Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

«‹›85 »

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I don't have a very high opinion of Mark Ames' writing re: Greenwald so I haven't been following that too closely. He seems to have a HUGE axe to grind for some reason and just comes across as being pissy that anybody other than Mark Ames is gaining left-wing street cred.

edit: don't get me wrong Ames has done great work in other areas but his stuff re: Greenwald just seems to reek of personal vendetta.

About 4 years ago Greenwald criticized a story Ames wrote for being a paranoid pile of crap and he's been a crybaby about it ever since.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 02:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 07:47

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Also Ames really loving hates libertarians, and Greenwald wrote a paper for CATO once (a pretty good one on Portugese drug policy) so therefore he is tainted as a Kochsucker forever despite also writing for a shitload of liberal publications and being an obvious left-libertarian. Making common cause is for sellouts, kids.

This is especially funny because exclusionary right-libertarians aren't much fond of him either.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 02:07

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

As to the Huawei hacking; yes this is legitimate in the context of the intelligence world. What is not legitimate is the high handed moralization and condemnation from the US over China and Huawei when they're doing the same goddamn thing. We're conditioned to accept the fact that no one means what they say, but the US denied Huawei access to American markets on the basis of their complicity with Chinese surveillance, wagged the finger, and then proceeded to hook onto their network backbone? Is that not more hypocritical than usual? I'm genuinely asking.

Elotana posted:

Also Ames really loving hates libertarians, and Greenwald wrote a paper for CATO once (a pretty good one on Portugese drug policy) so therefore he is tainted as a Kochsucker forever despite also writing for a shitload of liberal publications and being an obvious left-libertarian. Making common cause is for sellouts, kids.

This is especially funny because exclusionary right-libertarians aren't much fond of him either.

The Frederick Douglass quote "I would unite with anyone to do right and with no one to do wrong" always comes to mind when Greenwald writes for and quotes from varying publications. It's also why he probably doesn't talk about whatever his economic leanings are, since he focuses primarily on social and civil issues. These things may be inexorably linked in the long term, but progress is made via compromise, hence why I laugh when Edward Snowden votes for Ron Paul, but appreciate his word on digital surveillance. I never understood tribal factionalism, and half my family is in politics.

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Mar 24, 2014

# ? Mar 24, 2014 02:11

vseslav.botkin: Feb 18, 2007; Professor

Boon posted:

Because I've experienced nothing that I would consider illegal.

What about immoral?

# ? Mar 24, 2014 06:44

Andersnordic: Dec 30, 2013

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

At what point does the fundamental legitimacy of the legal and political system to police itself or resolve these (among many other) extremely serious problems come into question?

It already has. Dianne Feinstein is legendarily corrupt and hypocritical, and the potential for abuse that a database like the one the NSA provides is almost unimaginable. The blackmail doesn't even have to come from the NSA itself - Snowden himself was a private contractor, and every one of those contractors can wiretap whoever they want with no sort of oversight or restriction. Feinstein herself has a history of corruption and did absolutely nothing when unindited felon James Clapper lied to her under oath.

Why exactly did she do that? Can any of the NSA defenders explain why the NSA oversight committee did nothing when they were knowingly lied to?

# ? Mar 24, 2014 07:19

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Andersnordic posted:

It already has. Dianne Feinstein is legendarily corrupt and hypocritical, and the potential for abuse that a database like the one the NSA provides is almost unimaginable. The blackmail doesn't even have to come from the NSA itself - Snowden himself was a private contractor, and every one of those contractors can wiretap whoever they want with no sort of oversight or restriction. Feinstein herself has a history of corruption and did absolutely nothing when unindited felon James Clapper lied to her under oath.

Why exactly did she do that? Can any of the NSA defenders explain why the NSA oversight committee did nothing when they were knowingly lied to?

I'm fairly confident that the NSA's deliberate and controlled vocabulary has provided an out for any serious attempt at a contempt charge. The NSA probably has a definition for "collect" that specifically means a targeted and deliberate gathering of data from a single person. This would be the same kind of excuse that they use to say that they don't conduct surveillance on millions of Americans because of course "surveillance" is defined as a human manually inspecting some set of data.

Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Mar 24, 2014

# ? Mar 24, 2014 07:53

Andersnordic: Dec 30, 2013

Salt Fish posted:

I'm fairly confident that the NSA's deliberate and controlled vocabulary has provided an out for any serious attempt at a contempt charge. The NSA probably has a definition for "collect" that specifically means a targeted and deliberate gathering of data from a single person. This would be the same kind of excuse that they use to say that they don't conduct surveillance on millions of Americans because of course "surveillance" is defined as a human manually inspecting some set of data.

They do have a super stupid definition of "collect" which implies that libraries don't have collections of books and it is flat out impossible to have a collection of fine wines, but the NSA's programs run afoul of even that disingenuous definition.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 08:25

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Marcy Wheeler suggested that the NYT story might be a limited hangout to both preempt Der Spiegel and give more ammo to Snowden's detractors, as the story freely switches between quoting the SHOTGIANT slide deck and quoting background officials about PLA hacking, a distinction which approximately zero of the people eager to label him a traitor will make.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 08:43

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Boon posted:

I agree with most of what you said. However, Snowden, whether you like it or not, is directly responsible and should be held culpable for any illegal disclosure of classified materials... of which that latest article is. I know this because I myself hold a clearance.

Doing good doesn't erase the bad. He should be held responsible for what he's hosed up as well as lauded for what he's done right.

I think you'll have a hard time pushing the view that the disclosure of classified material is always bad. It's illegal, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong, especially when considerable effort is put into making sure that the disclosure is done selectively and responsibly so that no one is placed at risk.

Aurubin posted:

Scalia, when asked whether or not computer data might fall under the effects clause of the 4th Amendment, found the question intriguing. This is worrying to me because I thought that was blindingly obvious. I figured everyone simply equated surveillance with the third party doctrine and called it a day, but apparently Scalia holds these two ideas separately in his head. Then again, according to Kagen, only three of the Justices regularly use computers.

Justice Scalia Gave An Intriguing Non-Answer Question To A Question About NSA Spying

There's parts of that which concern me far more than his views on digital data. I mean, come on now:

quote:

Scalia made it clear the issue would likely come before the high court, and he hinted he would rule that "conversations" (i.e., the conversations the government might listen to) aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, Scalia pointed out, prohibits the government from searching your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without a warrant - not "conversations."

Fuuuuuuuuck

# ? Mar 24, 2014 12:45

treasured8elief: Jul 25, 2011; Salad Prong

Main Paineframe posted:

There's parts of that which concern me far more than his views on digital data. I mean, come on now:

quote:
Scalia made it clear the issue would likely come before the high court, and he hinted he would rule that "conversations" (i.e., the conversations the government might listen to) aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, Scalia pointed out, prohibits the government from searching your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without a warrant - not "conversations."

Fuuuuuuuuck

Oh my goodness he has such horrible views. Do you know when he said that so I can read his entire transcripts or interview?

# ? Mar 24, 2014 12:52

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

tentative8e8op posted:

Oh my goodness he has such horrible views. Do you know when he said that so I can read his entire transcripts or interview?

A Q&A session at Brooklyn Law with Andrew Napolitano on Friday.

quote:

While suggesting that the high court will take up NSA surveillance, Scalia expressed his opinion that judges should not be deciding matters of national security.

"The Supreme Court doesn't know diddly about the nature and extent of the threat," Scalia said. Later on, he added, "It's truly stupid that my court is going to be the last word on it."

Still, he hinted he would rule that NSA surveillance does not violate the Constitution if and when the issue comes before the Supreme Court. Although one judge has ruled the spying violates the Fourth Amendment, Scalia may disagree based on his strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The text of the Fourth Amendment bars unwarranted searches of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." But, as Scalia told the audience, "conversations are quite different" from all four of those things.

One astute law student said something, however, that may make Scalia reconsider his initial thinking on the constitutionality of the NSA's domestic surveillance. That student asked if data in a computer were considered "effects" under the Fourth Amendment, in an apparent reference to the NSA capturing communications over the Internet.

Scalia, visibly impressed by the question, said, "I better not answer that. That is something that may well come up [before the Supreme Court]."

Note that by "threat" there, he is almost certainly referring to the threat of evil terrorists, not the threat of government surveillance and oppression. This is, after all, the judge who cited "24" when suggesting that torture wasn't always wrong.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 13:01

Demiurge4: Aug 10, 2011

Main Paineframe posted:

Note that by "threat" there, he is almost certainly referring to the threat of evil terrorists, not the threat of government surveillance and oppression. This is, after all, the judge who cited "24" when suggesting that torture wasn't always wrong.

