Download Free Does State Spying Make Us Safer Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Does State Spying Make Us Safer and write the review.

Does government surveillance make us safer? The thirteenth Munk Debate, held in Toronto on Friday, May 2, 2014, pitted Michael Hayden and Alan Dershowitz against Glenn Greenwald and Alexis Ohanian to debate whether state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedom — the democratic issue of the moment. In a risk-filled world, democracies are increasingly turning to large-scale state surveillance, at home and abroad, to fight complex and unconventional threats — but is it justified? For some, the threats more than justify the current surveillance system, and the laws and institutions of democracies are more than capable of balancing the needs of individual privacy with collective security. But for others, we are in peril of sacrificing to a vast and unaccountable state surveillance apparatus the civil liberties that guarantee citizens’ basic freedoms and our democratic way of life. In this edition of the Munk Debates, former head of the CIA and NSA Michael Hayden and civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz square off against journalist Glenn Greenwald and reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian to debate the legitimacy of state surveillance. With issues of Internet privacy increasingly gaining prominence, the Munk Debate on the Surveillance State asks: Should government be able to monitor our activities in order to keep us safe?
The world is facing the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Over 300,000 are dead in Syria, and one and half million are either injured or disabled. Four and a half million people are trying to flee the country. And Syria is just one of a growing number of failed or failing states in the Middle East and North Africa. How should developed nations respond to human suffering on this mass scale? Do the prosperous societies of the West, including Canada and the U.S., have a moral imperative to assist as many refugees as they reasonably and responsibly can? Or, is this a time for vigilance and restraint in the face of a wave of mass migration that risks upending the tolerance and openness of the West? The eighteenth semi-annual Munk Debate, which was held on April 1, 2016, pits former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour and leading historian Simon Schama against leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage and bestselling author Mark Steyn to debate the West’s response to the global refugee crisis.
The twenty-fifth semi-annual Munk Debate, held on December 4, 2019, pits editorial director and publisher of the Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel and former finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis against Harvard professor Arthur Brooks and New York Times columnist David Brooks to debate whether the capitalist system is broken. “We need to organise politically to defend the weak, empower the many, and prepare the ground for reversing the absurdities of capitalism.” — Yanis Varoufakis In Western societies, the capitalist system is facing a level of distrust not seen in decades. Economic inequality is rampant. Life expectancy is falling. The environment is being destroyed for profit. Political power is wielded by wealthy elites and big business. For capitalism’s critics, it is clear that the system is not designed to help average people. Their solution is a top-to-bottom reform of the “free market” along more socialist and democratic lines. For proponents of capitalism, however, this system has been the greatest engine of economic and social progress in history. Not only has capitalism made all of us materially better off, its ideals are responsible for everything from women’s rights to a cleaner environment to political freedoms. The answer to society’s current ills is more capitalism, more economic freedom, and more free markets. The twenty-fifth semi-annual Munk Debate, held on December 4, 2019, pits editorial director and publisher of the Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel and former finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis against Harvard professor Arthur Brooks and New York Times columnist David Brooks to debate whether the capitalist system is broken.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau squared off on September 28, 2015, in Toronto, for the first-ever federal election debate on Canada’s foreign policy. Too often, foreign policy issues have been afterthoughts in federal election campaigns. Now, for the first time, Canadians will have the opportunity to see the three federal party leaders recognized in Parliament defend their foreign policy visions for the country in a nationally televised debate. From the war against terror to Canada-U.S. relations to challenges and opportunities of international trade, the Munk Debate on Canada’s Foreign Policy will provide the public with important insights into how our next prime minister will defend and project Canada’s interests and values on the global stage.
From the world-renowned Munk Debates comes a collection of dialogues by leading intellectuals envisioning our post-pandemic future. During this time of social distancing, the acclaimed Munk Debates series have been reimagined into a series of dialogues by leading intellectuals who examine the geopolitical, economic, technological, and historical angles of this unprecedented new era. How will the world look after COVID-19? What is the future for the international economy and institutions? Will the global balance of power shift? Can technology save us? These are the questions that have occupied the best minds since the beginning of the pandemic. In a series of one-on-one conversations with moderator Rudyard Griffiths, renowned author Malcolm Gladwell, journalist Fareed Zakaria, and New York Times columnist David Brooks, along with six other thinkers, dissect what brought us here and what comes next.
How should we think about the problems of privacy and free speech? Neil Richards argues that when privacy and free speech truly conflict, free speech should almost always win, but contends that, contrary to conventional wisdom, speech and privacy are only rarely in conflict.
