Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«38 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Aurubin
Mar 17, 2011

A smug, enlightened bastard

Until the advent of the computer era and the Internet, surveillance was, by the standards of government, a relatively costly endeavor. Tapping phone lines required the redirection of individual lines, paper documents had to be intercepted physically, and storage was always at a premium. States that had the capability to monitor all electronic communication, like Gaddafi era Libya, were seen as the aberration. Not anymore. Today virtually all technologically capable nations, not simply those seen as “oppressive”, operate sweeping monitoring programs. The ease of digital storage, as well as the centralization of electronic communication via fiber optic sea cables, has drastically reduced the barriers to pervasive surveillance. The justifications for programs like these are usually to prevent criminal or terroristic events, but can just as easily be turned against the populace as a means of control.

At the same time, the advent of the Internet and the speed at which information can be disseminated has lead to an era where forced transparency and the want for secrecy readily clash. Back room discussions leak with increasing frequency and completeness, often tainting the official narrative, for better or worse. Compromise, if it occurs at all, must be done in the open. That is infinitely harder. To quote United States Secretary of State John Kerry, “The Internet makes it hard to govern.” The fact that relatively low level analysts like Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden can walk off with entire archives of classified data is rightly terrifying for the state, not merely for reasons of maintaining control, but because the fruits of diplomacy are predicated on the construction of an artificial narrative, something that blunt intelligence reports always lack. That dissonance is at the heart of society, and radical transparency is simply something new. At the same time, the capability for mass surveillance is as well. The dueling of these two ideas is one of the key issues at this point in human history.

This is a thread for the discussion of the events and ideas surrounding the spectre of mass surveillance in today’s era. We live in a time where the Internet has peeled back the curtain on everyone, pleb and patrician alike. This has caused a radical restructuring of how we deal with events, from things like the Arab Spring, the Chinese Great Firewall, and PRISM. How we deal with things like this deserves debate.

2013 Mass Surveillance Disclosures

On June 6th of this year, the Guardian newspaper along with The Washington Post presented evidence that the United States was collecting the phone metadata from all Verizon customers. Along with this was evidence of an internet monitoring program, PRISM, in which the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) were hooked into the systems of major email and software providers such as Google and Microsoft. The sheer scale of the intake, as well as the lack of filtration, was what raised alarm. The man who leaked these programs, Edward Snowden, came forward on the 14th of June. Since then disclosures about the nature of the espionage by the US and it’s allies has been in the media almost weekly. His reasoning for disclosing these programs was to spark a debate about the changing nature of surveillance, especially when they are divorced from the democratic process.

Resources
Wikipedia article about mass surveillance by country-> The included legal and moral rationals are worth discussing
Wikipedia summary of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures-> Very detailed, excellently collated
Timeline of NSA surveillance disclosures and surrounding legal matters by the Electronic Frontier Foundation-> All the way back to 1791!
Summary of disclosures and articles related to the topic by The Guardian
All New York Times articles collated by their relation to the NSA

World Reactions, using Photography!

Brazil





Germany



THIS IS MY PROTEST GRIMACE

United States







United Kingdom

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Aurubin
Mar 17, 2011

A smug, enlightened bastard

WHAT THIS THREAD IS
    A debate about the changing nature of surveillance and what that means for privacy and freedom in the 21st century.
    A discussion about disclosures and debates as the occur, with new stories to be linked in this post, because I'm spergy.
    A place to tell everyone to vote for Rand Paul in 2016.

WHAT THIS THREAD IS NOT
    A place for personal attacks based on ideology. Phrases like "bootlick" and "FBI informant" come to mind.
    A place to shout "IT'S LEGAL!" or "EVERYONE SPIES GET OVER IT." and then wander away. Legality and tradition are not necessarily the issue here, it's the intercession between morality and what is done.

