Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
from the think-again dept
One of the more common responses we've seen to all of the revelations about all of that NSA surveillance, is the response that "Well, I don't think the NSA really cares about what I'm doing." A perfect example of that is long-time NSA defender Ben Wittes, who recently wrote about why he's not too worried that the NSA is spying on him at all, basically comparing it to the fact that he's confident that law enforcement isn't spying on him either:As I type these words, I have to take on faith that the Washington D.C. police, the FBI, the DEA, and the Secret Service are not raiding my house. I also have to take on faith that federal and state law enforcement authorities are not tapping my various phones. I have no way of knowing they are not doing these things. They certainly have the technical capability to do them. And there’s historical reason to be concerned. Indeed, there is enough history of government abuse in the search and seizure realm that the Founders specifically regulated the area in the Bill of Rights. Yet I sit here remarkably confident that these things are not happening while my back is turned—and so do an enormous number of other Americans.Julian Sanchez has a blistering response to that, appropriately entitled Check Your Privilege, which highlights that while Wittes, a well-paid, white, DC-based policy think tank worker, may be confident of those things, plenty of other folks are not nearly so confident, and that the NSA has made it pretty clear that they shouldn't be so confident.
The reason is that the technical capability for a surveillance event to take place does not alone amount to the reality—or likelihood—of that event’s taking place....
For much the same reason as I am not rushing home to guard my house, I have a great deal of confidence that the National Security Agency is not spying on me. No doubt it has any number of capabilities to do so. No doubt those capabilities are awesome—in the wrong hands the tools of a police state. But there are laws and rules that protect me, and there are compliance mechanisms that ensure that the NSA follows those laws and rules. These systems are, to be sure, different from those that restrain the D.C. cops, but they are robust enough to reassure me.
As Sanchez notes, it's not just whether or not any of us are direct targets, but the overall chilling effects of how the system is used. And, I should note, that while Wittes is confident that he's safe -- there are a growing number of folks who have good reason to believe that they are not immune from such surveillance. The recent revelation that Tor users are labeled as extremists who get extra-special scrutiny seems like a major concern. Similarly, the story from earlier this year that the NSA targeted the Pirate Bay and Wikileaks as part of some of its surveillance efforts is a major concern. In the process of doing journalism, I've communicated with folks associated with some of those and other similar organizations. In the past, I probably would have similarly noted that I doubted the NSA cared at all about what I was doing, but as each of these stories comes out, I am increasingly less sure. And, more importantly, even if the NSA is not at all concerned with what I happen to be doing, just the fact that I now have to think about what it means if they might be certainly creates a chilling effect, and makes me think twice over certain people I contact, and what I say to them.In a democracy, of course, the effects of surveillance are not restricted to its direct targets. Spying, like censorship, affects all of us to the extent it shapes who holds power and what ideas hold sway. Had the FBI succeeded in “neutralizing” Martin Luther King Jr. earlier in his career, it would hardly have been a matter of concern solely for King and his family—that was, after all, the whole point.
Instead of a couple wonks comfortably ensconced in D.C. institutions, let’s instead ask a peaceful Pakistani-American who protests our policy of targeted killings, perhaps in collaboration with activists abroad; we might encounter far less remarkable confidence. Or, if that seems like too much effort, we can just look to the survey of writers conducted by the PEN American Center, finding significant percentages of respondents self-censoring or altering their use of the Internet and social media in the wake of revelations about the scope of government surveillance. Or to the sworn declarations of 22 civil society groups in a lawsuit challenging bulk phone records collection, attesting to a conspicuous decline in telephonic contacts and members expressing increased anxiety about their association with controversial or unpopular organizations.
It's easy to claim that you're not worried when you're the one out there supporting those in power. It becomes a lot trickier when you're either criticizing those in power, or communicating with those who challenge the power structure. Suddenly, it's not so easy to sit on the sidelines and say "Meh, no one's going to care about me..." And that should be a major concern. The way we keep a strong democracy is by having people who are able and willing to challenge the status quo and those in power. And yes, the US is much more forgiving than many, many other countries to such people, but there are clear biases and clear cases where they are not at all accepting of such things. And the more of a chilling effect the government creates around those things, the more dangerous it becomes to stand up for what you believe in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ben wittes, chilling effects, concern, julian sanchez, nsa, privacy, privilege, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember those lunatics from the Kim dynasty even executed their own family...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less sure?