It's really concerning when constitutional law is sidestepped or interpreted around current politics. The supreme court is supposed to be neutral god dammit.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 13:12

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Demiurge4 posted:

It's really concerning when constitutional law is sidestepped or interpreted around current politics. The supreme court is supposed to be neutral god dammit.

I don't think it's really about current politics. Scalia has stated before that he doesn't think the judiciary has the right to rule on all this security state stuff because he doesn't think they're as informed as the legislative or the executive are about the threats that the security state is meant to combat. It's a stupid argument (the legality of a tactic shouldn't vary based on how bad the entity it's used against is, and the judiciary can be provided with the necessary info anyway as needed) but this isn't the first time he's made it.

While I haven't found a transcript of that talk yet, other articles have quoted other sections of it, and it looks like Scalia's pretty open about his bad views and how he literally thinks that there's no Constitutional protection against wiretapping at all!

http://politicker.com/2014/03/antonin-scalia-has-a-civil-liberties-debate-in-brooklyn/

quote:

�How expansive can an Antonin Scalia in 2014 interpret the freedom of speech? Does it pertain to cellphones or does it matter where you�re physically located when you�re using the cellphone?� Mr. Napolitano asked at the forum, hosted by the Brooklyn Law School in a local opera house.

�No. No. That demonstrates the falsity of the argument that sometimes is made opposing originalism: �Oh, society has come so far. There�s so many technologies. How can you apply this ... old Constitution?�� replied Mr. Scalia. �It�s the freedom of speech. It doesn�t matter whether you�re speaking in semaphore or a cellphone or any type of modern technology. You apply the same First Amendment principals to the new technology that you applied to the old. And the same for reasonable searches and seizures.�

Mr. Napolitano then asked if mass surveillance of cellphones and emails would be prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, which states: �The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.� Many of the National Security Agency�s controversial surveillance programs were prominently exposed last year by Edward Snowden, a former security contracted who leaked sensitive documents revealing the U.S. government�s wide collection of digital data.

�You�re getting into the NSA stuff, right?� Mr. Scalia remarked�one of many snarky, laughter-drawing lines he issued throughout the evening. �This may come before the court. And I don�t want to get myself recused.� But Mr. Scalia nevertheless directly said he didn�t feel �conversations� were part of the �persons, houses, papers and effects� covered by the Fourth Amendment.

�A wiretap is not a �persons, houses, papers and effects.� It may be a very bad idea. Some states have laws against it. There probably should be laws against it. But it doesn�t violate the Constitution,� Mr. Scalia argued.

�These things are very specific. They said what items you may be secure against from unreasonable searches and seizures � I don�t think that you can expand that to say something that is quite different: That is �conversations,�� he later added.

�Does the Constitution protect the right to privacy?� asked Mr. Napolitano, causing Mr. Scalia to reiterate his position.

�Yes,� he answered. �Specifically it protects unreasonable searches of persons, houses, papers and effects. That�s what it says! What are you asking me for?� More laughter ensued.

---

On an unrelated note, remember how I was saying it was possible the NSA knew about the invasion of Ukraine ahead of time and there was just nothing the administration could do? Well, turns out I was wrong! The NSA was completely clueless about the whole thing, and are apparently so flustered by it that they haven't even gotten around to blaming Snowden for their failures yet. I'm honestly shocked; when I saw the headline I figured "that dastardly Snowden must have told the Russians how to avoid our surveillance" would be the first excuse given, but so far that exact argument hasn't come up, just general stuff about Snowden "supporting Russian expansionism". That must have been a huge embarrassment for them to be so off their game about it.

quote:

The Obama administration is "very nervous" about Russia's recent ability to hide communications from U.S. eavesdropping equipment while commandeering Crimea and amassing troops near Ukraine's border, a U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal.
"This is uncharted territory," the official added.

The Journal reports that U.S. officials don't know how Russia hid its plans from the National Security Agency, which spies on digital and electronic communications.

Russian leaders either "deliberately avoided communicating about the invasion or simply found a way to do so without detection by the U.S.," The Journal notes.

It's also unclear if the Kremlin's new camouflage it is part of a larger trend that could impact America's ability to deter Russia.

"All military combat operations depend on NSA contributions," Robert Caruso, a former assistant command security manager in the Navy and a consultant, told Business Insider when discussing documents potentially accessed by Edward Snowden. "[The Department of Defense] depends on NSA and the Defense Information Systems Agency to secure all its networks, and others networks too."

