|
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. 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 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 07:31 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
Boon posted:Because I've experienced nothing that I would consider illegal. What about immoral?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2014 06:44 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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. 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."
|
# ? Mar 24, 2014 12:45 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's parts of that which concern me far more than his views on digital data. I mean, come on now: 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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. --- 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.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2014 13:57 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. Have fun america, good times ahead Nektu fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Mar 24, 2014 |
# ? Mar 24, 2014 16:49 |
|
Caveat Emptor: quote:Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection 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 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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
|
# ? Mar 25, 2014 07:26 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. You are aware that you're posting this on the Internet?
|
# ? Mar 25, 2014 13:18 |
|
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 |
|
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'. 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 |
|
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 |
|
*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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
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. 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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2014 14:53 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 07:31 |
|
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 |