(this space reserved for stories as the occur)
10/10/2013-Sensenbrenner introduces his own bill to curb NSA spying, calls for indictment of Clapper
10/10/2013-Report about the tightening of press freedoms in the US under Obama
10/10/2013-Nick Clegg apparently trying to get review of spying powers
10/10/2013-The CIA felt Snowden was a security risk in 2009
10/11/2013-NSA veterans feel that the White House is not defending them vigorously enough

Aurubin fucked around with this message at Oct 11, 2013 around 04:54

Volcott
Mar 30, 2010


Welcome to the new normal.

This Jacket Is Me
Jan 29, 2009


I'd like to request that we stop using "metadata" as if it's somehow different from "data" in any meaningful way. It lets the pro-surveilence side off by diminishing the severity of intrusion (like, who cares about "metadata" what even is that anyway?). It's also a functionally meaningless difference. If the NSA has a list of all the people that I've emailed, they call it "metadata", but if I write down the names of everyone that I've called this month on a Post-It and the NSA gets a hold of it, it suddenly becomes "data". There's no legal or technical basis for what is "metadata" vs "data", except for author-asserted circumstances (i.e., circumstances that don't apply in this case).

Jacobin
Feb 1, 2013

A World To Win

I look forward to being a part of this discussion and contributing greatly.

Im putting this post as a bit of a placeholder for a short history of cryptography in relation to surveillance and about the cypherpunk movement.

E: Things came up and Im glad to see this thread revived, feel a bit remiss there is nothing here atm, but starting to write it.

Jacobin fucked around with this message at Oct 27, 2013 around 15:27

Sancho
Jul 18, 2003




quote:

Sensenbrenner has called his bill the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring Act – or USA Freedom Act

I wonder how long it took them to think of that name.

Sudo Echo
Mar 1, 2011



Wow I had no idea this thread had been restarted, why the hell is the last post on the 11th? The last thread had more than a hundred posts a day about this, not including Fishmech replies. Let's get this poo poo train rolling again, shall we?

First up: Dianne Feinstein's Bragging About NSA Surveillance Program May Finally Result In It Being Declared Unconstitutional

Majority Decision posted:

...if the Government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from a §1881a acquisition in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.... Thus, if the Government were to prosecute one of respondent-attorney’s foreign clients using §1881a-authorized surveillance, the Government would be required to make a disclosure.... In such a situation, unlike in the present case, it would at least be clear that the Government had acquired the foreign client’s communications using §1881a-authorized surveillance.

So if we use these amazing new surveillance powers, we'll tell defendants. Everyone agrees this is reasonable, and in the previous thread it was argued vehemently by some that this decision made it all a-ok above the board totally normal surveillance.

Dianne Feinstein posted:

I've asked the staff to compile arrests that have been made in the last four years in America on terrorist plots that have been stopped. And there are 100 arrests that have been made since 2009 and 2012. There have been 16 individuals arrest just this year alone. Let me quickly just review what these plots were. And some of them come right from this program. The counterterrorism come and the information came right from this program. And again, if Members want to see that they can go and look in a classified manner.

[proceeds to list out eight "examples" of terrorism arrests -- two with names, six are just general descriptions of plots]

... and it goes on and on and on. So this has worked. And you know, as the years go on, the intelligence becomes the way to prevent these attacks. Now that the FBI has geared up a national security unit, they've employed 10,000 people and information gained through programs like this, through other sources as well, is able to be used to prevent plots from happening. So in four years 100 arrests to prevent something from happening in the United States, some of which comes from this program. So I think it's a vital program.

