dagblog - Comments for "Attempted Setup of Luke Rudkowski"

Since the NSA revelations

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 15:12:53 +0000

In reply to Concept No. 1: Since the NSA

Since the NSA revelations surfaced, a name has rattled around in the back of my brain: Scott Ritter -- the Iraq weapons inspector who called bullshit on the U.S. WMD claims ...

Me too. Ritter may be guilty as charged, how could we know for sure? But you needn't be a crazy conspiracy theorist to wonder. He is obviously intelligent and would have known that he would get special scrutiny because of his calling bullshit on the governments story as he did. If he was guilty the first time I would have expected that he would not make the same mistake again whether that mistake was committing the act or doing so in [apparently] the same way so as to let them catch him again.
Thanks to you and PP for articulating some of the significance of what these links expose. Rudkowski has been embarrassing powerful people by doing journalism. Is that a legitimate reason to treat him as a possible criminal at a border crossing and subject him to special searches of his private information held in his computer? What list was he on, and who put him there, that alerted the border security to give him special attention? He is now one more among the many journalists and documentary film makers getting special attention/harassment at borders because someone doesn't like what they have been saying. I call that an abuse of power. Some call it keeping us safe.

Concept No. 1: Since the NSA

acanuck — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:05:37 +0000

In reply to Your two links illustrate 2

Concept No. 1: Since the NSA revelations surfaced, a name has rattled around in the back of my brain: Scott Ritter -- the Iraq weapons inspector who called bullshit on the U.S. WMD claims as the push for war ramped up. Ritter had been accused of online sexual luring a couple of years earlier, but the charges were dismissed and the records sealed. In 2003, the story went public, just in time to discredit anything Ritter said. He was right about WMDs, but he continued to dissent from U.S. Mideast policy (specifically, on Iran) and in 2010, he was convicted and jailed on a similar charge (all the cases involved police sting operations). He claims a government frame-up. I don't know, but I can't confidently rule that out.

Concept No. 2: Wikipedia tries hard, but there's no way volunteer moderators can combat organized assaults by people with an agenda. If you're a corporation or individual with lots of money, you'll hire skilled writers to drive your Wiki presence in a favorable direction. I've actually corrected an error on a Wikipedia entry, and seen how easy it would be for someone with malicious intent to gain access. As for Facebook, I never repost anything I see; my default assumption is that it's a total lie. That assumption has served me well.

Your two links illustrate 2

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 05:53:17 +0000

In reply to Attempted Setup of Luke Rudkowski

Your two links illustrate 2 important concepts -

1) it takes almost nothing to destroy someone. perhaps not forever, but for all the time really needed. one blip about child pornography, an affair, a racist comment, an unpatriotic comment, drugs, taxes, something. having a ton of info about you - including your old personal high school email in this case - makes it easier to slip in the fix and make it more subtle. no need to assassinate people, or send them to re-education camps - just quickly destroy them anonymously and move on

2) people are already lazy about info and new breakthroughs will increase that with information overload. we use Wikipedia every day even though we know it's flawed, but it's "good enough". What if Wikipedia is getting worse and worse, more bias error, more disinformation? how long will we keep using it before finding something more accurate? how will it have biased any other info sources? (or driven them out of business since quality researched Encyclopedia Brittanica can't compete with a bunch of free content - some good, some awful, much very social and not old-school encyclopedia). Most times we'll take the easy answer over the better more-researched. It's why we buy crap at the checkout counter - location location location - sloth wins 90% of the time.

and the Google glass demo also makes me think I was more right in my George Zimmerman example than I thought - of course someone would decide that Google glass would be perfect for a Neighborhood Watch guy - "the benefit outweighs the harm" as is ever said. So they'd hook that Google glass up to NSA archives, 3 degrees of freedom, and he'd be able to pull up relevant, location-based info on that license plate or nearby mobile phone. And that system will send out a short pithy summary that might be accurate or might be grossly or partially misleading depending on the circumstances. We have to train ourselves to use easy information better, to question pre-digested "facts" where we've no idea of the bias and assumptions that formed that fact. It's like candy to a baby, or radiator fluid to a dog - tastes sweet going down.

This is

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 01:59:08 +0000

In reply to Yahoo gives a preview of the

This is funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ugLNfzbGj08#at=223

Yahoo gives a preview of the

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 01:45:30 +0000

In reply to Attempted Setup of Luke Rudkowski

Yahoo gives a preview of the photos and the photos were actually graphic child pornography. Luke has had his computer searched by forensics when going into Canada to cover the G20 when they searched him and interrogated him for hours, something like this could happen again when we come back to the U.S. from travelling Europe. Had this been the case, even with deleting, they would still find the images. There would be no understanding of the true story and he would be facing a felony charge.