|
On July 16 2014 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 09:21 farvacola wrote:On July 16 2014 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum. So why did you make me run around with "it's not just handing somebody such and such"? It really is like that, but the courts have been sluggish to understand technology, even more sluggish than law enforcement. Just because the technology functions differently in some way doesn't really change the nature of how it works, and there are some laws/precedents that have been technology neutral (like some wiretap laws). The point is that there are a great many people, some of which aren't ignorant of technology and are in places of power, that disagree. I don't think I'm one of them, to be clear. You're not being clear at all. One of the people that disagree or one of the people ignorant of technology? What exactly is your position?
He's defending oneofthem's legalistic regurgitation of the rationale promulgated by DoD appointed judges in secret courts as a legitimate side of the debate.
|
My position is that the NSA is overstepping its bounds and that, in time, their ability to gather data ad nauseum will be curtailed by some sort of judicial action. That being said, I do think that there is a legal defense for the NSA's information gathering based on the courts' immature perspective on Internet-based communications alongside the less-concrete nature of the transmission of said communications.
On July 16 2014 09:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:On July 16 2014 09:21 farvacola wrote:On July 16 2014 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum. So why did you make me run around with "it's not just handing somebody such and such"? It really is like that, but the courts have been sluggish to understand technology, even more sluggish than law enforcement. Just because the technology functions differently in some way doesn't really change the nature of how it works, and there are some laws/precedents that have been technology neutral (like some wiretap laws). The point is that there are a great many people, some of which aren't ignorant of technology and are in places of power, that disagree. I don't think I'm one of them, to be clear. You're not being clear at all. One of the people that disagree or one of the people ignorant of technology? What exactly is your position? He's defending oneofthem's legalistic regurgitation of the rationale promulgated by DoD appointed judges in secret courts as a legitimate side of the debate. I'm not really saying that that side is legitimate so much as it is legal; there are many things deemed either legal or illegal by the status quo that I myself would consider illegitimate, and this is one them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
fisc judges are not dod judges. it is not a military court.
anyway , for privacy fighters it is a case of picking your battles. this automatic reaction towards anything that transgresses an abstract understanding of access/observation is not productive. besides access, there is the more imiportant issue of what access actors do with the information. this is highly relevant towards forming a response.
i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game. the nsa genuinely has oversight and a limited set of objectives, with very very little impact on your privacy or way of life. practically all impact is from the reactions.
the level of specificity of data collection matters. imagine a highway, individual searches seems like a situation that would require more due process than merely putting speed cameras and parking police vehicles on the wayside. the situation is further complicated by the fact that in order for an agency like the NSA to even have the road in view, they have to make a copy or have access rights. the technical method makes it seem like they copied your house and looked at your stuff, but they only wanted to patrol the neighborhood, and it so happens patrolling in the digital world is the same physical act as more severe forms of invasion, unless they somehow build the peeking mechanism decentralized and nearer to your local ISP.
this inability to engage the issue from anywhere but the crudest abstract representation 'informed' by ordinary and unreflected analogy is also unhelpful in putting into context u.s. action within the wider world. what is the difference between china and the u.s.? privacy fighters will tell you it si nothing, but that seems problematic not because it reflects some larger truth, but that their limited conceptual framework is unable to process the situation in any other way. again, in the analogy of the NSA being the eyes and ears of an executive level intel agency, the abuse when they do occur will be on the executive end. the mere data gathering is not the significant abuse.
or you just don't care about strategy in your protesting and do it as political fashion.
|
So, has german's intelligence service been taking a hit for being incompetent at counterespionage? Or do they generally assume America is too rich/good to counter? Or is it just not mentioned/discussed much?
|
On July 16 2014 19:27 zlefin wrote: So, has german's intelligence service been taking a hit for being incompetent at counterespionage? Or do they generally assume America is too rich/good to counter? Or is it just not mentioned/discussed much? This is just my personal opinion based on anecdotes that go around, but for the most part, yes, German intelligence services are largely incompetent, at least compared to the NSA. They work closely with the NSA, and for the most part they're simply allowed to use the NSA's technology and programs (xkeyscore, etc.), so there's basically no incentive to create their own infrastructure in that regard. In return, they provide the NSA with pretty much whatever they want.
You do have to keep in mind that the NSA's budget is orders of magnitudes larger than the BND's, too, so even if they do try to do some serious counterespionage, it's going to be quite an uphill battle. And lastly, as much as people here like to say that everyone is spying on everyone anyhow, it does feel to me (again, I'm being completely subjective here) that Germans still have some honor left and do not try to spy on their allies all too much. That part might have changed in the last few weeks, though.
|
On July 16 2014 19:27 zlefin wrote: So, has german's intelligence service been taking a hit for being incompetent at counterespionage? Or do they generally assume America is too rich/good to counter? Or is it just not mentioned/discussed much?
incompetence plays a role, but I tend to believe them when they said there was no reason to spy on your allies, so they didnt bother with counter espionage against fellow NATO members.
|
Lets be serious. Theres a lot of domestic and worldwide resistance toward Geman military being deployed anywhere for historical reasons. There's even more stigma attached to the usage German intelligence services for obvious reasons. If Germany is going to choose which countries to spy on, the last people they would spy on are their own allies.
|
On July 16 2014 19:15 oneofthem wrote: i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game.