Some officials doubt that the U.S. could have done much differently as Russian special forces began a slow takeover of the strategic Black Sea peninsula, but the inability to see the developments has them concerned nonetheless.

U.S. spy agencies and the military are now implementing a "surge" of assets to expand satellite coverage and communications-interception in the region, the Journal reports.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 13:57

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Didn't earlier articles about targeting comment that of targets, Russia, Iran, and North Korea were the most secure? With Russia and DPRK being almost dark? I think that was a Guardian piece. It's not like the FSB and GRU are using Cisco routers with laptops bought right off Dell's homepage.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 15:02

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Aurubin posted:

Didn't earlier articles about targeting comment that of targets, Russia, Iran, and North Korea were the most secure? With Russia and DPRK being almost dark? I think that was a Guardian piece. It's not like the FSB and GRU are using Cisco routers with laptops bought right off Dell's homepage.

Sure, but it looks really really bad for the NSA to have virtually no intel on foreign enemies #1, #2, and #3 when they're spending all their time and money cooking up more ways to spy on Americans and Europeans. It also suggests that the NSA's methods are actually pretty lovely and don't work on entities that are trying to avoid Western surveillance, or possibly just aren't running on Western infrastructure in the first place. The NSA having more intel on Americans and Europeans is understandable since they're a lot easier to spy on, but in that case the NSA's number one priority would be expected to be trying to find ways to gather any info at all on enemy countries - if they've got big holes in the surveillance net for basically every foreign entity we're opposed to, and they don't consider that to be as important as skimming our Facebook profiles and our phone conversations, then that casts serious doubt on the "national security" justification for surveillance.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 15:24

Nektu: Jul 4, 2007; FUKKEN FUUUUUUCK; Cybernetic Crumb

Main Paineframe posted:

The NSA having more intel on Americans and Europeans is understandable since they're a lot easier to spy on, but in that case the NSA's number one priority would be expected to be trying to find ways to gather any info at all on enemy countries - if they've got big holes in the surveillance net for basically every foreign entity we're opposed to, and they don't consider that to be as important as skimming our Facebook profiles and our phone conversations, then that casts serious doubt on the "national security" justification for surveillance.

In Eastern germany the Stasi did exactly what the NSA is doing right now. Only they still had to do it manually and the people in charge where willing to use the results openly.

Have fun america, good times ahead :tipshat:

Nektu fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Mar 24, 2014

# ? Mar 24, 2014 16:49

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Caveat Emptor:

quote:

Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.�s Bulk Data Collection

WASHINGTON � The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency�s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that � if approved by Congress � would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.

Under the proposal, they said, the N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans� calling habits. The bulk records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.

In a speech in January, President Obama said he wanted to get the N.S.A. out of the business of collecting call records in bulk while preserving the program�s abilities. He acknowledged, however, that there was no easy way to do so, and had instructed Justice Department and intelligence officials to come up with a plan by March 28 � Friday � when the current court order authorizing the program expires.

As part of the proposal, the administration has decided to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to renew the program as it currently exists for at least one more 90-day cycle, senior administration officials said. But under the plan the administration has developed and now advocates, the officials said, it would later undergo major changes.

The new type of surveillance court orders envisioned by the administration would require phone companies to swiftly provide records in a technologically compatible data format, including making available, on a continuing basis, data about any new calls placed or received after the order is received, the officials said.

They would also allow the government to swiftly seek related records for callers up to two phone calls, or �hops,� removed from the number that has come under suspicion, even if those callers are customers of other companies.

The N.S.A. now retains the phone data for five years. But the administration considered and rejected imposing a mandate on phone companies that they hold on to their customers� calling records for a period longer than the 18 months that federal regulations already generally require � a burden that the companies had resisted shouldering and that was seen as a major obstacle to keeping the data in their hands. A senior administration official said that intelligence agencies had concluded that the operational impact of that change would be small because older data is less important.

The N.S.A. uses the once-secret call records program � sometimes known as the 215 program, after Section 215 of the Patriot Act � to analyze links between callers in an effort to identify hidden terrorist associates, if they exist. It was part of the secret surveillance program that President George W. Bush unilaterally put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, outside of any legal framework or court oversight.

