Live data from Hacker News

House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

nytimes.com

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#61
post #8

I had a discussion with my mother regarding surveillance and privacy and how they relate to safety. I feel like she understands that surveillance when used in a nefarious manner can be detrimental to individual freedoms, but is pro surveillance regardless. This is because she believes that the benefits of keeping others safe outweighs the potential for misuse. How can I help her understand why people fight for privac…

You can't. Most people will choose safety over freedom every single time.

Which is why you have to help explain to her that the police state has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you safe.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just show her what they did to Donald Trump. Via a BS dossier, they wire tapped him and his associates.

This isn't what happened at all, and I suspect you know that. For starters, the dossier wasn't the beginning of the investigation, as we've seen in multiple articles that came out over the last few weeks. Also, Trump was NEVER "wire tapped," unless you are privy to information the rest of the world doesn't have, and the only reason his "associates" were caught up in surveillance reports is because they called crimina…

In reality, we don't know if Trump - or anyone else - was "wire tapped" - and we won't ever know thanks to the passage of this bill. One of the crucial elements of the Amash amendment was that those who were unconstitutionally spied upon via 702 authorization would have to be eventually notified that they were spied on - now they don't. That's one of the many things that's so awful and frightening about these police-state powers. There is no oversight and no notification.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#63
post #37

This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as we…

Trump has not signed this yet. It's not even on his desk yet IIRC. And he's tweeted about, implying that he disapproves.

He also tweeted support.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#64
Curiosity is getting the best of me, and I figured HN is a good place to scratch the itch.

Has anyone done a study or solicited information from the government that shows the impact of legislation such as FISA or better yet the Patriot ACT's post provision sunset (what's left of the act) parts? Namely - hard numbers that shows in a numerical fashion the fact based evidence to keep overt invasions of privacy in check in the name of security.

Being from New York, I always try to question politicians here - more specifically Gov. Cuomo on the quantifiable evidence that supports the SAFE ACT's passage in our state - on such things, to have a better impact on things that affect me regionally vs. worrying about broad stroke Federal things that rarely do.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#65
post #43
post #40

> The vote on Thursday was a victory for the Trump administration and the intelligence community, which opposed imposing major new curbs on the program, and for Republican leadership, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had blocked the House from an opportunity to consider a less-sweeping compromise package developed by the House Judiciary Committee. They gambled that faced with an all-or-essentially-nothing ch…

Except Pelosi and many Democrats voted for this as well...

So? As was mentioned in the excerpt from the article I quoted Ryan would not allow the House to consider a compromise from the House Judiciary Committee. How many of those Democrats would have gone for that compromise bill if that had been on the table?

We need both privacy and surveillance. The harm from too little privacy tends to manifest on a longer time frame than the harm from too little surveillance, so when considering a good balance between the two is off the table it is understandable one might go for the option that looks like it will be the safest short term.

Pelosi is indeed quite aligned with Republicans on surveillance issues. If she had been speaker she probably would have supported the current bill. But would she have blocked consideration of the compromise, like Ryan did?

That seems much less likely, because despite Pelosi and a few other Democrats being quite pro-surveillance the fact is that the party as a whole is quite a bit less pro-surveillance than are the Republicans as a whole. She would have had a harder time than Ryan keeping the compromise from being considered because she would be going against the majority of her own party, unlike Ryan.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#66
post #8

I had a discussion with my mother regarding surveillance and privacy and how they relate to safety. I feel like she understands that surveillance when used in a nefarious manner can be detrimental to individual freedoms, but is pro surveillance regardless. This is because she believes that the benefits of keeping others safe outweighs the potential for misuse. How can I help her understand why people fight for privac…

You can't. Most people will choose safety over freedom every single time.

This is a common fallacy, that freedom and safety are in opposition, that increasing one decreases the other, that freedom puts you in danger and a lack of freedom saves you. In this debate people often say there is perfect safety in prison, but if I imagine myself a prisoner, versus my daily life right now, I'd feel a lot less safe in prison. I've read that some prisoners go to the bathroom with one pant-leg undone, just so their legs won't be tangled at the ankles if they get violently attacked. I can't imagine my daily life being this dangerous.

