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

Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

datacenterdynamics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#31

Post by harikb »

aphextim wrote: post #22
nimbius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.

>id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change. I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change. What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and the…

While terms limits solve one problem, it creates a far bigger one. Most well meaning “good people” have to sacrifice their career in order to serve in Politics. Yes, it is a career. But what is wrong with it? What do you think they should do with rest of their life?

Moreover, it takes more than one term to achieve any meaningful change. Things like Obamacare didn’t just start with Obama. Major changes takes 10+ years.

Congress/senators should be under better scrutiny, yes. Don’t let them become corrupt, prevent insider trading etc. but terms limits is not the solution to this problem. In my opinion I think term limit would rule out “poor people” from ever trying to run for office.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#32

Post by Avamander »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #11
mdszy wrote: post #10

State secrets should not exist.

So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?

Should programming languages exist? They allow writing malware.

Should chemistry lessons exist? Mixing household chemicals could allow producing poisonous, flammable or explosive chemicals.

Should physics lessons exist? They tell you how to build a catapult.

Should cryptography exist? Only people with something to hide would use it...

... it's a really slippery slope. Restricting knowledge very likely only harms good people, bad people will get the secrets anyways.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#33

Post by jessaustin »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
yellow_lead wrote: post #4

I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.

In cases where the state has evidence that it can not show the case should proceed as if such evidence does not exist.

The state has an advantage here. They can use evidence that can't be presented in court to construct a case in parallel. That is, after enough surveillance, they'll know when to expect e.g. a conversation that will appear incriminating when stripped of context. They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. If this scheme doesn't work the first time, they'll repeat until it does work. Now they don't have to admit they were just snooping on all people everywhere when the defendant first attracted their attention.

On the other side, when defendants need evidence the government has, as in this case, they have no way to get that evidence.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#34

Post by corndoge »

kick wrote: post #2

Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosur…

I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#35

Post by dx87 »

naringas wrote: post #17

Does doing something seriously evil necessarily imply secrecy? I am thinking it might but I am not exactly sure why I think this. Ae there examples of evil things (known to be evil at their time) done in a widely public way? On the other hand, the converse is not true; this is far more straighforward: something secret is not necessarily evil In any case I have decided that I have to be EXTRA SUPER cautious that I am…

I think game/app developers getting children hooked on gambling through lootboxes is evil, and that's out in the open. Luckily governments are starting to crack down on it.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#36

Post by kick »

corndoge wrote: post #34
kick wrote: post #2

Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosur…

I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?

He knows the CIA did something illegal, but is protecting them. If a mafia member shoots an innocent man, and a judge says "I feel bad for the guy, but the mafia is good for this city, so no can do; yunz are screwed!" it's fairly obvious what's happening.

He's preventing criminals from feeling the consequences of the law because of perceived value.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#37

Post by auiya »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #6
post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.

> The public can change the composition of the Congress

In theory. In practice, Congress members are not selected by a public electorate, but rather by careful gerrymandering practices paid for by corporate interests designed to benefit themselves financially. In the USA, you have no choice of your elected leaders.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#38

Post by HenryKissinger »

luizfzs wrote: post #21
post_below wrote: post #5

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access, copied information, fled the United States, and illegally released the information he stole about government programs that were in no way illegal, or unconstitutional. Snowden broke the Espionage Act of 1917, and deserves due process.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#39

Post by lettergram »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #38
luizfzs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…

> He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access, copied information, fled the United States, and illegally released the information he stole about government programs that were in no way illegal or unconstitutional.

Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access. Also if you know anything about his case or related cases, you’d also know the proper channels don’t lead anywhere. There’s a great frontline documentary called “United States of secrets”

Even the oversight committees aren’t privy to the full details and arguably they are where the proper channels should lead. There’s heads of agencies lying to Congress and the Senate about what is happening. The judiciary can’t rule on constitutionality.... which is part of its job.

The reality is, whistleblowing the way Snowden did was the only way to put evidence in the public, such that the judiciary And public can make a decision.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#40

Post by webreac »

StillBored wrote: post #25
mdszy wrote: post #10

State secrets should not exist.

That might be a bit strong, but they should be severely limited. They way it is today, frequently it seems like the "Secrets" are really just secrets from the citizenry. When you look at something like the U2 the "enemy" knew more about it than the American people. Same thing today, do you really think the Chinese can't figure out the capabilities of our spy sats? Most of these secrets should have a defined and quite…

state secret should always be limited in time. I also think that NDA should generally have a short time limit. A NDA with longer duration should have a monetary compensation.
Post reply on HN