I'm certainly no saint either - I have plenty of little secrets to hide. Nothing "serious" per-se, certainly nothing that has ruined lives or hurt anyone, but definitely things I consider embarrassing or potentially criminal given the ridiculousness of our laws these days (copyright-related, etc.).
Those little things have always been a "as long as I don't get caught" situation for most of my life - but now I realize that they already know what I've done, and there's little I can do about it other than request that I have my privacy back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was thinking about this the other day myself. A year ago I would have said I was too insignificant to be noticed, these days I'm not so sure.
I use Linux, I use YaCy, I've experimented with Tor, Freeworld and I2P, I read Techdirt daily, I comment about anonymity, privacy, Constitutional rights and so forth. I occasionally read EFF and ALCU sites. I sometimes even wade into the crazy on the conspiracy theory sites that are out there.
You add all this up with recent revelations about the NSA programs and, yes, I do now wonder about it and I do now think twice about what I am saying. Chilling indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thou art not alone, shipmate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. ~ Martin Niemöller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery slope
First they came for those who used Emacs, and I did not speak out --
Then they came for those who indented using spaces instead of tabs, and I did not speak out --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd have believed it also if his opener was instead...
because this seems to be the new normal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially apt title
So what about those of us who are neither elite nor insipid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Especially apt title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar
If you weren't doing anything threatening to those in power, then the KGB weren't interested in you and you had little to be concerned about. You had rights, just so long as you didn't get in the way of someone with power.
I don't find that to be an acceptable standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is the same problem I have with idiots and morons posting their escapades with videotaping police up on youtube. 99% of the time, Americans are deliberately going out of their way to stage a confrontation with police either in an attempt to embarrass the police or to create their own viral video.
It's gotten ridiculous. The problem is that it gives Americans a false sense of entitlement. If you aren't doing anything, don't worry about it. The majority of people who do complain are the ones who are doing something against the law that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll wager my next paycheck you've already broken some law today.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.htm l
Now knowing all that, do you still feel all safe and insulated from government spying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not illegal today, but what about tomorrow? Or a year from now?
You now have a record of dissent and when dissent is illegal, they have a reason to lock you away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Suppose you happen to like viewing Hentai porn. It's not illegal, but is really something you wish your wife/mother/boss/minister knowing about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*Anything*? Are you honestly sure about that? Perhaps not a felony, but I bet you break some minor law every day, even if it's just one of those silly laws that says you can't whistle after 6pm because nobody bothered removing it from your town's books since 1821 (made up example, but you know the kind of thing I mean).
This is part of the problem. Most of us have broken some law without realising it. Even if we haven't, a person can collate the data in a way that might look out of the ordinary. I'm sure that if I had a full history of everything you've ever done online, I could come up with something that looks suspicious, even if every individual action was innocent and innocuous.
That's part of the point here. If people have to prove that you're up to something before surveilling you, they generally have to come up with something real. If you're always under surveillance, they can come up with something to justify a pre-conceived conclusion.
"The problem is the same problem I have with idiots and morons posting their escapades with videotaping police up on youtube."
Why should a public servant not be filmed while in the process of serving the public, while out in public view?
I agree with you on the kind of person that deliberately tries to antagonise law enforcement in order to get an example, but there's numerous times where people have video evidence that directly disproves the officer's versions of events and thus protects the person filming or the police officers' victims.
"If you aren't doing anything, don't worry about it."
Yep, people like Jean Charles de Menezes and the two women who were shot at by police when they were searching for Christopher Dorner have nothing to worry about.