Freedom leads to the most security. If you scatter plot graph "free countries" and "safe countries" you'll find an unmistakable positive correlation. Whether the dangers are religious police kidnapping people for "virginity tests," people being disappeared for criticizing the government, or routine industrial accidents in places where expendable people aren't free to demand workers rights, a lack of freedom increases danger.

You're pretty safe in Switzerland, not so much in Iraq.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#67
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take no solace in typical cryptography as it does nothing to hide most metadata. Who I talk to, when, how often (and the same for websites visited) is way more sensitive in the collective than the contents of any single one of those interactions. Signal type apps hide both and are valuable, but without widespread adoption is meaningless to most people. I'm not against any of the progress you cite, but so long as pe…

Crypto does nothing to prevent rubber hose attacks. And as you note, it is very difficult to prevent traffic analysis, that being the only thing the government really needs to find what it's looking for anyways.

[deleted]

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#68
post #37

This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as we…

It wasn't kicked down the can for many years, because it wasn't known!

It was a quietly authorized program Bush signed off on & that the DoJ authorized & no one knew anything more about. Congress didn't know any more than we did about it until Wired began writing up the program in 2012, a full decade after it began, talking about the massive massive data warehouse in Utah that the NSA was building with details provided by William Binney.

And it wasn't until Snowden's 2013 leaks that the government really had to admit to what it was doing, had to fess up to the STELLAR WIND program, & that forced the creation of a more "regulated" system, supposedly protected by the as-we've-seen rubber-stamping FISA court.

The government has been unable to regulate or consider this program, because it's been concealed & shadowy for a long long time, and could well have remained that way.

Now Congress actually has some responsibility to the American people, and sadly, in spite of unbelievable stonewalling & unwillingness to disclose how many Americans, how many emails it sweeps up[1], in spite of terrifying provisions like "abouts" collection, Congress is somehow deciding that drastically expanding the program's scope & using it for non-terrorism purposes is OK. Congress is insane, completely derelict from duty.

I don't really disagree. Bush, Obama, and Trump are all kicking this can down the road. But for Congress too to be soo willing to kick this down the road is really a shock. And you're exactly right. When FBI Director Christopher Wray gets up and says- encryption is a problem- he's far far less credible & we have far less chance to meet him part way, when the government seems so happy giving itself such unlimited unaccountable spy powers. Math is the only defense we have against this catastrophic, out of control authoritarianism, and we're not very liable to abandon or dismantle that shelter, when the US government seems unwilling to develop even an iota of restraint.

I'd also point out the other tension: the US government is placing itself just as much at ends with Europe and the rest of the world as they are the technology world. The EU's Privacy Shield ongoingly takes issue with the US's seemingly ever growing 702 authorization to spy on everyone[2], and the question of revisiting the data-sharing arrangements that make much of it possible keeps coming up.

The US was running on borrowed time as it was. This radical expansion of powers in this new 702 bill are only heightening the silently growing crisis. Congress and the military seem entirely unwilling to strike any kind of balance, seem unwilling to get even basic facts on what the size, scale and impact of the program really are, while increasing it's scope and scale. This is an untennable position, and I thank you for doing a really good job highlighting a lot of the irresolvable tensions the US Government has created for itself with this unaccountable unquestionable seemingly unlimited program.

[1] https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/dont-pass-surv...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/18/eu-uses-privacy-shield-rev...

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#69
post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

What was the post-Obama efforts to dismantle the wire tapping program that Bush had put in place w/ the perceived powers of the executive? That's a serious question, since I don't really know history behind it.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#70
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid is 50% of the federal budget. Defense is another 17%. So the purpose of the government is mostly income redistribution and defense.

Where do your nbrs come from? https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_cha...

Those numbers confirm the stats, and actually prove GP's point better (that the gov't is mostly medicare/aid, social security, and defense; half being the former, and ~22% being spent on defense), and are similar to numbers from the CBO [0]

[0] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments...

Post reply on HN