Well what have we here? A Senator on the intelligence committee who has direct knowledge of these things makes a really big claim about the programs efficacy. See you guys? The system works, we totally stopped some terrorists by reading everyones phone logs. That must mean that in the court records the government had to have revealed the collection of this data to the defense and that the collection was ruled lawful, right? Well, lets just go through the records and take a quick look. We even have names so the cases are even easier to find! Hey, wasn't the reason that the Supreme Court said Amnesty International couldn't bring their case was because they couldn't prove that anyone had actually been a victim? Oh wait....

quote:

In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance.
So at this point either Virelli lied to the supreme court, the NSA lied to Virelli, or US prosecutors are full of poo poo. Virelli's actions seem to discount the first option

quote:

Mr. Verrilli sought an explanation from national security lawyers about why they had not flagged the issue when vetting his Supreme Court briefs and helping him practice for the arguments, according to officials.

The national security lawyers explained that it was a misunderstanding, the officials said. Because the rules on wiretapping warrants in foreign intelligence cases are different from the rules in ordinary criminal investigations, they said, the division has long used a narrow understanding of what “derived from” means in terms of when it must disclose specifics to defendants.
They must have gotten this definition from a dictionary without the word "gullible" in it. How will the establishment reconcile this seemingly incongruous set of facts?

quote:

Notwithstanding that she was speaking in support of reauthorization of Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Senator Feinstein did not state, and she did not mean to state, that FAA surveillance was used in any or all of the nine cases she enumerated, including Mr. Daoud's case, in which terrorist plots had been stopped. Rather, the nine cases the Chairman sumamrized were drawn from a list of 100 arrests arising out of foiled terrorism plots in the United States between 2009 and 2012 compiled by the staff from FBI press releases and other public sources.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


Yet another reason Feinstein is the worst senator. I hope she gets Alzheimer's assuming she doesn't have it already.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



This Jacket Is Me posted:

I'd like to request that we stop using "metadata" as if it's somehow different from "data" in any meaningful way. It lets the pro-surveilence side off by diminishing the severity of intrusion (like, who cares about "metadata" what even is that anyway?). It's also a functionally meaningless difference. If the NSA has a list of all the people that I've emailed, they call it "metadata", but if I write down the names of everyone that I've called this month on a Post-It and the NSA gets a hold of it, it suddenly becomes "data". There's no legal or technical basis for what is "metadata" vs "data", except for author-asserted circumstances (i.e., circumstances that don't apply in this case).
What? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legal or technical distinction between metadata and data? Do you understand what a pen register is and why it is legal?

There is an enormous functional difference between collecting the metadata of "this guy called this guy at this time" and recording the call itself. You can make qualitative arguments as to why you think placing a pen register on everyone in the US is not rational or moral. But at the end of the day it's pretty much impossible to argue that a pen register is not a less severe intrusion than actual eavesdropping, and straight up false to assert that there isn't a bright line between data and metadata.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


He is correct that it is functionally a meaningless difference. People get put on lists for metadata even if the ACTUAL data was harmless. If I had called Osama Bin Laden the day before the SEAL raid, and said "oops sorry wrong number" then hung up, I'd probably be on a no-fly list at very the least. Either way the data is immaterial as far as investigation and trial evidence is concerned, if they have already pegged you as a person of interest, which again is based on metadata.

the
Jul 18, 2004
CERSEI DROWNS TYRION IN WINE BARREL

What I'm wondering is, for the average middle-class person in America, is it even possible to live a normal life and not be surveyed constantly?

Using e-mail, cellphones, and social networks are practically an indispensable way of life for most people in America, but it seems like the only way to avoid having all of your data grabbed is to live in a bunker and communicate through TOR (which didn't I read was broken recently or something?).

etalian
Mar 20, 2006


the posted:

What I'm wondering is, for the average middle-class person in America, is it even possible to live a normal life and not be surveyed constantly?

Using e-mail, cellphones, and social networks are practically an indispensable way of life for most people in America, but it seems like the only way to avoid having all of your data grabbed is to live in a bunker and communicate through TOR (which didn't I read was broken recently or something?).

Not really from all the leaks the NSA has developed a wide range of tools for easy surveillance of things such as internet traffic or data mining facebook.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


the posted:

What I'm wondering is, for the average middle-class person in America, is it even possible to live a normal life and not be surveyed constantly?

