The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward • Hacker News Board

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#61

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #29

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel…

So I suppose we should bring back prohibition as alcohol has killed more and is clear drag on public health. Maybe we should also extend this to everything, like drownings, stopping pedestrian traffic and so on...

IMO, it depends on the downside of the measure. I can pretty clearly state the problems with banning alcohol; I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how our society would be worse-off if in-person jobs required employees to be vaccinated. Particularly as e.g. schools have required vaccines for a very long time.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#62

Post by mindslight » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #41

mythrwy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are actively supporting civil non-liberties now though, in print. They are not what they used to be.

The odd thing about civil liberties is they also curtail other freedoms. The right to own property means the right to exclude others from your property. Trial by a jury of your peers means jury duty etc. If you have fundamental disagreements around these issues you really can’t blame the organization for not doing enough. Them doing more or less isn’t the problem, them having other priorities is.

There are ways to address that conflict. I'm not trying to join the trope of criticizing the contemporary ACLU, but rather pointing out that rights aren't purely relative constructions. Negative liberty (prohibitions on government infringing rights) and tradition (eg property rights) are two ways of non-relatively reasoning about rights. And of course when rights are in balanced tension on a topic, it's possible to simply not advocate.

For example on the topic of employment discrimination, one could stay silent and thus not be advocating against the right to earn a living nor the right of free association. Furthermore, one can advocate for freedom from the employment treadmill that makes most everyone need continuous centralized-flow employment in the first place (this would be necessary for the negative rights construction to have good results).

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#63

Post by specialist » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #58

specialist wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read many scathing critiques of intel services preferring SIGINT over HUMINT. Hard to disagree.

SIGINT doesn't imply on mass surveillance, and HUMINT doesn't imply in targeted actions.

And yet that's what happened.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#64

Post by specialist » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

owl_troupe wrote: post #51

specialist wrote: post #43

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks? This is a complicated topic. Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One imp…

> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (…

All rights act in tension. Preferring one disadvantages others.

I merely ask we have better data to make better choices.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#65

Post by Retric » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #49

Retric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd thing about civil liberties is they also curtail other freedoms. The right to own property means the right to exclude others from your property. Trial by a jury of your peers means jury duty etc. If you have fundamental disagreements around these issues you really can’t blame the organization for not doing enough. Them doing more or less isn’t the problem, them having other priorities is.

You might want to read this article and the HN comments around it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920 . The GP is not arguing against your political positions, but pointing out that an organization which use to focus & care about one position no longer seems to.

It’s clear the ACLU is internally conflicted, but that’s completely normal. “It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.”

The real change has been mostly how individuals say things that the organization may disagree with. Still, I am concerned US politics has become so divisive that the right wing is viewed how the Nazis where back in the 70’s.

As to my politics, I don’t support the ACLU. Requiring locations to host rallies they disagree with isn’t a free speech issue anymore than allowing protesters to block a freeway in rush hour would be. Protests at government buildings are different, but rallies don’t need to be allowed to block public streets.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#66

Post by Retric » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #62

Retric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd thing about civil liberties is they also curtail other freedoms. The right to own property means the right to exclude others from your property. Trial by a jury of your peers means jury duty etc. If you have fundamental disagreements around these issues you really can’t blame the organization for not doing enough. Them doing more or less isn’t the problem, them having other priorities is.

There are ways to address that conflict. I'm not trying to join the trope of criticizing the contemporary ACLU, but rather pointing out that rights aren't purely relative constructions. Negative liberty (prohibitions on government infringing rights) and tradition (eg property rights) are two ways of non-relatively reasoning about rights. And of course when rights are in balanced tension on a topic, it's possible to s…

Many things don’t have a neutral middle ground. What can governments or other employers require of their employees?

Can cops lie to suspects is another tricky one. At one end is a flat no, at the other is misrepresent themselves as the defendants lawyer or pretend to offer immunity in exchange for turning on other suspects.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#67

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #56

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually need to worry about your obvious question, because it doesn't work . Yours is hypothetical. (And hypothetical questions can be interesting. Also, it can be good to have answers while they're still hypothetical, because sometimes they quit being hypothetical, sometimes very abruptly. But for the current discussion, we can reject mass surveillance on pragmatic grounds without worrying about the theore…

It's not obvious that mass surveillance doesn't work. It seems to work pretty well for the Chinese. Anyway, we have a mass surveillance program because people thought it would work. Perhaps we could have avoided the program if we had more people in that room who had effectively argued that, even if it worked, it was not to be pursued for reasons that have nothing to do with its efficacy. Sometimes principles come in…

Both your points are fair.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#68

Post by DoingIsLearning » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #54

Also interventionist wars that only end up multiplying the death toll many orders of magnitude with no positive outcome for anyone.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon? The oil/gas contractors operating in the region? Lobbyists, politicians?

Tragically there was an extremely positive outcome for a few very persuasive people.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#69

Post by actually_a_dog » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #46

owl_troupe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK I'll bite. From this article: >The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve [...] warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale. The US executive branch engineered an automated, massive breach of the constitutional rights of US citizens and the rights of people abroad. > The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board…

The article provides no principle by which we can say that mass surveillance is wrong. It does observe (per your quote) that mass surveillance has not worked very well. This raises an obvious question: if mass survillance did work well, would it be acceptable? The broader point here is that there are arguments against mass surveillance on principle, the ACLU just doesn't find them convincing.

I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause?

Then there's this entire paragraph:

> The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance. The people who feel the impact the most are Muslims, Black and Brown people, people of Asian descent, and others who have long been subject to wrongful profiling and discrimination in the name of national security. Routine surveillance is corrosive, making us feel like we are always being watched, and it chills the very kind of speech and association on which democracy depends. This spying is especially harmful because it is often feeds into a national security apparatus that puts people on watchlists, subjects them to unwarranted scrutiny by law enforcement, and allows the government to upend lives on the basis of vague, secret claims.

They don't actually come out an explicitly state it, but the idea they're getting at is that we shouldn't oppress people, particularly people who are already disadvantaged, without cause for suspicion. That would seem to be a second principle we can apply here. You can also combine this with the general ineffectiveness of said mass surveillance and use utilitarian principles to reach the same conclusion.

Re: The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward

#70

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #30

hzzg000 wrote: post #7

This is from the ACLU nagware banner: "Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win." Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dr…

The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin... Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot o…

You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote?

> But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:

"Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness."

> In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”.

A lawyer's job is making the strongest case they can for their client. And tactics aren't principles.