Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#81

Post by pnathan »

chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

There's certainly a valid argument for, "smells like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.... maybe it's a duck, ok?"

It's super clear that we're on the cusp of a total informational transformation in the West in terms of how life is lived, and a consequence is that there are deluges of personal data.... and a lawful, diligent and trustworthy law enforcement or spy officer will want to use that to do their jobs better. Unlike many in the tech world, I don't buy into either left or right anarchism: I think the office of the State is a valid one.

So we have to start looking to the future and how to properly safeguard rights in the Information Age.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#82

Post by squozzer »

digler999 wrote: post #54
chrissnell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I'm saying that it's one of many factors, some typically benign (like "gun owner"), and some not benign ("has a brother fighting for IS in Syria"). To do a better job at intelligence, our government needs to look at these holistically. My argument also extends to things like the TSA. We all like to complain about having to wait in line for security at the airport. Why can't they do better threat assessmen…

> chrissnell, an officer in the Army Reserve, thats a red flag. you've got specialized training in weapons and tactics. maybe they should "keep an eye on you" ?

Especially in light of the fact that George Washington was a colonel in the VA Militia before renouncing his allegiance to the king and joining the Continental Army.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#84

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73
chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

Indeed. People are forgetting we have a whole piece of math - called probability theory - for dealing exactly with that stuff. It can tell you whether or not doing X is an evidence for you being Y (or evidence against it). The important thing is - probability theory doesn't depend on rhetorics. Someone speaking the "nothing to hide" argument, or someone else finding arguments against it convincing, doesn't suddenly i…

[deleted]

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#85

Post by pc2g4d »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73
chrissnell wrote: post #7

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

Indeed. People are forgetting we have a whole piece of math - called probability theory - for dealing exactly with that stuff. It can tell you whether or not doing X is an evidence for you being Y (or evidence against it). The important thing is - probability theory doesn't depend on rhetorics. Someone speaking the "nothing to hide" argument, or someone else finding arguments against it convincing, doesn't suddenly i…

"The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is."

I think we need to be careful not to argue law from probability theory. While as you've pointed out many things will not actually be predictive of "being a terrorist" (whatever that means) there will be things that _are_ predictive. But we mustn't let the predictive nature of the information be in and of itself justification for obtaining it. There needs to be respect for constitutional limits on the reach of government, regardless of what the math says.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

_qbxp wrote: post #77
TeMPOraL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. People are forgetting we have a whole piece of math - called probability theory - for dealing exactly with that stuff. It can tell you whether or not doing X is an evidence for you being Y (or evidence against it). The important thing is - probability theory doesn't depend on rhetorics. Someone speaking the "nothing to hide" argument, or someone else finding arguments against it convincing, doesn't suddenly i…

I agree with you in general. My issue with this line of thinking for policy decisions, is that I personally believe relying solely on objective probability theory to associate people with _______, without looking at the larger picture, and then building policies from that, could exacerbate the reason the association is being payed attention to in the first place. Let's say theoretically, that people who wear red shir…

I've seen this argument brought up in discussions about racial profiling, and... I think this may be a real - and in some situations significant - phenomenon. I currently have no idea how to model it in a way that could plug into the probability calculations. I need to think about this some more.

I say in some situations, because the typical case is that if something (e.g. wearing red shirts) is likely to attract attention you don't want, you'll tend to avoid doing that thing (you'll stop wearing red shirts in order for the police to leave you alone). So there's a negative feedback loop. But I can see how this loop can fail in case of things one can't (easily) change - like skin color, cultural background, religion, etc. This leads me to believe that just looking for probability-based signals may be a good thing in case of guns and encryption, but a bad thing in case of race and religion.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#87

Post by TeMPOraL »

pc2g4d wrote: post #85
TeMPOraL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. People are forgetting we have a whole piece of math - called probability theory - for dealing exactly with that stuff. It can tell you whether or not doing X is an evidence for you being Y (or evidence against it). The important thing is - probability theory doesn't depend on rhetorics. Someone speaking the "nothing to hide" argument, or someone else finding arguments against it convincing, doesn't suddenly i…

"The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is." I think we need to be careful not to argue law from probability theory. While as you've pointed out many things will not actually be predictive of "being a terrorist" (whatever that means) there will be things that _are_ predictive. But we mustn't let the p…

I agree. How you use the information once you have it is not the same as how you obtain it in the first place. I was addressing the use of information, and I do agree that obtaining those signals has a separate set of considerations to take into account.

But unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise - for example, what 'wakkaflokka pointed out in a parallel comment may potentially be such a reason - I do think we should derive rigorous conclusions from the data we already have based on math, and not on rhetoric.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#88

Post by GrinningFool »

ergothus wrote: post #67
jrs235 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same can be argued pertaining to guns. Guns have saved many lives. Guns and encryption are amoral. How and what they are used for determines if they are "good" or "bad". EDIT: Encryption may have been used by bad people to secretly carry out bad things with the end result of people dying (because the "good people" couldn't decrypt their communications). We all want only the "good" people to have guns and encrypti…

I don't want "only the 'good' people to have guns and encryption". I feel they are different: Guns are used for two reasons: target practice (sport), and shooting to kill (hunt/attack/defend). Encryption is used to keep communications secret. We can have lengthy debates on the various uses of guns, but staying on topic, I find nothing wrong with people keeping communication secret. Sure, it'd be EASIER if the bad guy…

> Communication, however, exists for many reason, while guns exist for few, so I don't see the comparison as terribly valuable

Encryption exists ensure the privacy of private communications. It is therefore morally superior to a gun which is used only for shooting and the convincing of others that you are able to shoot.

Encryption exists to limit or prevent the open dissemination of data. It is therefore morally inferior to a gun which is used prevent harm.

These are word games. The things a thing can be used for have no bearing on the morality of the thing it is used for.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#89

Post by FooNull »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #78
shuntress wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you are saying is, we need microphones on every street corner running natural language processing and speech recognition software to identify and record any threats someone may make?

No, but I'm talking about a situation where you'd be surrounded by people. And what is Twitter if not a giant megaphone?

The difference is, if you announced those plans on a city street, you'd only face government reaction if a citizen reported you or a police officer overhead.

That's different from the federal government having power to eavesdrop on all street corners at all times. The fears over these powers aren't based in a desire to keep the government in the dark, they're a reaction to the massive scope, and the notion that everyone is suspicious all the time.

Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

#90

Post by brian-armstrong »

shuntress wrote: post #79
brian-armstrong wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I'm talking about a situation where you'd be surrounded by people. And what is Twitter if not a giant megaphone?

And this discussion is about setting up systems to automatically monitor/record everything spoken through that megaphone. It's much more than the people around you taking it upon themselves to report your threats.

I think this is more a reflection of using a digital medium to speak. Everything is inherently kept around anyway
Post reply on HN