In 2006, as part of a broader Bush administration effort to put its programs on a firmer legal footing, the Justice Department persuaded the surveillance court to begin authorizing the program. It claimed that Section 215, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders for business records deemed �relevant� to an investigation, could be interpreted as allowing the N.S.A. to systematically collect domestic calling records in bulk.

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the administration�s proposal a �sensible outcome, given that the 215 program likely exceeded current legal authority and has not proved to be effective.� While he said that he would like to see more overhauls to other surveillance authorities, he said the proposal was �significant� and addressed the major concerns with the N.S.A.�s bulk records program.

Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union said, �We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the N.S.A.�s bulk collection of call records should end.� He added, �As we�ve argued since the program was disclosed, the government can track suspected terrorists without placing millions of people under permanent surveillance.�

The administration�s proposal will join a jumble of bills in Congress ranging from proposals that would authorize the current program with only minor adjustments, to proposals to end it.

In recent days, attention in Congress has shifted to legislation developed by leaders of the House Intelligence Committee. That bill, according to people familiar with a draft proposal, would have the court issue an overarching order authorizing the program, but allow the N.S.A. to issue subpoenas for specific phone records without prior judicial approval.

The Obama administration proposal, by contrast, would retain a judicial role in determining whether the standard of suspicion was met for a particular phone number before the N.S.A. could obtain associated records.

The administration�s proposal would also include a provision clarifying whether Section 215 of the Patriot Act, due to expire next year unless Congress reauthorizes it, may in the future be legitimately interpreted as allowing bulk data collection of telephone data.

The proposal would not, however, affect other forms of bulk collection under the same provision. The C.I.A., for example, has obtained orders for bulk collection of records about international money transfers handled by companies like Western Union.

The existence of the N.S.A. program was disclosed and then declassified last year following leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. The disclosure set off a controversy that scrambled the usual partisan lines in Congress.

The government has been unable to point to any thwarted terrorist attacks that would have been carried out if the program had not existed, but has argued that it is a useful tool.

A review group appointed by Mr. Obama and an independent federal privacy watchdog both called for major changes to the program; the latter also concluded that the bulk collection is illegal, rejecting the government�s Patriot Act interpretation.

In January, Mr. Obama narrowed how far out from suspects N.S.A. analysts could go in analyzing calling records, reducing the limit to two steps from three. He also began requiring N.S.A. analysts to obtain court approval before using a phone number to make queries of the database.

Curious to read the bill, or truthfully, have Marcy Wheeler tell me what's wrong with the bill.

EDIT: Well that was quick: http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/03/24/nsa-bids-to-expand-spying-in-guise-of-fixing-phone-dragnet/

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Mar 25, 2014

# ? Mar 25, 2014 03:48

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!?!; Morbid Hound

Clearly, outsourcing data collection to Target is a great idea. Excuse me, not target, private phone companies. Obviously there is no danger to the public from this proposal.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 04:03

Hugh G. Rectum: Mar 1, 2011

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Clearly, outsourcing data collection to Target is a great idea. Excuse me, not target, private phone companies. Obviously there is no danger to the public from this proposal.

Well in theory the phone companies already have all this data since they need it for billing purposes. Not that there's no room for abuse but it's not anything new.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 04:20

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

I honestly don't care much about the phone metadata dragnet at this point, I'm far more interested in teasing out exactly to what extent and at what points the American internet data hoovered under 702/12333 programs like XKEYSCORE and MUSCULAR can be backdoor queried, and by what agencies. Given the reluctance of NSA flacks to even give a consistent, clear definition of "search" in this context, I'm fairly convinced that the primary purpose of these programs has shifted to acting as a giant feeding trough for parallel construction involving an alphabet soup of law enforcement. To that end, complete backdoor content access under 702/12333 is a lot more concerning than 215 phone metadata. The latter is at least theoretically limited to terrorism, while the NSA has already admitted that their standard for disseminating information collected on Americans under the former is simply "evidence of a crime."

Elotana fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Mar 25, 2014

# ? Mar 25, 2014 04:45

rockopete: Jan 19, 2005

Elotana posted:

I honestly don't care much about the phone metadata dragnet at this point, I'm far more interested in teasing out exactly to what extent and at what points the American internet data hoovered under 702/12333 programs like XKEYSCORE and MUSCULAR can be backdoor queried, and by what agencies. Given the reluctance of NSA flacks to even give a consistent, clear definition of "search" in this context, I'm fairly convinced that the primary purpose of these programs has shifted to acting as a giant feeding trough for parallel construction involving an alphabet soup of law enforcement. To that end, complete backdoor content access under 702/12333 is a lot more concerning than 215 phone metadata. The latter is at least theoretically limited to terrorism, while the NSA has already admitted that their standard for disseminating information collected on Americans under the former is simply "evidence of a crime."

