Live data from Hacker News

House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

nytimes.com

171–180 of 183 posts

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

#171
post #54

As Wyden[1] points out, Congress has nearly no information on what impact the FISA program has. How many Americans are targeted already? The military refuses to answer Congress. How many emails & other collections are swept up? The military refuses to answer to Congress. This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and w…

As if that matters...time for a new "law", big brother is inevitable, just a matter of time and a matter of justification

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

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

#172

Let's say a state actor decides to cyber attack the US or allies. We want every person, gobernment or economic entity to be secure. A state actor can do more widespread damage than what we gain by catching some terrorists. Precisely for national security, we need good security in every entity.

FISA/702 is also used to trace/analyze cyber attacks, it is not just for counter-terrorism.

Example - A report (leaked to The Intercept) regarding Russian spearphishing: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950/NSA-Repor...

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

#173

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?

Previously would have been incidentally picked up and retained in a 5 day rolling buffer due to lack of encryption (if your traffic transited one of the tapped backbone links), but now, such queries are encrypted and I believe Google now encrypts transit between their data centers.

Now you would need to be more specifically targeted under FISA, if they felt there was valid reason, and the timeframe for collection on that data would vary.

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

#174
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Google engineers took the challenge personally and there is no evidence suggesting Prisma capabilities were regained. 2.I tend to agree in a sense that it is rather difficult to delete all the data. But no more difficult, than to find it later when requested by law enforcement.

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

#175
post #3

Turmp should be happy about this, it will be useful in cracking down on citizens and opponents who criticize him.

Except Trump has shown no interest in doing such a thing while the Democrats on the other hand...

Face it, you have not a single example of what you just said, it just feels righteous to bang on Trump. Seriously, why do people on the left always project?

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

#176
post #2

Privacy in the US is dead

Privacy in the world is dead (more precisely, dying), for all intents and purposes. The technological cat that enabled its demise can't be put back into the bag. Currently the problem is that certain classes of people have more access to "private" information than others, but once that goes away society will adapt to the new normal and look back with confusion at why we were so concerned about not being able to hide…

Agreed, but we have to stand on principle, especially for all those people in countries like China that are using technology in a far more repressive fashion. This is a fight humanity can't lose.

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

#177
post #54

As Wyden[1] points out, Congress has nearly no information on what impact the FISA program has. How many Americans are targeted already? The military refuses to answer Congress. How many emails & other collections are swept up? The military refuses to answer to Congress. This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and w…

> The military refuses to answer Congress My understanding is that properly cleared representatives and their staff can absolutely get information on what they need and speak candidly about all the sensitive details in a SCIF. This recurring narrative that intelligence agencies are holding back is not good, because it makes it seem like representatives are being misled and are tricked into voting for these authoritie…

If a senior Senator from the Select Committee on Intelligence says he has been unable to get even preliminary, basic information on the impact of this program from the military, I for one believe him.

The recurring narrative sounds completely correct & shocking & egregious. It sounds like the military is operating completely out of control, with no oversight, because the Senators in charge of oversight say they can't get even basic preliminary information.

Your statement seems dangerous and misleading @willstrafach. If the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gets nothing, not even basics, something is deeply awry. Who are the cleared representatives? Who has gone and asked serious questions? What does Wyden, who cares deeply, need to do to get whatever clearances you wishfully suggest as magic remedy here? This is fradulent bad misdirection @willstrafachs. It's all suggestion, with not a shred of backing to it.

It's an unacceptably bad and insubstantial reply to one of the most serious, can-kicked-down-the-road the longest issues, a terrible spectre still haunting us from Bush II years. This issue seems never to have been at all handled at all properly, since it's inception, and things are still fast & loose, the basic measures of oversight & responsibility seem deeply obstructed. That's a threat to Democracy, and it constantly throws into peril American trustworthiness under essential programs like EU Privacy Shield.

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

#178
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…

As a point of clarity, the FISA court was established by the Carter administration in 1978. Though it's popular to say it was a Bush invention.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feinstein was not a liberal (or a particularly) mayor. She profited handsomely from the assassinations of Milk and Moscone though. Then again, San Francisco is not a particularly liberal place even by Bay Area standards.

I think she was always seen as centrist. I agree the Milk/Moscone tragedy helped her career but she was also elected Mayor after that in 80's. And S.F in the 1980s was very much a liberal place.

> And S.F in the 1980s was very much a liberal place.

Ehhh. Richmond and Oakland, yes. Berkeley? No. San Francisco? No.

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

#180
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember how she was treated during her 7 year stay in prison? I am sure it will be easy for her to explain "Violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, multiple counts of disobeying orders" on her job application. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-mannin...

There is a nuance here. The Dems are better . They are better than republicans on this, but they certainly aren't good enough. That is the unfortunate part. But if you definitely want a better chance for civil liberties, voting for R's will hurt you worse than if you vote for D's, significantly so.

But if you definitely want a better chance for civil liberties, voting for R's will hurt you worse than if you vote for D's

I suppose that depends which civil liberties are more important to you. You'll find that Democrats are pretty awful if you value your right to self-defense, or if you don't think the government should be able to use eminent domain to take your property and give it to a wealthy supporter.

Some of the details may be different, but they're both different sides of the same coin. I don't see that one side is significantly better than the other overall.

Post reply on HN