Using e-mail, cellphones, and social networks are practically an indispensable way of life for most people in America, but it seems like the only way to avoid having all of your data grabbed is to live in a bunker and communicate through TOR (which didn't I read was broken recently or something?).

No. It has been fairly difficult to escape observation even in the late 90's these days it is actually impossible, but complacency etc means that as long as you are keep your head down, you (probably) won't end up disappeared, and if you do, well I guess you were just unlucky. Nothing we can do right? Lets just keep voting for people like Feinstein because we are loving idiot sheep and think that she is somehow better than an 'other'.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



Powercrazy posted:

He is correct that it is functionally a meaningless difference. People get put on lists for metadata even if the ACTUAL data was harmless. If I had called Osama Bin Laden the day before the SEAL raid, and said "oops sorry wrong number" then hung up, I'd probably be on a no-fly list at very the least. Either way the data is immaterial as far as investigation and trial evidence is concerned, if they have already pegged you as a person of interest, which again is based on metadata.
So, you're arguing we shouldn't investigate people who call Osama bin Laden because some of those calls might be accidental?

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

So, you're arguing we shouldn't investigate people who call Osama bin Laden because some of those calls might be accidental?

Transparency is all I'm asking for, but ideally no, we shouldn't be criminalizing someone for who they associate with.

the
Jul 18, 2004
CERSEI DROWNS TYRION IN WINE BARREL

Isn't there a name for that?

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why?! Why?! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market ?!!!


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

What? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legal or technical distinction between metadata and data? Do you understand what a pen register is and why it is legal?

There is an enormous functional difference between collecting the metadata of "this guy called this guy at this time" and recording the call itself. You can make qualitative arguments as to why you think placing a pen register on everyone in the US is not rational or moral. But at the end of the day it's pretty much impossible to argue that a pen register is not a less severe intrusion than actual eavesdropping, and straight up false to assert that there isn't a bright line between data and metadata.

There really isn't that big a functional difference. It's an outdated legal distinction that made sense in the 1950's but doesn't now, for a host of fairly obvious reasons, starting with "in 1950 phones weren't personal tracking devices." You can still draw lines if you want but it isn't at all clear that extensive metadata tracking is somehow less invasive than the words of a given call; in many cases for many calls the metadata might be far more informative than the call itself.

this_is_hard
Sep 30, 2012


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/..._n_4150812.html

quote:

Germany says U.S. may have tapped Merkel's phone. http://t.co/hNaBnT26jX
— WSJ Breaking News (@WSJbreakingnews) October 23, 2013

White House is categorically denying this, but I doubt Germany would publicly accuse the US of something of this magnitude if they didn't have at least a pretty solid amount of evidence

Paul MaudDib
May 2, 2006

My name is a killing word.


Hieronymous Alloy posted:

There really isn't that big a functional difference. It's an outdated legal distinction that made sense in the 1950's but doesn't now, for a host of fairly obvious reasons, starting with "in 1950 phones weren't personal tracking devices." You can still draw lines if you want but it isn't at all clear that extensive metadata tracking is somehow less invasive than the words of a given call; in many cases for many calls the metadata might be far more informative than the call itself.

For this matter the third-party doctrine as a whole is clearly broken. Let me quote Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Jones:

quote:

More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976) .

This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers.

Perhaps, as Justice Alito notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes”); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352 (“[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected”).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...0-1259_CONCUR_4

(bolding and reflowing mine)

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



Powercrazy posted:

Transparency is all I'm asking for, but ideally no, we shouldn't be criminalizing someone for who they associate with.
Calling Osama bin Laden shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, no, but you're insane if you think it shouldn't make you a criminal suspect.

Paul MaudDib
May 2, 2006

My name is a killing word.


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Calling Osama bin Laden shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, no, but you're insane if you think it shouldn't make you a criminal suspect.