This silly argument is brought up regularly. Apart from being a non sequitur it fails in the following way:
Unlike intelligence agencies corporations are actually accountable in court. If a corporation tried to use their treasure trove of information for coercion (as intelligence agencies do from time to time) they would be sued out of existence.
There are legitimate reasons to be worried about data aggregation for ad targeting but the scale of the problem is not even comparable to government espionage.
|
No, obtaining the information is what is important, oneofthem. Without access no further abuse of that information can occur, and people's personal security is far better off.
There's nothing abstract about privacy rights that isn't abstract about free speech or due process rights. For you to dismiss our criticisms as instinctual or not thought out or whatever is just blatantly a lie for anyone else following the conversation. You're arguing with a man of straw rather than the people in front of you who actually give a shit about privacy. You seem to think the notion of privacy is worthless and ridiculous.
By the way, that nebulous feeling of being watched is far from nothing. When people hesitate to participate in political discourse, when people are worried about who is watching them, that changes the discourse of a democracy. Should I join the ACLU? Should I take that trip to China? Should I join that mosque? Maybe that would make me a target.
And when people can't challenge the government over their rights because of constant claims of national security (such as the no fly list) we lose our due process.
|
On July 16 2014 20:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Lets be serious. Theres a lot of domestic and worldwide resistance toward Geman military being deployed anywhere for historical reasons. There's even more stigma attached to the usage German intelligence services for obvious reasons. If Germany is going to choose which countries to spy on, the last people they would spy on are their own allies.
can you imagine the shitstorm if germany was in the shoes of what the US is currently doing @@
|
Nearly all intelligence agencies have some degree of incompetence. People tend to think spies are brilliant and hypercompetent rather than actual people with people issues. The way things play out in the real world is usually pretty banal or silly.
Here's a hilarious article on the history of Britain's MI5's incompetence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
|
On July 16 2014 19:15 oneofthem wrote: fisc judges are not dod judges. it is not a military court.
anyway , for privacy fighters it is a case of picking your battles. this automatic reaction towards anything that transgresses an abstract understanding of access/observation is not productive. besides access, there is the more imiportant issue of what access actors do with the information. this is highly relevant towards forming a response.
i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game. the nsa genuinely has oversight and a limited set of objectives, with very very little impact on your privacy or way of life. practically all impact is from the reactions.
the level of specificity of data collection matters. imagine a highway, individual searches seems like a situation that would require more due process than merely putting speed cameras and parking police vehicles on the wayside. the situation is further complicated by the fact that in order for an agency like the NSA to even have the road in view, they have to make a copy or have access rights. the technical method makes it seem like they copied your house and looked at your stuff, but they only wanted to patrol the neighborhood, and it so happens patrolling in the digital world is the same physical act as more severe forms of invasion, unless they somehow build the peeking mechanism decentralized and nearer to your local ISP.
this inability to engage the issue from anywhere but the crudest abstract representation 'informed' by ordinary and unreflected analogy is also unhelpful in putting into context u.s. action within the wider world. what is the difference between china and the u.s.? privacy fighters will tell you it si nothing, but that seems problematic not because it reflects some larger truth, but that their limited conceptual framework is unable to process the situation in any other way. again, in the analogy of the NSA being the eyes and ears of an executive level intel agency, the abuse when they do occur will be on the executive end. the mere data gathering is not the significant abuse.
or you just don't care about strategy in your protesting and do it as political fashion. But you are not denying that finding the suspect first, then providing a warrent and then "tapping" his communication would be far more productive? In that way you get the same amount of data or even more while being completely covered legally. The crude and completely failing representation from the analogy is part of the problem: Patrolling a neighborhood is temporally exclusive. If you could record a crime that happened hours ago from patrolling, it might hold relevance. China is worse than USA when it comes to internet spying. They are known for hacking into companies and doing that kind of crap even NSA is resisting. But USA has a special access to several companies that they can use NSLs toward for getting their will. That kind of special access is not afforded any other secret service in the world. Besides, NSAs budget is very high compared to most of their ilk around the world and that kind of economic superiority will get them an ability to do things others can only dream about. When talking about China, they are likely more focused on censuring Tianenmen square, yellow ducks and other symbolism that might refer to june 4 1989 or any other "western historical distortions" in their story.
|
On July 16 2014 19:15 oneofthem wrote: fisc judges are not dod judges. it is not a military court.
anyway , for privacy fighters it is a case of picking your battles. this automatic reaction towards anything that transgresses an abstract understanding of access/observation is not productive. besides access, there is the more imiportant issue of what access actors do with the information. this is highly relevant towards forming a response.