Completely agree. Parallel construction is one of the most dangerous aspects of this entire deal IMO, quite a convenient backdoor for all kinds of shady poo poo.

Relatedly, I can't stop thinking about how hosed we'll be if the state perfects this data-vacuuming dragnet, as it seems so many people would like it to. As someone upthread noted, it took the very illegal Media break-in to check the FBI in the 1970s, because no matter what the official line is, it's people that run these programs, people just as flawed as any of us.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 05:11

chairface: Oct 28, 2007; No matter what you believe, I don't believe in you.

rockopete posted:

Completely agree. Parallel construction is one of the most dangerous aspects of this entire deal IMO, quite a convenient backdoor for all kinds of shady poo poo.

Relatedly, I can't stop thinking about how hosed we'll be if the state perfects this data-vacuuming dragnet, as it seems so many people would like it to. As someone upthread noted, it took the very illegal Media break-in to check the FBI in the 1970s, because no matter what the official line is, it's people that run these programs, people just as flawed as any of us.

I don't know what you're talking about, citizen. I, for one, understand completely that our new informational overlords will use their power responsibly to something something something :smithicide:

# ? Mar 25, 2014 07:26

Jacobin: Feb 1, 2013; by exmarx

Main Paineframe posted:

I don't think it's really about current politics. Scalia has stated before that he doesn't think the judiciary has the right to rule on all this security state stuff because he doesn't think they're as informed as the legislative or the executive are about the threats that the security state is meant to combat. It's a stupid argument (the legality of a tactic shouldn't vary based on how bad the entity it's used against is, and the judiciary can be provided with the necessary info anyway as needed) but this isn't the first time he's made it.

Yeah, boilerplate deference to authority / national security state worship.

The thing that has become quite obvious out of all of the Snowden revelations is just how terrible the NSA has become at making judgments about things from operating in a deeply cloistered/twisted culture that lead us to this economy-torching backdoor-everything mess that makes us all less safe.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 12:06

Al-Saqr: Nov 11, 2007; One Day I Will Return To Your Side.

Normally I'm very open and friendly towards technology and social media and all that jazz, I'm not very good at making those a part of my life as much as other people (who make it the center of their lives), but whatever.

Recently however I've been feeling very extremist towards Google glass in particular. am I being an old nutjob who hates progress?

Because recently I'm starting to develop a position that any person who I will meet or have dinner with or hang around in general AS A RULE will never be allowed a google glass in my presence. I know that it doesnt make a difference and that the phones already transmit whatever. but I absolutely will refuse to sit down and have a conversation with someone wearing Glass, because at that point I'm no longer discussing my likes and whatever bullshit (and even private conversations) to one individual, I'm actually talking to that person, the Metadata marketing salespeople at google, AND the loving NSA or local ministries of interior. if I ever walk into a dinner or pub or whatever and one of those people are wearing google glass, I feel that the only thing I can do at that point is wear a social mask and be as boring and mute as possible, because I dont want an email the next day saying either 'hey we noticed you were talking about dark souls so here's an amazon coupon!' or 'You criticized the government please come over so we can query you on your political stances'.

If you wanna hang out and talk, leave your over expensive INGSOC machine at home please, and gently caress you if you were stupid enough to make those your prescription glasses.

Am I being crazy? am I making myself one of those people who time leaves behind? because I really dont want my future to be that I have to self censor myself forever when talking to other people or at parties and groups.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 12:31

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006

Al-Saqr posted:

Am I being crazy? am I making myself one of those people who time leaves behind? because I really dont want my future to be that I have to self censor myself forever when talking to other people or at parties and groups.

To an extent, but only because the form factor of Google Glass just makes it symbolic of all that other stuff. The increasing prevalence of microphones, cameras, and the ability to parse everything they take in is a foregone conclusion that no luddism can prevent, the only limitation will be what social convention and law dictate. Your scenario is more easily accomplished with the pub mounting cameras and microphones, but hopefully doing that either way (glass or mounted) would result in backlash. That said, yeah, if you want to have a personal conversation please remove the cluster of cameras and microphones from my face.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 13:11

CheesyDog: Jul 4, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Al-Saqr posted:

Normally I'm very open and friendly towards technology and social media and all that jazz, I'm not very good at making those a part of my life as much as other people (who make it the center of their lives), but whatever.