It really shouldn't, given that the NSA tracks these things out to three hops (Bin Laden calls Person C, Person C calls Person B, Person B calls Person A, therefore Person A is a criminal suspect for communication with a terrorist). Almost every single person in the world is connected by less than six hops, so you're talking about treating a significant percentage of the world population as criminal suspects. That's inherently counter to the idea of fourth amendment protections, you shouldn't be able to declare half the world as criminal suspects in one go.

quote:

The National Security Agency revealed to an angry congressional panel on Wednesday that its analysis of phone records and online behavior goes exponentially beyond what it had previously disclosed.

John C Inglis, the deputy director of the surveillance agency, told a member of the House judiciary committee that NSA analysts can perform "a second or third hop query" through its collections of telephone data and internet records in order to find connections to terrorist organizations.

"Hops" refers to a technical term indicating connections between people. A three-hop query means that the NSA can look at data not only from a suspected terrorist, but from everyone that suspect communicated with, and then from everyone those people communicated with, and then from everyone all of those people communicated with.

Inglis did not elaborate, nor did the members of the House panel – many of whom expressed concern and even anger at the NSA – explore the legal and privacy implications of the breadth of "three-hop" analysis.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-house-hearing

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Oct 23, 2013 around 18:39

flatbus
Sep 19, 2012


the posted:

What I'm wondering is, for the average middle-class person in America, is it even possible to live a normal life and not be surveyed constantly?

Using e-mail, cellphones, and social networks are practically an indispensable way of life for most people in America, but it seems like the only way to avoid having all of your data grabbed is to live in a bunker and communicate through TOR (which didn't I read was broken recently or something?).

Even if something NSA-impenetrable existed, it wouldn't matter if it's difficult to incorporate into your average life. You just have to make something inconvenient, and that thing will fall on the wrong side of the security-usability spectrum. I fully expect the US government to come up with a law to 'opt out' of something (through an inconvenient process) so the NSA can both keep its goodies and push the moral burden of privacy onto the people they're spying on.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



Paul MaudDib posted:

It really shouldn't, given that the NSA tracks these things out to three hops (Bin Laden calls Person C, Person C calls Person B, Person B calls Person A, therefore Person A is a criminal suspect for communication with a terrorist). Almost every single person in the world is connected by less than six hops, so you're talking about treating a significant percentage of the world population as criminal suspects. That's inherently counter to the idea of fourth amendment protections, you shouldn't be able to declare half the world as criminal suspects in one go.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-house-hearing
The ability to perform a query is not the same thing as making someone a criminal suspect.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Calling Osama bin Laden shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, no, but you're insane if you think it shouldn't make you a criminal suspect.
Suspect or not, Being put on a no-fly list with secret justification and no way to challenge is a problem.

Remember you become a suspect and are pre-judged guilty based on the metadata, nothing else.

PrBacterio
Jul 19, 2000


Powercrazy posted:

Suspect or not, Being put on a no-fly list with secret justification and no way to challenge is a problem.

Remember you become a suspect and are pre-judged guilty based on the metadata, nothing else.
Oh I'm sure that once they've seen some metadata connecting you to Bin Laden through a couple of steps they'll have no compunction about starting to collect all your content data as well, and use that to even further justify their putting you on whatever lists they like. Also, the no fly list is quite literal (and I use the word advisedly) McCarthyism but that might not be entirely on-topic in a discussion about surveillance overreach.

Tezzor
Jul 29, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 7 days!


With the amount of spying we now knows goes on for imperial purposes, talking about this program as counter terrorism is misleading and something those running the programs would prefer. Sure, it may be used for counter-terrorism incidentally, but it's appearing increasingly clear that this is a program of imperial economic espionage that has been sold as counter-terrorism.

Kid Gloves
Jul 31, 2013



Let's catch up with the people working overtime to make government surveillance more transparent.

Clapper Memo Reveals Rationale Behind NSA Review Group Secrecy.