i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game. the nsa genuinely has oversight and a limited set of objectives, with very very little impact on your privacy or way of life. practically all impact is from the reactions.
the level of specificity of data collection matters. imagine a highway, individual searches seems like a situation that would require more due process than merely putting speed cameras and parking police vehicles on the wayside. the situation is further complicated by the fact that in order for an agency like the NSA to even have the road in view, they have to make a copy or have access rights. the technical method makes it seem like they copied your house and looked at your stuff, but they only wanted to patrol the neighborhood, and it so happens patrolling in the digital world is the same physical act as more severe forms of invasion, unless they somehow build the peeking mechanism decentralized and nearer to your local ISP.
this inability to engage the issue from anywhere but the crudest abstract representation 'informed' by ordinary and unreflected analogy is also unhelpful in putting into context u.s. action within the wider world. what is the difference between china and the u.s.? privacy fighters will tell you it si nothing, but that seems problematic not because it reflects some larger truth, but that their limited conceptual framework is unable to process the situation in any other way. again, in the analogy of the NSA being the eyes and ears of an executive level intel agency, the abuse when they do occur will be on the executive end. the mere data gathering is not the significant abuse.
or you just don't care about strategy in your protesting and do it as political fashion.
You have 0 idea how politics work or you pretend to have none.
It is not about "picking battles", when enough people are outraged about this on a national or international level then this has consequences. Your sophistry doesnt matter fuck at all, lies or truth also doesnt matter, this is how the world works.And i m damn sure you know this.
|
In the broader sense of mass surveillance UNHCRC (not the court, but a recommandation to the court and the next assembly) has released a report on "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age". The report makes several very interesting comments about concerns over the subject, both to domestic issues like norms/restrictions, judicial aspects, proportionality, cooperation with private companies and also concerns over the international aspects. I think it is worth reading in its grueling lenght of 16 pages: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
The main conclusions: "...Practices in several countries, however, revealed a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards and ineffective oversight, all of which have contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy..." "...related observation concerns the disturbing lack of governmental transparency associated with surveillance policies, laws and practices, which hinders any effort to assess their coherence with international human rights law and to ensure accountability..." "Bearing the above observations in mind, there is a clear and pressing need for vigilance in ensuring the compliance of any surveillance policy or practice with international human rights law, including the right to privacy, through the development of effective safeguards against abuses. As an immediate measure, States should review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law. Where there are shortcomings, States should take steps to address them, including through the adoption of a clear, precise,accessible, comprehensive and non-discriminatory legislative framework. Steps should be taken to ensure that effective and independent oversight regimes and practices are in place, with attention to the right of victims to an effective remedy."
|
|
On July 16 2014 19:15 oneofthem wrote: i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game. the nsa genuinely has oversight and a limited set of objectives, with very very little impact on your privacy or way of life. practically all impact is from the reactions.
Yeah the private and corporate actors are a huge threat, I agree with you.
But it is completely facile to say that the NSA has "very very little impact on your privacy or way of life." That's true if you are 99% of the population, but if you are organizers of OWS, or if you are Muslim, or if you in any way pose a threat to a system that has been engineered to create a passive population, then yes, it very much affects you. If your definition of liberty only extends so far as going to work, watching tv, playing games on your iphone, and purchasing things then, yes, the NSA doesn't impact you very much. In fact the NSA is trying to prevent anything from disturbing your good consumerist bubble. But what an idiotic definition of liberty.
Trying to find nuance by saying, "hey these are Americans looking at your data, they are good people, they share your American values and probably won't do anything that affects your dull life" completely misses the point.
|
On July 18 2014 08:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 19:15 oneofthem wrote: i would consider the greater threat, in the u.s. context, to be from private and corporate actors in the internet data collection game. the nsa genuinely has oversight and a limited set of objectives, with very very little impact on your privacy or way of life. practically all impact is from the reactions. Yeah the private and corporate actors are a huge threat, I agree with you. But it is completely facile to say that the NSA has "very very little impact on your privacy or way of life." That's true if you are 99% of the population, but if you are organizers of OWS, or if you are Muslim, or if you in any way pose a threat to a system that has been engineered to create a passive population, then yes, it very much affects you...
I'm actually interested in that, what are the ways in which they could negatively affect the organizers of OWS, as a result of this technology? I doubt that they would jail them outright as that would raise some pretty serious alarm bells in the general public. Maybe discreetly blackmailing them about their sordid past (if they have one)? I wonder how dangerous it is for the government to act like the mafia in that way though, should someone investigate the source of that blackmail (assuming the whole system is not corrupt).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior.
|
On July 16 2014 22:50 DoubleReed wrote:Nearly all intelligence agencies have some degree of incompetence. People tend to think spies are brilliant and hypercompetent rather than actual people with people issues. The way things play out in the real world is usually pretty banal or silly. Here's a hilarious article on the history of Britain's MI5's incompetence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
Really nice article. Don't know to which degree is true but it does fill up an hour of entertaining reading. Provide it you approach it with an open mindset.
|
On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make...
|
|
|
|