Yes, those are extreme examples but if people can be shot or killed by police due to mere mistaken identity, it's not hard to imagine that less obvious mistakes can be made based on bad interpretations of gathered evidence as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are plenty of people who didn't violate any laws but had to deal with over-aggressive law enforcement. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good for you proving the title to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as this business of doing nothing wrong and having nothing to fear, it is obvious this guy doesn't get outside the established lamescream media or he would have been exposed to a few things that are no longer crazy conspiracy type occurrences but happen far more than the establishment wants to own up to.
You know, little things like killing people in their homes while doing a drug raid on the wrong address. Or injuring infants that are in baby cribs and sure can't handle a weapon. So where do you think they may have gotten the data that you were the drug dealer? Maybe they spied on the right guy and like so many others, raided the wrong address. So sitting in your easy chair, minding your own business, in your own home, is no longer safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's awesome, and you should stop with that thought. Best thought today. Sleep on it. Nightie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm positive this website and anyone who visits it also falls under that category of spying has/is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of Germans had the same attitude...
If you value the principles that our Nation was founded on...if you value the Constitution of the United States of America, then, when you see our Government blatantly violating those principles...when they are blatantly violating both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, then it is the DUTY of EVERY American to speak out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Nothing to Something
And then one day I woke up to find the SJG-BBS had been seized by the Secret Service and one of her online activist buddies (who was connected to a writer at SJG) had been arrested for swiping a document off a phone company system.
She was in years when I told her we could very easily have the Men in Black knocking on our door.
That didn't happen and the case turned out to be complete bullshit (and was one of the things that led to the creation of the EFF). But of they had come for us there wouldn't have been Thing #1 we could have done about it. With the Guilt By Association attitude in vogue the odds are that everyone is connected to someone found something a spook somewhere doesn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From Nothing to Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A reason you should be concerned
Since it has been demonstrated that they spy on EU parliament, and allies, and pass info to domestic law enforcement, and other things they are not supposed to be doing ...
Since it has been demonstrated that the boss built his own extravagant Starship Enterprise Bridge ...
Since it has been demonstrated that those who are supposed to be overseeing things are asleep at the wheel ...
Since there has been a major shouting match between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA, and the CIA has intruded into senate computers of those doing an investigation ...
Since it has been demonstrated that the NSA and their cheerleaders have lied to us, repeatedly ...
And other things I could list ...
I think it is very prudent to be concerned.
The US is essentially building the apparatus of a police state. It may not be (or it MAY be!) the current people who then turn it into a police state -- but that day will come. Given the mechanisms have been built to have a police state, you can be sure that we will end up with one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A reason you should be concerned
He inherited it from the previous person who had the building, he didn't build it himself. There's more than enough real reasons to criticize the guy for, there's no need to bring up one of the few times he turned out to be innocent.
Since it has been demonstrated that those who are supposed to be overseeing things are asleep at the wheel ...
That would actually be better than how it actually is. No, they aren't 'asleep at the wheel', they are fulling supporting of the NSA/government's actions, both in enabling them, and covering them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A reason you should be concerned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only difference is that idiot Snowden absconded with documents he should never have taken in the first place. How would everyone react if a contractor took documents that contained the codes to our nuclear arsenal or national security plans and gave them to a country that was hostile to America?
This "surveillance" has been going on since well before September 11th came along. The fact that everyone is making a big issue out of this just goes to show how unaware that most Americans are and that is such a limited grasp on the situation. Even without the courts, without the laws passed in congress, the government would continue spying on its own.
This controversy over the government's surveillance of its own people and the hysteria it causes is exactly why this surveillance should never be revealed. Because it creates more problems than it solves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"you are part of the Gallactic Empire and a traitor! Take him away!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If those codes don't have a daily change cycle something's seriously wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515598/Launch-code-US-nuclear-weapons-easy-0000000 0.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This controversy over the government's surveillance..."
The continuation of the NSA's surveillance is essentially a statement by those who endorse it that they believe the ideology at the foundation US democracy fails. Whatever they fight for, it's no longer a nation based on liberty and social equality.
Are you some kind of corporate or government shill? I can only imagine you get paid to have such an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> and [redacted] creates more problems than it solves.
i agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i'm thinking you are one of the ineducable ones: NO MATTER how egregious the acts of 'our' (sic) gummint, you will excuse it *somehow*...