Recently however I've been feeling very extremist towards Google glass in particular. am I being an old nutjob who hates progress?

Because recently I'm starting to develop a position that any person who I will meet or have dinner with or hang around in general AS A RULE will never be allowed a google glass in my presence. I know that it doesnt make a difference and that the phones already transmit whatever. but I absolutely will refuse to sit down and have a conversation with someone wearing Glass, because at that point I'm no longer discussing my likes and whatever bullshit (and even private conversations) to one individual, I'm actually talking to that person, the Metadata marketing salespeople at google, AND the loving NSA or local ministries of interior. if I ever walk into a dinner or pub or whatever and one of those people are wearing google glass, I feel that the only thing I can do at that point is wear a social mask and be as boring and mute as possible, because I dont want an email the next day saying either 'hey we noticed you were talking about dark souls so here's an amazon coupon!' or 'You criticized the government please come over so we can query you on your political stances'.

If you wanna hang out and talk, leave your over expensive INGSOC machine at home please, and gently caress you if you were stupid enough to make those your prescription glasses.

Am I being crazy? am I making myself one of those people who time leaves behind? because I really dont want my future to be that I have to self censor myself forever when talking to other people or at parties and groups.

You are aware that you're posting this on the Internet?

# ? Mar 25, 2014 13:18

Al-Saqr: Nov 11, 2007; One Day I Will Return To Your Side.

CheesyDog posted:

You are aware that you're posting this on the Internet?

Yes. I dunno about you but I don't think that what I voluntarily write on forums and blogs through account names and pseudonyms, or hell even my real name are exactly the same things as human social interaction and meaningful conversations with real people.

because I'm voluntarily giving up my thoughts and opinions online, I know exactly what I'm saying and putting up for the world to see, and I know exactly what I am buying on amazon, and what's in my email, and what I sign up for and what I say and do and behave online accordingly. I don't want that same thing to travel into the real world where I will have unwitting government informants or corporate marketing data gatherers as my friends and loved ones or having to shut up all the time when meeting new people and discovering new experiences with others. I'm talking about how every word you say, every smile you make, every biometric change in your behavior (like blushing) every coffee you take a whiff of, any meaningful chat you have with a friend, every raunchy joke you make with friends, every sunset you marvel at will be watched, judged, and nothing more than a catalog for a marketing company or a list of evidence for the ministry of interior. THAT's what I cant live with. and I think that Google glass is very symbolic of the attempt to outsource surveillance from the state to the masses. I'm honestly starting to think that people who wear google glass casually into social gatherings should be treated the same as people who smoke in an unventilated nursery.

Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Mar 25, 2014

# ? Mar 25, 2014 13:34

i am harry: Oct 14, 2003

Al-Saqr posted:

at that point I'm no longer discussing my likes and whatever bullshit (and even private conversations) to one individual, I'm actually talking to that person, the Metadata marketing salespeople at google, AND the loving NSA or local ministries of interior....I dont want an email the next day saying either 'hey we noticed you were talking about dark souls so here's an amazon coupon!' or 'You criticized the government please come over so we can query you on your political stances'.

Am I being crazy?

No dude, this is a very real issue, and that example is something that has happened already. This is not conspiracy theories, this is the acknowledgement that your political thoughts, via open expression or the membership in a political group, can result in you or that groups' designation as a terrorist/terrorist organization. See those recent anarchists in Seattle, or raids on anti-war organizations.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 13:55

*PUNCH*: Jul 8, 2007; naked on the internet

Al-Saqr posted:

I'm honestly starting to think that people who wear google glass casually into social gatherings should be treated the same as people who smoke in an unventilated nursery.

Secondhand smoke is until the steam cleaner comes; but data is forever.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:02

Al-Saqr: Nov 11, 2007; One Day I Will Return To Your Side.

PUNCH posted:

Secondhand smoke is until the steam cleaner comes; but data is forever.