Clapper sends out a memo regarding the group Obama set up to explore NSA transparency, the Director of National Intelligence Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. Looking for any information about what the group discussed at their last meeting? Oops:

Clapper posted:

Disclosure of minutes, notes, or other records may reveal information that reasonably could be expected to cause damage to national security.

Which is funny because "classified information was not discussed at any of the review group’s meetings held over the past month, according to statements attendees gave to the AP and The Guardian."

Toplowtech
Aug 31, 2004


quote:

The fact that relatively low level analysts like Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden can walk off with entire archives of classified data is rightly terrifying for the state
I am not American and here is what's really shocking me about the whole outrage in Washington about the "treacherous" whistle-blowers from surveillance hawks: the security of the whole US highly confidential data system is clearly weak as hell and that level of mediocre security is good enough for them. With the stupidly high number of people with the same security level clearance as Snowden or Manning who can access to high level (and sometime extremely personal) data, i am pretty sure the US government should be far less concerned with a few people leaking the data to the press and far more concerned with the fact that more people have probably sold it to a foreign power or the private sector. I am really supposed to believe that no one in the surveillance industry betrayed the US for money or under the duress of blackmail from a foreign intelligence agency ? And that the only weakness is a few whistle-blowers stupid enough to ruin their own life by giving it to the press ?

Farecoal
Oct 15, 2011

???


Aurubin posted:

At the same time, the advent of the Internet and the speed at which information can be disseminated has lead to an era where forced transparency and the want for secrecy readily clash. Back room discussions leak with increasing frequency and completeness, often tainting the official narrative, for better or worse. Compromise, if it occurs at all, must be done in the open. That is infinitely harder. To quote United States Secretary of State John Kerry, “The Internet makes it hard to govern.” The fact that relatively low level analysts like Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden can walk off with entire archives of classified data is rightly terrifying for the state, not merely for reasons of maintaining control, but because the fruits of diplomacy are predicated on the construction of an artificial narrative, something that blunt intelligence reports always lack. That dissonance is at the heart of society, and radical transparency is simply something new.

Why bother having a democracy if I, a citizen who votes in representatives to help represent my interests, cannot have access to all the information the members of the US government have?

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



Because certain poo poo needs to be kept secret in order to prevent Americans from getting murdered?

I'm all for reforming the clearance process. Far fewer low-level clearances should be getting handed out, and related background investigations ought to be far more thorough. But lets keep the "NO GOVT SECRETS!!!!" bullshit out of this thread.

Tezzor
Jul 29, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 7 days!


^ This is what passes for reform in the American consciousness. Leaked documents show government wrongdoing? Clearly the problem here is insufficient protection of those documents.

Fiend
Dec 2, 2001


Tezzor posted:

^ This is what passes for reform in the American consciousness. Leaked documents show government wrongdoing? Clearly the problem here is insufficient protection of those documents.

Also the statement "Preventing Americans from getting murdered" sure is a great excuse in defense of an organization that is often criticized for murdering Americans.

Volcott
Mar 30, 2010


Fiend posted:

Also the statement "Preventing Americans from getting murdered" sure is a great excuse in defense of an organization that is often criticized for murdering Americans.

Are you implying the Government of the United States is following dudes into alleyways and stabbing them?

Murder is a crime between individuals.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012



Tezzor posted:

^ This is what passes for reform in the American consciousness. Leaked documents show government wrongdoing? Clearly the problem here is insufficient protection of those documents.
Sweet strawman, bro. I was only explaining to Farecoal why it would be bad policy to give all of the same information that, say, the CIA and FBI have, to random schmucks. I said nothing about the (admittedly egregious) wrongdoing on the part of the NSA as of late. That doesn't mean I'm philosophically against surveillance in the interest of counterterrorism, just unnecessarily broad surveillance.

