in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has enjoyed low taxes, free business and trade, and high social freedom without our favored system of governing.
The government is on a mad race to create a vaccine for Ebola. What they aren’t telling you is that, in 2003, they may have found a way to beat it naturally. According to one unclassified government document, this little-known plant beat Ebola 90% of the time. Why isn’t the government developing it? Read on…
The mainstream media has been complacent in reporting the truth about Ebola. They’re not telling the truth about how dangerous the Ebola situation really is. Because of this, millions of lives are at risk. Inside today’s Laissez Faire Today, learn what the mainstream should be telling you about how to protect yourself in the case of an outbreak in the United States. Read on…
Writing a book? Chris Campbell shows you three secrets to successfully self-publishing. Secrets including, how to get a professional-looking cover for as little as $5… how to format your book to get people to love it and buy your next one… and how to market your book to hundreds of thousands of people -- absolutely free. Read on…
One CIA insider visited our Baltimore HQ yesterday. While here, he leaked 30 potential events to cause the next financial avalanche. Even more, he also gave us several ways everyday Americans can thrive because of these events. Why did he impart so much valuable information? Find out in today’s Laissez Faire Today. Read on…
Instead of letting you choose, the government has found it fit to force one potentially dangerous medication on you and your family. Where is it? In your drinking water. Even more outrageous: While Uncle Sam forces medication down your throat, he also says you have no right to choose your own milk. Chris Campbell has all the details. Read on…
ISIS’ spokesperson is a kid from Calgary who wants to “paint the White House black.” In today’s Laissez Faire Today, Chris Campbell asks one question none of the “officials” seem to care to ask: Why? Why are foreigners flocking to the Middle East to fight alongside ISIS? Why is Saudi Arabia so keen on getting involved? How far does Obama really want to go? Find out inside. Read on…
If you’ve ever wanted to expose some heinous crime against humanity, here’s your chance. In today’s Laissez Faire Today, Chris Campbell shows you how to make sure the world accesses to your leaks, even if something happens to you. Chris also shares why this is probably a terrible idea. Read on…
America has about 4% of the world’s population, yet houses 25% of the world’s incarcerated. What’s going on here? Chris Campbell digs deep into the industry to figure out the truth. While many blame the private prison industry, the real culprit, says Chris, begins right outside your door. Read on…
When Obama first announced U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, most people have no idea that it was to destroy U.S. military equipment in the hands of ISIS. How did ISIS get U.S. weapons? Chris Campbell blows the story wide open in today’s Laissez Faire Today. Read on…
Every 37 seconds, an American is arrested and criminalized because of one racist and ridiculous law. Join Chris Campbell as he takes you back to when marijuana became illegal… why it’s hurting America… and why you should fight to end the prohibition. And it’s not so you can smoke it. Read on…
An ancient guide has been in hiding… until now. As it dusts itself off, some early adopters are calling it “the definitive text on self-discipline, personal ethics, humility, self-actualization and strength.” And, according to Chris Campbell, it could be the only thing you need to thrive in our day-to-day life of modern chaos. Embrace it, and become the hero of your own story. Ignore it, and risk living a whimper of a life on someone else’s terms. Read on…
Think it’s impossible to escape Obamacare? Think again. Laissez Faire Today reader David F. shares how he did it and how you can do it too. Don’t see another doctor, take another pill, or shop around for better medical insurance until you read his story. Read on…
“What… is… that?!”That’s what one colleague asked when she saw this on my desk…My face, according to 3-D printing“My face,” I said. “What does it look like?”“Uh…”OK, sure. It’s a rough depiction. Eh. It’s pretty choppy…And, as you can see, the glasses didn’t really take well… making for an eerie sunken eye look.Didn’t really turn […]
“While I heartily subscribe to your premise of pursuing one’s dream,” one reader, Donald J., wrote, “there are alternate perspectives worth considering.”[We’re listening… go on.]“Some wiseguy once said that life is what happens to you while you’re waiting for something better to come along. Milton put it a little more poetically in one of his […]
“Where were you when it happened?” How many times have we been asked -- and asked -- this question since 2001? Today, Chris Campbell asks us to pose a different question: What can I do today to making Sept. 11 another turning point in my life? And then, of course, taking that first step. Read on…
Chris Campbell got more than he bargained for during Sunday brunch. In a packed restaurant, he learned about a hidden sex boom that’s taking the world by storm. You won’t believe how much money ordinary Americans are making in this boom. It’s so much…you may even consider cashing in yourself.
“Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out.” — Oscar WildeIn the wacky world of American politics, if you as an employer have a religious objection to paying for your employees’ contraceptives, it is you who is contemptuous of religious freedom.As the New York Times editorial board lectured a judge who thinks otherwise, “the […]
Socialism is the big lie of the 20th century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may […]
Six months ago, I stepped out from the shadows of the United States Government’s National Security Agency to stand in front of a journalist’s camera. I shared with the world evidence proving some governments are building a worldwide surveillance system to secretly track how we live, who we talk to, and what we say. I […]
I opened a new bottle of probiotics this morning, and it had one of those circular seals on the top. You know, the one that reads, “Sealed for your protection.”And that seal got me thinking… how much protection do we need? How much security is enough?How much homogenization, pasteurization, disinfection, national security, etc…. do we […]
Last spring, Barack Obama told the graduating class of Ohio State University:“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems… They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because […]
In the Huffington Post last week, Glenn Greenwald, Slate contributor Ryan Gallagher, and Ryan Grim had an investigative piece reporting that the NSA had been tracking the online porn-viewing habits of several Muslim leaders whom it viewed as radicals. A top-secret document shows that the agency was considering exposing these firebrands’ Internet dalliances as a […]
Americans are still trying to get a handle on the full extent of the government’s domestic spying activities, including the recent revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting and storing the email address books of ordinary Americans using online messaging services. Many users of such services are looking to tech executives for […]
A few months ago at a demonstration against the president of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, a Canadian citizen made the following claim: “We don’t have guns, we are not Americans, we are civilized.” A few days before, in early July, a train of the company had run away and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing […]
From the Tongue-In-Cheek Department of Laissez Faire Books…Washington, D.C. — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced that her committee will hold a “major review into all intelligence-collection programs.” This surprising declaration followed the revelation, through documents leaked by government whistle-blower Edward Snowden, that the NSA has been listening to the […]
Three months after Edward Snowden’s leaks began to reveal the extent of the U.S.’ mass surveillance program, “serious people” are beginning to make the case that it’s time for the outrage and indignation to subside and give way to a “national conversation” about the future of surveillance. So has the moment come for us to consider how much surveillance we can accept?
The national debate we’re supposed to have is routinely framed as one about choosing how much privacy and liberty to give up in exchange for security, not about whether such a trade-off is necessary at all.
“It’s important to understand that you can’t have 100% security and then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society,” President Obama has said. And echoing him, former NSA director Michael Hayden last month said, “The question is how much of your privacy and your convenience and your commerce do you want your nation’s security apparatus to squeeze in order to keep you safe. And it is a choice that we have to make.”
But do we really have to make that choice? When he was running for president, Obama criticized the Bush administration for “putting forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide” when it came to illegal wiretapping. Civil libertarians tend to agree with Sen. Obama, which is why we have not been interested in engaging in compromise. Instead, we’re more interested in addressing the abuses that have been revealed, and in ending the bulk collection of data, as Reps. Amash and Conyers and Sens. Wyden and Udall have suggested.
To many in the intelligentsia, though, those are not “serious proposals” worthy of our “national conversation.” Because civil libertarians won’t play within the liberty-versus-security frame, we are called to task for not being constructive or for being naive.
The Wall Street Journal recently editorialized in frustration that the NSA’s declassification of FISA Court opinions did not lead civil libertarians to engage in a debate about better ways to conduct oversight of the surveillance program, but merely to engage in more bellyaching. The Journal went on to argue that the NSA “can police itself” and that the courts should be removed from FISA oversight altogether (a proposal, by the way, that does fit within the liberty trade-off frame). It concluded in exasperation, “Or let’s hear a better proposal from the left-right anti-surveillance coalition, or even an idea.”
Probably the most thoughtful argument for moving past the question of whether we should have mass surveillance programs, and instead focusing on the question of how they are to be run, comes from Thomas Rid, a reader in war studies at King’s College London and author of the excellent new book Cyber War Will Not Take Place.
“Suggesting that all secrecy is bad is plainly naive,” Rid recently wrote in Slate. “Instead, there is a moral case to be made for open democracies to have the most capable intelligence agencies, operating lawfully with robust oversight mechanisms. No liberal mind can want the NSA to sit in Beijing or Moscow.”
The NSA may have overstepped its bounds, Rid concedes, but that’s an argument for better oversight, not for shutting down bulk data collection altogether, which would hand over an advantage to the U.S.’ geopolitical rivals. And if we’re going to have a signals intelligence capability that necessarily implicates domestic data, that means we must have a debate not about its existence, but about its reach.
“Spies cannot drive this debate. Neither will governments, for fear of stoking a fire and provoking even more revelations,” Rid argues. “It is, therefore, the responsibility of intellectuals and public experts to add balance and nuance to a shrill debate.”
In that spirit, Rid recently asked me: Assuming for a moment that we are, indeed, going to have a mass surveillance program at the end of the day, what would it take to get libertarians to engage in a serious discussion of its reach? I told him it would take at least two things.
First, there would have to be consequences for those who abused our trust. For example, director of national intelligence James Clapper point-blank lied to Congress and the American people, and yet he hasn’t been fired. If the DNI can lie to Congress and get away with it, what is the point of debating the kind of oversight to which he will be subject?
The same goes for NSA Director Keith Alexander, who has presided over an agency that has engaged in systematic illegalities and has misled courts, Congress, and the American people about those abuses. As long as these men remain unpunished, civil libertarians will have little faith that a system of oversight can work.
Second, before civil libertarians can be expected to consider compromise, they will have to believe that their interlocutors, especially in the administration and the NSA, are operating in good faith. As it is, we were deceived about the existence and extent of these programs, so why should we trust the president’s sincerity when he says that he “welcomes the debate”? Indeed, he’s continued to give us every reason to question it.
How can we be expected to engage with a president that promises to convene an independent panel of “outside experts” to review the government’s surveillance programs and then proceeds to stack it with insiders? And how can we trust that very panel when at its first meeting it segregates civil libertarians from other interested parties and then only some panel members attend the separate meeting?
Maybe there is a case to be made that abolishing bulk data collection outright is against our national interest and that we need to figure out how to efficiently trade privacy for security, subject to robust oversight. But until there are good reasons to trust both the oversight mechanisms and the processes for their formulation, “serious people” can’t seriously expect civil libertarians to entertain the idea.
— Jerry Brito
Article originally appeared here.