Big Brother crying wolf ?

"Big Brother" Crying "Wolf"? (Part #2)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

"Big Brother": The warnings come in a period following widely commented disclosures by Edward Snowden of the surprising level of "Big Brother" electronic surveillance on the part of the USA -- through NSA and its PRISM collaborators internationally. The scope has been most recently documented by Glenn Greenwald (XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet', The Guardian, 31 July 2013).

The initial disclosures gave rise to many comparisons with "Big Brother" (Darcy Kempa, NSA PRISM Program: Big Brother is Watching, and That's a Good Thing, Polycymic; NSA scandal: Americans don't like Big Brother', Miami Herald; Michael Liedtke, NSA PRISM Program: Is Big Data Turning Government Into 'Big Brother?' The Huffington Post, 6 July 2013). The comparison has been extended to the recent warnings (Lyuba Lyulko, Made-up Threat Rehabilitates the Big Brother, Pravda, 7 August 2013).

"Big Brother" is a fictional character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). As described by Wikipedia, he is the enigmatic dictator of a totalitarian state taken to its utmost logical consequence - where the ruling Party wields total power for its own sake over the inhabitants. In the society that Orwell describes, everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities. The people are constantly reminded of this by the phrase "Big Brother is watching you", which is the core "truth" of the propaganda system in this state. Sound familiar?

A surprising number of commentators now note that the recently issued warnings are also difficult to distinguish from those of the classic Aesop Fable regarding the Boy Who Cried Wolf. However, rather than the "Boy", it is argued here that it is "Big Brother" who may be "crying wolf" to justify dominance in the world community.

"Crying wolf": Even a decade ago it was noted that: NSA has often been accused of crying wolf (Scott Shane and Ariel Sabar, Coded warnings became clear only in light of Sept. 11 attacks, The Baltimore Sun, 21 June 2002). As might be expected under the circumstances, this framing continues to be explored. Thus for Lance deHaven-Smith (As an American, I question the US travel alerts and embassy closures, The Guardian, 5 August 2013):

We've seen this before where US presidents cite terrorism concerns in an effort to win back public opinion. is unfortunate, but true that Americans cannot trust the statements of their leaders about threats to national security. Ironically, this is especially so when questions are being raised about the competence of the government or the legitimacy of its policies. The United States government has a long history of deflecting criticism by crying wolf, especially the terrorism kind of wolf.

As argued by Will Bunch (The U.S. government who cried "Wolf!" Philly.com, 4 August 2013):

Regardless of what one thinks about the embassy closings, no one can argue that the Obama administration wants to change the subject, especially about national security matters and the NSA. Just in the last few days, we've learned about the NSA's XKeyscore program that reportedly collects "nearly everything a user does on the Internet," about the hollowness of Obama's promises to curtail the drone war overseas, and that the CIA is going to extraordinary lengths to cover-up the true nature of its activities in Benghazi last fall. Is it crazy to wonder if there's a...nexus [The Nexus of Politics and Terror]? The real problem is the credibility gap inside the Beltway, starting with the war in Iraq -- the mother of all lies -- and going right up to a few months ago when Obama's national intelligence director committed perjury before Congress but knew that he will never be charged....

For Peter Combs (State Department Embassy Closing Flunks the Smell Test: is the State Department Crying Wolf ? Again? Gaulitics.com, 5 August 2013):

Maybe it's just me, maybe I am all alone on this, maybe I am a bit cynical. Does anyone besides me find the timing of the State Department's announcement of the latest sudden unspecific threat to American Embassy's seem almost predictable? Doesn't it seem too well timed when looked at against the backdrop of the mounting criticism of the NSA in connection with the gathering of intelligence on Americans. Do you believe in miraculous coincidences?

And for Frank Rich (When Privacy Jumped The Shark, The New York Magazine, 23 July 2013):

Whatever the fine points of the NSA's snooping, anyone who cared could surmise enough of the big picture to be wary long before the Snowden leaks filled in graphic details. The NSA is crying wolf when it claims that his disclosures are an enormous boon to terrorists, unless you believe terrorists are morons.

Recent comments using the "wolf" framing have included Phil Butler (PRISM, Microsoft, Anybody's "Soft", and Crying Wolf, EverythingPR, 18 July 2013) and the blogger Moon Of Alabama (Crying Wolf, Wolf, Wolf, Information Clearing House, 3 August 2013), extensively quoted by Daniel McAdams (Major Terrorism Alert: Are They Crying 'Wolf'? Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, 3 August 2013).

Credibility enhancing strategy? As the blogger notes, the threat warnings may indeed need to be given enhanced credibility by physically destructive attacks inviting media coverage to establish "concrete proof" -- especially in the form of actual bombing of embassies. As the blogger also notes, the cost of repairing any damage would be insignificant in comparison with the enhanced public credibility thereby achieved. Unfortunately, as has been a practice in the past, any such attacks can be easily arranged as false flag operations. Why would this not be done?

Many parties have voiced concern and questioned the appropriateness. of the warnings. These have highlighted a level of previously unrecognized complicity by European and other governments in such practices -- raising fundamental issues of the adequacy of democratic oversight with respect to secret agreements and practices (Dan Roberts, Activists stage second national day of protest against NSA's domestic spying, The Guardian, 4 August 2013).

It is easy to assume that justification for the practices is considered necessary by authorities as a means of responding to such anxiety and to criticism of questionably authorised subterfuge. As remarked by many commentators, it is easy to see that detection of threat from terrorists would serve this purpose admirably:

• Glenn Greenwald: Is the U.S. Exaggerating the Terror Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance? AlterNet, 5 August 2013
• Patrick Martin (Manipulating Public Perceptions: the US Terror Scare, Information Clearing House, 5 August 2013)
• Richard Norton-Taylor (Embassy closures earn little respect for a US that's lost the benefit of the doubt, The Guardian, 5 August 2013)

  We might be forgiven for thinking embassy closures provoked by terrorist threats were all very convenient for the NSA

Will Bunch (The U.S. government who cried "Wolf!" Philly.com, 4 August 2013)

Remember the moral of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is that finally there really is a wolf -- but no one believed the boy because of all the lies that came before. Likewise, the problem with the terror warning of 2013 is not the warning itself but the decade of government baloney that preceded it. Washington needs to acknowledge the reality: If it wants to better a job of keeping the public safe, it will need to start doing a much, much better job of telling the public the truth.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]