Live data from Hacker News

House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

nytimes.com

81–90 of 183 posts

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

#81

Can someone clear it up for me. How likely is it that my google searches are being swept up and stored indefinitely, because I'm foreigner. I've disabled google search history, though I doubt it will help. Similar question - do they have a profile for every foreigner they can identify?

See https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect :

   Normally, one would think that a communication that has been 
   intercepted and stored in a government database as “collected.” 
   But the government’s definition of what it means to “collect” 
   intelligence information is quite different from its plain 
   meaning.

   Under Department of Defense regulations, information is 
   considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received 
   for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component,” and 
   “data acquired by electronic means is ‘collected’ only when it 
   has been processed into intelligible form.”

   In other words, the NSA can intercept and store communications 
   in its data base and have an algorithm search them for key 
   words and analyze the meta data without ever considering the 
   communications “collected.”
TL;DR they're being swept up and stored indefinitely for everyone, all the time, right now.

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

#82
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…

Maybe this isn't the best example for your mother, but it works for some people: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/john-oliver-edward-snowden-dic...

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

#83
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

From what I've seen, Pelosi pretty consistently votes for expansion of state surveillance and other aspects of the security apparatus. So this vote is entirely in line with her general voting record...

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

#84
post #10
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it’s not that bleak. You just need to have the knowledge to control your own privacy rather than relying on the government to have your back. Really the bad part is that most people don’t know about or how to use technology to protect their privacy :-/

If you've looked at the Shadow Brokers releases, Vault 7 etc., you will be reminded that, even as a privacy conscious technologist, you're still going up against PhDs with budgets of 10s of billions / yr.

...who work on this stuff as a day job, and likely also as passion projects. IOW, unless you dedicate your entire life to not being spied upon, you'll very likely "lose".

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

#85
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…

One fundamental problem you may be running into is that generally the older people get the more they value "safety". So it's possible that you and your mother simply attach different utilities to "keeping others safe" and "potential for misuse" even if you agree on all the facts and conditional probabilities and whatnot...

I really wonder how much changing demographics (population aging) account for the shifts in public opinion on issues like this.

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

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have been downvoted, possibly for how quippy your comment is, but there's some indication that this reasoning isn't far off. Earlier this week Trump made clear during his televised immigration policy meeting that he would sign anything Congress actually sent him, which seems like a very odd position to take when you consider that immigration was Trump's signature campaign issue.

It's easy to say "I'll sign anything you send me" if you're certain they will be unable to send anything. It is risky, sure, because the unexpected can happen. The next day he also gave a summary of the meeting that was very different from what attendees thought. The meeting was a made-for-TV moment, so you should take it in with lots of salt.

The day Trump starts vetoing bills sent to his desk is the day 25th Amendment proceedings hit full stride.

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

#87

Can someone clear it up for me. How likely is it that my google searches are being swept up and stored indefinitely, because I'm foreigner. I've disabled google search history, though I doubt it will help. Similar question - do they have a profile for every foreigner they can identify?

Google search uses HTTPS and, unless you personally is a target and/or your devices are hacked, the content of your searches is not visible to anyone except Google. Your citizenship doesn't matter.

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

#88
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to say "I'll sign anything you send me" if you're certain they will be unable to send anything. It is risky, sure, because the unexpected can happen. The next day he also gave a summary of the meeting that was very different from what attendees thought. The meeting was a made-for-TV moment, so you should take it in with lots of salt.

The day Trump starts vetoing bills sent to his desk is the day 25th Amendment proceedings hit full stride.

Can you explain? (I don't mean the 25th Amendment.)

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

#89
post #87

Can someone clear it up for me. How likely is it that my google searches are being swept up and stored indefinitely, because I'm foreigner. I've disabled google search history, though I doubt it will help. Similar question - do they have a profile for every foreigner they can identify?

Google search uses HTTPS and, unless you personally is a target and/or your devices are hacked, the content of your searches is not visible to anyone except Google. Your citizenship doesn't matter.

They've tapped into google's internal networks in the past. I suspect they've already regained the access.

Another matter is whether google really deletes accounts when asked, or really doesn't store histories when asked. Because if the data is stored by Google, when the time comes and the person becomes "interesting" for the US establishment, they can rubber-stamp FISA court warrant and get this data.

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

#90
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…

Just phase it this way: Imagine if the party in power used state surveillance to monitor their opponent and the people who support them. The whole infrastructure is turn-key authoritarian, there's literally nothing logistical stopping this, only a handshake agreement not to. This should concern people regardless of their political affiliation or party loyalty.

There's now substantial evidence that this is exactly what happened with the Obama administration and Trump's campaign. The former used an unverified dossier as an excuse to begin surveillance via FISA. So this isn't even a theoretical issue.

Before anyone grabs a pitchfork, focus on the issue at hand and not the current politics. Doesn't matter who's in the White House - friend or foe, would you want them to have this power?

Post reply on HN