This book tells the story of government-sponsored wiretapping in Britain and the United States from the rise of telephony in the 1870s until the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It pays particular attention to the 1990s, which marked one of the most dramatic turns in the history of telecommunications interception. During that time, fiber optic and satellite networks rapidly replaced the copper-based analogue telephone system that had remained virtually unchanged since the 1870s. That remarkable technological advance facilitated the rise of the networked home computer, cellular telephony, and the Internet, and users hailed the dawn of the digital information age. However, security agencies such as the FBI and MI5 were concerned. Since the emergence of telegraphy in the 1830s, security services could intercept private messages using wiretaps, and this was facilitated by some of the world's largest telecommunications monopolies such as AT&T in the US and British Telecom in the UK. The new, digital networks were incompatible with traditional wiretap technology. To make things more complicated for the security services, these monopolies had been privatized and broken up into smaller companies during the 1980s, and in the new deregulated landscape the agencies had to seek assistance from thousands of startup companies that were often unwilling to help. So for the first time in history, technological and institutional changes posed a threat to the security services’ wiretapping activities, and government officials in Washington and London acted quickly to protect their ability to spy, they sought to force the industry to change the very architecture of the digital telecommunications network. This book describes in detail the tense negotiations between governments, the telecommunications industry, and civil liberties groups during an unprecedented moment in history when the above security agencies were unable to wiretap. It reveals for the first time the thoughts of some of the protagonists in these crucial negotiations, and explains why their outcome may have forever altered the trajectory of our information society.
The twenty-third semi-annual Munk Debate, held on November 2, 2018, pits Stephen Bannon, the CEO of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, against columnist and author David Frum to debate the future of liberalism against the rising tide of populism. Throughout the Western world, politics is undergoing a sea-change. Long-held notions of the role of government, trade and economic policy, foreign policy, and immigration are being challenged by populist thinkers and movements. Does this surging populist agenda in Western nations signal a permanent shift in our politics? Or is it a passing phenomenon that will remain at the fringes of society and political power? Will our politics continue to be shaped by the post-war consensus on trade, inclusive national identity, and globalization, or by the agenda of insurgent populist politics, parties, and leaders? The twenty-third semi-annual Munk Debate pits former Donald Trump advisor Stephen K. Bannon against columnist and public intellectual David Frum to debate the future of the liberal political order.
A groundbreaking look at the NSA surveillance scandal, from the reporter who broke the story, Glenn Greenwald, star of Citizenfour, the Academy Award-winning documentary on Edward Snowden In May 2013, Glenn Greenwald set out for Hong Kong to meet an anonymous source who claimed to have astonishing evidence of pervasive government spying and insisted on communicating only through heavily encrypted channels. That source turned out to be the 29-year-old NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden, and his revelations about the agency's widespread, systemic overreach proved to be some of the most explosive and consequential news in recent history, triggering a fierce debate over national security and information privacy. As the arguments rage on and the government considers various proposals for reform, it is clear that we have yet to see the full impact of Snowden's disclosures. Now for the first time, Greenwald fits all the pieces together, recounting his high-intensity ten-day trip to Hong Kong, examining the broader implications of the surveillance detailed in his reporting for The Guardian, and revealing fresh information on the NSA's unprecedented abuse of power with never-before-seen documents entrusted to him by Snowden himself. Going beyond NSA specifics, Greenwald also takes on the establishment media, excoriating their habitual avoidance of adversarial reporting on the government and their failure to serve the interests of the people. Finally, he asks what it means both for individuals and for a nation's political health when a government pries so invasively into the private lives of its citizens—and considers what safeguards and forms of oversight are necessary to protect democracy in the digital age. Coming at a landmark moment in American history, No Place to Hide is a fearless, incisive, and essential contribution to our understanding of the U.S. surveillance state.
How can the United States guard against a clever unknown enemy while still preserving the freedoms it holds dear? Hulnick explains the need to revamp U.S. intelligence operations from a system focused on a single Cold War enemy to one offering more flexibility in combating non-state actors (including terrorists, spies, and criminals) like those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. Offering possible solutions not to be found in the federal commission's official report, Hulnick's groundbreaking work examines what is really necessary to make intelligence and homeland security more efficient and competent, both at within the United States and abroad. The U.S. government's progress in establishing a system for homeland security is considerable, yet, besides shifts in alert status, most U.S. residents are unaware of the work being done to keep them safe. Describing the system already in place, Hulnick adds further ideas about what more is needed to protect Americans in the ever-changing world of intelligence. To create a truly valuable program, it is suggested the the United States consider not only new strategies and tactics, but also the need to break down the barriers between intelligence agencies and law enforcement.