'cause Big Daddy would nebber ebber treat his own chillun badly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please tell me you're trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd rather not go through what this guy exposed
Sorry, but this perspective on surveillance gave me the chills. Just because "it's not my problem" doesn't mean it won't end up like what this guy wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd rather not go through what this guy exposed
Sorry, but this perspective on surveillance gave me the chills. Just because "it's not my problem" doesn't mean it won't end up like what this guy wrote.
Please read the above, kenichi tenaka (I recommend everyone does but especially him).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd rather not go through what this guy exposed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keep on with that blind faith in your government Americans. I mean the Germans blind faith in their government before the 2nd world war never turned out bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, everyone here would rather risk a negative confrontation with the cop and simply argue with him just for the sake of arguing.
After September 11th, in order to feel safer and more secure, Americans agreed to give up certain liberties in order for our government to keep us safe.
Now, it seems everyone in this country is now having "buyer's remorse" after the Snowden Era. Suck it up. Now that everyone "GAVE" the government approval to conduct massive surveillance, live with it and stop whining about it.
I was very reluctant when The Patriot Act and other bills were being voted and passed unanimously by congress and when they received support from the American People. I warned people what would happen and this is the result.
So, don't start whining about it now, since the government has abused those laws that were passed by congress.
Once you give government the power to do something, they are very reluctant to give that power up. So, deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, everyone here would rather risk a negative confrontation with the cop and simply argue with him just for the sake of arguing.
I'd rather listen to someone who actually knows what he's talking about: http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/15/the-privilege-to-shut-up/
After September 11th, in order to feel safer and more secure, Americans agreed to give up certain liberties in order for our government to keep us safe.
No, actually, they didn't. What we've found out is that the NSA made that decision for us, and then misled the American public into believing they had not given up those liberties.
Now, it seems everyone in this country is now having "buyer's remorse" after the Snowden Era. Suck it up. Now that everyone "GAVE" the government approval to conduct massive surveillance, live with it and stop whining about it.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mr. Tanaka is willfully lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The right to shut up is legally correct, but it is in fact antagonistic and may lead to more trouble that it's worth. You see, people will mistakenly think that the answer to any contact with police is to say nothing and give nothing, not even your name or ID. That can create trouble and actually make you look like you really do have something to hide. Not answering question like "is this your blunt" is all good, but being intentionally belligerent and actively working to not say anything is a solid step towards non-compliance and confrontation.
As for NSA and such, it's pretty silly for anyone to think that they aren't watching you, within the limits of what the law allows or APPEARS to allow. By appears, I mean anything that hasn't been specifically outlawed by the courts.
NSA is playing just like Aereo, really: They have taken a series of laws, judgements, rulings, and interpretations and skillfully crafted a set of procedures that is distaasteful to many, over-reaching to levels most of us would never consider, and complete in it's process - yet when you look at the individual pieces, each one of them has a technical basis in law or judgement to be done that way, at least on a micro scale. They have supersized the process, but legally is that any different? If it's legal once, it's legal a million times, right?
Oh yeah, after 9/11, the American people pretty much told Bush to do whatever he wanted to "get them". He took that to heart and created almost everything that is the NSA today. It's what the public wanted, just not on the scale or scope that we see today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, pretty much any decent lawyer will tell you one simple thing if the police want to question you: SHUT UP.
Talking to them cannot help you, but it can most certainly hurt you, so other than providing your name(required if you're a suspect or being charged I believe), it's better to never talk to police if you can at all avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't have a discussion with police, but don't refuse normal requests either. That's just picking a fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "right" to shut up
I think what Whatever was saying was that yes, you have the "right" to shut up, but that will incite the police to taze you in the interrogation room or pepper spray your vagina as a "disciplinary action", or if out on the street, beat the snot out of you with their tonfas. In short, the police will, if you choose to remain silent or regard them as "antagonistic", feel justified in coercing information out of you via enhanced interrogation techniques (though I haven't heard any stories of actual waterboarding), and so far the DoJ only disciplines them mildly (paid suspension for a few days) if video of the incident goes public.