Kid Gloves
Jul 31, 2013



Discussions about "you called Bin Laden 10 minutes before he was captured" or "let's give 100% of all information to everybody" completely miss the point. Of course there are some things the government should be able to keep secret, and of course there's a level of association at which it would make sense for the FBI to begin investigating you. The problem is that in 2013 both of these things are calibrated in completely ridiculous ways that give the government far too much power with far too little accountability. Check my previous post, the group established with the theoretical goal of making the NSA more transparent can't release its minutes or what it's discussing because of nebulous danger to National Security.

Fojar38
Sep 1, 2011
------------->
This space guaranteed to be full of the stupidest shit you can imagine about history that I don't understand.
------------->

PS: Time for a 39th Fojar, we can do better than this

this_is_hard posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/..._n_4150812.html


White House is categorically denying this, but I doubt Germany would publicly accuse the US of something of this magnitude if they didn't have at least a pretty solid amount of evidence

So I'm not particularly impressed with Snowden and Greenwald because they seem to be going beyond their self-appointed mandate of protecting civil liberties if they're also leaking US Intelligence operations including spying on other countries, also known as "that thing that security and intelligence agencies are supposed to do." Regardless of the veracity of the claims it strikes me as being done not because of the ideology that they and their supporters repeatedly espouse but rather out of petty spite and a desire to hurt US interests even if they're irrelevant to civil liberties.

Kid Gloves
Jul 31, 2013



quote:

The German government said it responded after receiving "information that the chancellor's cellphone may be monitored" by U.S. intelligence. It wouldn't elaborate, but German news magazine Der Spiegel, which has published material from NSA leaker Edward Snowden, said its research triggered the response.

This was originally reported by Der Spiegel based on their own research. I'm not finding anything that links this to Greenwald or Snowden's leaks. This is about as problematic as the NYT doing research to find out that Germany is tapping Obama's phone. Can you point out the part where Snowden or Greenwald engandered U.S. interests here or did you mean to make that post with regard to some other leak that isn't represented on this page?

Jazerus
May 24, 2011

If it is good to say or do something, then it is even better to be criticized for having said or done it.


Sancho posted:

I wonder how long it took them to think of that name.

Sensenbrenner sure loves his Uniting and Strengthening America bills. A USA Freedom Act to counter the USA Patriot Act would be nice for the history books though I guess.

Tezzor
Jul 29, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 7 days!


Fojar38 posted:

So I'm not particularly impressed with Snowden and Greenwald because they seem to be going beyond their self-appointed mandate of protecting civil liberties if they're also leaking US Intelligence operations including spying on other countries, also known as "that thing that security and intelligence agencies are supposed to do." Regardless of the veracity of the claims it strikes me as being done not because of the ideology that they and their supporters repeatedly espouse but rather out of petty spite and a desire to hurt US interests even if they're irrelevant to civil liberties.

Other people have civil liberties too. I see no moral reason to write off the civil and fair economic rights of people if they exist outside our borders and are of no conceivable threat to us. Security agencies are supposed to work for security, not operate as the petty functionaries of economic imperialism, and as a US citizen I fully support hurting these "interests."

I mean, look at this. You're not even claiming that this is going to put anybody in physical danger, just whining that somebody has the gall to meaningfully oppose underhanded US hegemony.

Tezzor fucked around with this message at Oct 24, 2013 around 02:15

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


Fojar38 posted:

So I'm not particularly impressed with Snowden and Greenwald because they seem to be going beyond their self-appointed mandate of protecting civil liberties if they're also leaking US Intelligence operations including spying on other countries, also known as "that thing that security and intelligence agencies are supposed to do." Regardless of the veracity of the claims it strikes me as being done not because of the ideology that they and their supporters repeatedly espouse but rather out of petty spite and a desire to hurt US interests even if they're irrelevant to civil liberties.

But what security is gained from spying on Merkel? I mean, sure, they are supposed to find out what other countries are doing, but "national security" can't exactly be used as a justification here.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«38 »