Ok, then treat them as people who are vectors of airborne AIDS and pancreatic cancer. the point is that they should not be welcome to casually be in the presence of normal conversation. If you wanna talk, leave the thing at home or better yet don't buy it in the first place. Let the government do the work of being a surveillance bot, not you.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:05

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

It's a very reasonable stance. Some of us are so used to arguing for or against the base principle of something that we forget the need to draw a line in real life. People proudly attempting to shanghai you into their marketing space in real life is a good time to say "gently caress off." And I was excited about Glass, I wanted overlays. It's not worth implying to Google that their removal of all privacy is inevitable.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:18

Peel: Dec 3, 2007

If someone wants to take a photo with their phone they at least have to take it out and point it at you. You're completely justified in regarding someone pointing a camera and mic in your face without explicit permission as being incredibly rude, and it's a good precedent to set.

'Privacy is over' is a long-term marketing strategy and we're entitled to reject it as a way to live our lives.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:21

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Eric Schmidt said concerning his search database "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." So I wonder if Google now considers that the same for their glass where if you don't want people video taping you in real life, I guess you should just not do that sort of thing ever.

The glass faq answer where they equivocate their "Explorers" to people with cell phones in respect to videotaping ability is beyond disingenuous. I guarantee that people that don't have a problem with cell phones being around suddenly would if some jackass was walking around with it up to his face in the same way as if he was taking photos or video instead of having it in his pocket.

Peel posted:

If someone wants to take a photo with their phone they at least have to take it out and point it at you. You're completely justified in regarding someone pointing a camera and mic in your face without explicit permission as being incredibly rude, and it's a good precedent to set.

'Privacy is over' is a long-term marketing strategy and we're entitled to reject it as a way to live our lives.

Exactly. The opinions of companies like Google that we no longer have privacy is clearly a long term campaign in order to make that the accepted notion.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:51

Nektu: Jul 4, 2007; FUKKEN FUUUUUUCK; Cybernetic Crumb

Radish posted:

The glass faq answer where they equivocate their "Explorers" to people with cell phones in respect to videotaping ability is beyond disingenuous. I guarantee that people that don't have a problem with cell phones being around suddenly would if some jackass was walking around with it up to his face in the same way as if he was taking photos or video instead of having it in his pocket.

Oh god. This is the perfect way to draw attention to the issue :laugh:

# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:53

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

I utterly reject the statement that 'privacy is over.' Privacy is coming back in a big way and I'll shell out big bucks for those providers who can strengthen privacy.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 15:17

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

Sancho posted:

I utterly reject the statement that 'privacy is over.' Privacy is coming back in a big way and I'll shell out big bucks for those providers who can strengthen privacy.

Yeah, the more optimistic take on this whole thing is that the era of monetizing exclusively through advertising has hit its peak.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 15:52

Zwiftef: Jun 30, 2002; SWIFT IS FAT, LOL

Radish posted:

The glass faq answer where they equivocate their "Explorers" to people with cell phones in respect to videotaping ability is beyond disingenuous. I guarantee that people that don't have a problem with cell phones being around suddenly would if some jackass was walking around with it up to his face in the same way as if he was taking photos or video instead of having it in his pocket.

I would unironically support permanently bolting google glass / a video camera and microphone on all politician and police officer's faces

# ? Mar 25, 2014 15:56

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

Sancho posted:

I utterly reject the statement that 'privacy is over.' Privacy is coming back in a big way and I'll shell out big bucks for those providers who can strengthen privacy.

So what this indicates to me is now "privacy is now a commodity".

# ? Mar 25, 2014 16:03

rockopete: Jan 19, 2005

Radish posted:

Eric Schmidt said concerning his search database "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." So I wonder if Google now considers that the same for their glass where if you don't want people video taping you in real life, I guess you should just not do that sort of thing ever.

The glass faq answer where they equivocate their "Explorers" to people with cell phones in respect to videotaping ability is beyond disingenuous. I guarantee that people that don't have a problem with cell phones being around suddenly would if some jackass was walking around with it up to his face in the same way as if he was taking photos or video instead of having it in his pocket.

Exactly. The opinions of companies like Google that we no longer have privacy is clearly a long term campaign in order to make that the accepted notion.

I'm heartened by the backlash Glass users seem to be getting whenever they try to wear it in bars or restaurants. Hopefully it remains a social no-no and ends up being relegated to industrial/work use for certain jobs in the way that bluetooth earpieces are.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 16:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 07:47

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

So what this indicates to me is now "privacy is now a commodity".

Obama's plan to boost GDP.

# ? Mar 25, 2014 16:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

«‹›85 »