I'm not sure if Whatever or Kenichi Tanaka intended to imply that they endorse or even condone such practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "right" to shut up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "right" to shut up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Evidence, please. I don't remember a time when the American people said anything like that at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait. When did I agree to that?
I certainly would remember committing such un-American act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally, I never agreed to any such thing. I was criticizing our "security" measures from day one, but with a senator like Feinstein, what could I do about it? I vote against her EVERY SINGLE ELECTION and it does no good because California is a fucktarded place to live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why did I read that as 'a senator like Frankenstein'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USSR had elections too, you know.
They might be more inclined to close abortion clinics and remove anti-discrimination protections for women and gays however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never mind that the system is inherently designed to not let people know that anything was wrong, suspicious or illegal. You're basically saying that you should never be allowed to complain about wrongdoing. If you don't know about it, you can't complain about its possibility, and if you do know about it, then it's an admission that you somehow magically "let" it happen, so you can't ever change it.
You're a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, master.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because if you're doing nothing wrong....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservative member of ACLU
While I support only about half of the causes they champion I completely support their challenging every government power grab that comes along.
If another person's peaceable rights are not respected than my rights, no matter how different, may be in jeopardy next.
When this government is stymied in its efforts to fuck over someone that most of us do not like because of a constitutional guarantee things are working exactly the way they are supposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative member of ACLU
Can anyone explain why an organization dedicated to protecting personal liberty, particularly from government overreach, is often considered liberal rather than conservative? Aren't conservatives all about liberty and limited government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative member of ACLU
As it is with American Liberalism Progressivism. Classical liberalism is also about liberty and so moral panic issues such as gun control don't fit so well.
And American Libertarianism is so far removed from libertarianism that multiple famous libertarians (Penn Jillette and Bill Maher) have disavowed their association with libertarianism lest it be confused with Libertarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative member of ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative member of ACLU
Well said.
- An ACLU member, whose politics are generally liberal (See... We CAN work together!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll come for him
Or what about his family or his colleagues? Is he so insulated that he doesn't know anyone who might be considered "bad"... such as (as the other poster said) anyone who's not white?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation: NSA is danger to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Wittes manages to get everything completely backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republic. Not a democracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
There are various definitions of "democracy". Under some of them the US is a democracy, under others it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
Yes, the United States is a republic. That just means that it doesn't have a monarch. It is also clearly a democracy.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
It means much more than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
Not really. The Wikipedia article merely adds some history to the definition, and mentions some variances for different countries.
For example it mentions in particular for the US: "In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people."
But this definition is common to non-Republic democracies also. Canadians for example, in their parliamentary democracy, elect Members of Parliament to represent them, rather than voting directly. Much the same way that Americans vote for Congressmen. Neither country's citizens vote directly for the President / Prime Minister.
Likewise the American court ruling "equal rights of citizens were inherent to the idea of a republic" is mirrored in many non-republics. Again, Canada for example. (The exception of course being Canada's monarch. But that merely takes us back to the standard "no monarch" definition of a Republic.)
And even then, there are plenty of examples of republics - the USSR for example - without "equal rights of citizens."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Republic. Not a democracy!
So you would claim that a military dictatorship with no representation is a republic, because it doesn't have a monarch?
The Wikipedia article merely adds some history to the definition, and mentions some variances for different countries.
No, it gives a different definition than yours: "A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate)." If you claim that "republic" means nothing more or less than a country without a monarch, you're focusing completely on (and misunderstanding) the second part - leadership is not inherited or appointed - and ignoring the first part - power resides in the people via their elected leaders.
Besides all that, there are countries that are republics that also have monarchs - Canada and the UK for example. I think you're claiming Canada is not a republic, but since the monarch is ceremonial, the power of the nation resides not in the monarchy but in its people via elected leaders, which is the definition of a republic.
But that merely takes us back to the standard "no monarch" definition of a Republic.
Can you provide any reference to somewhere that defines the word in that way, other than you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
These same "activists" wouldn't turn on their own employers if they raped children to save your job for speaking out about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]