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

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#101

Post by justAnotherNET »

jessaustin wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unt…

Important caveat to your last point: the defendant has no access to secret exculpatory evidence

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#102

Post by tialaramex »

stoicShell wrote: post #77
SkyBelow wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets They have abused the power to such an extent I think it reasonable they be stripped of it. It is like taking away a person's rights to own a gun after they commit a violent crime with one. Regardless of what arguments can be made that they need one, their past abuse means the need is now completely ignored.

The limit is that you have actual secrets to protect, whether codes or names. You don't want these public because everyone could destroy you then. Secrets are a necessary evil. Managing secrecy as a function of some more or less independent entity — three-letter agency, direct governmental body, army... — is a balancing act, to put it mildly. Ever since the dawn of time, and periodically throughout history, you hear…

It's not clear that secrets are a necessary evil. They are, however, greatly desired by exactly the kind of people who definitely shouldn't be allowed them. So that's a bad sign.

Inappropriate reliance upon secrets is a recurrent security design mistake. Remember passwords? Well not so much remember, we still have passwords, and they're still terrible. Compare a FIDO Security Key. No secrets, much better.

If I'm wrong and some secrets are truly necessary we're still best served by restricting ourselves to just those secrets and not creating a Matryoshka doll of secrets kept for their own sake and little more.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#103

Post by bcrosby95 »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #49
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…

If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.

Your facts are just plain wrong here.

As of a couple years ago the NSA has openly admitted to Congress it is illegally collecting certain information about Americans it isn't supposed to. It openly admits it now because Snowden leaked this. Before the leak the NSA just lied about it to their oversight committee.

The people at the top should be in prison. They violated our rights, lied about it to congress, and got caught.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#104

Post by gerbilly »

brokenmachine wrote: post #89
colejohnson66 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the Espionage Act of 1917. One of the governments finest attacks on free speech. And it worked. The Supreme Court, in wanting to uphold a conviction against someone protesting a war they almost certainly agreed with, ruled it constitutional. And do you really think the government will give him a fair trial? No. They almost certainly will give him a secret trial. How are those even constitutional? And regarding th…

>Why is it different when the government does it? National security? "National security" is obvious doublespeak. National security does not mean security for the general public, it means security for the incumbent power.

> National security" is obvious doublespeak.

Just change one vowel and it becomes about right: nOtional security.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#105

Post by gerbilly »

javajosh wrote: post #59

Being a fan of lightweight activism, I would like Wikimedia to please publish a list of sensitive articles, so that I can look at them occasionally or, better yet, write a browser extension that simulates looking through them that other people can run. The default state of government is totalitarian dictatorship; democracy is carved out of that rock every time we the people reserve a right for ourselves. Clearly the…

> What intelligence is, what warfare is, has changed almost beyond recognition since the founding.

If we could bring the founders back to life they would probably bitch slap us and ask us why the f*ck we didn't amend or even rewrite the constitution to protect ourselves.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#106

Post by beatgammit »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #49
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…

If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.

If it doesn't go anywhere, doesn't that imply that it is illegal and that there's a cover up going on? Why do you assume that the government can effectively self regulate?

The whole reason we have a separation of powers is because government doesn't effectively self regulate. In to case of the NSA, Congress effectively looked the other way and gave the NSA pre-approval through having the FISA courts essentially rubber stamp everything. So in this case, we didn't really have an effective separation of powers. The courts weren't working and Congress was willing to let them break the law.

That's exactly the case where you go public. You release a little bit of less sensitive information to show you have it, and continue to release information if the state refuses to discuss it. From everything I've read, Snowdon's intent was never to harm the US, but to correct illegal behavior.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#107

Post by Iv »

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…

You know what I find the most frustrating? The totally illegitimate laws that allow these state secrets to exist are 100% public. Most of Snowden's revelations could be infer in the text of laws stating what the NSA can do.

I think there is the mentality that progress depends on ~~superheroes~~ whistle-blowers whereas I think that a sane and functioning network of privacy defense non-profits and appropriate public education could have prevented this situation to begin with.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#108

Post by soulofmischief »

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…

If the state can keep secrets from me, I can keep secrets from the state. You'll pry my encryption from my cold, dead hands.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#110

Post by NeutronStar »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #46
lettergram wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

> Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access Snowden convinced colleagues to give him their passwords: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/snowden... A Google query for "Snowden stole passwords" returns a lot of results.

> A Google query for "Snowden stole passwords" returns a lot of results.

And a Google query for "Fake Moon landing" returns a lot of results.

Post reply on HN