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

The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#71

Post by mistermann »

giantg2 wrote: post #50
wpietri wrote: post #21

It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here. In Greg Bear's novel "Queen of Angels", set in 2047, their solution to the conflicting needs of privacy and crime prevention was a separate organization called "Citizen Oversight". All the digital-trail data (cameras, financial rec…

Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system. I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them. I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

> Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system.

As a True/False binary, sure, but the magnitude of the phenomenon is a function of the quality of the system. As flaws are realized, the system can be improved.

Consider how many known flaws there are in our various systems, and then observe (in an as unbiased as possible frame of mind as possible) how we (everyone (including us here on HN), but especially those with various forms of power) respond to realizations of these flaws: do we fix them, or do we engage in rhetoric, propaganda, post-hoc rationalization/justification, etc?

> I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them.

If this displeases us, shall we blame ourselves or Mother Nature? Or, not even think about it?

> I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

You may be right. Alternatively, you may not. There's only one way to (possibly) find out, but it is certainly not mandatory that we find such things out.....well, unless we desire certain outcomes, then it might be.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#73

Post by tastyfreeze »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

Perhaps we could move collected intelligence data into an agency, specifically tasked with insuring it's only used in a constitutional manner. Search requests would be submitted to agents who know when warrants are required.

The temptation to abuse intelligence data is too great. I can't think of any structure centralized structure that wouldn't eventually be corrupted. This is why police powers reside with the states not the federal government. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure states are following the Constitution.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#74

Post by teddyh »

ethbr0 wrote: post #58
giantg2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any group who becomes part of the system will then act to protect the system. I mean, judges are supposed to grant warrants for things already, yet we continually see stories of them just rubber stamping requests, or police lying to obtain them. I assume that system would suffer similar issues.

That's why you have limited terms of service and randomly turn over membership.

Like politicians?

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#75

Post by analognoise »

willmadden wrote: post #36
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not certain whether it’s an issue of training or an issue of lack of accountability. It certainly seems like a time of reckoning must come for all levels of law enforcement, where we get back to upholding the law rather than being above it. By now, almost everybody in the country seems to take issue with one or more areas of law enforcement and/or judiciary. Belief in justice seems to be at a very low point.

I think there’s a general lack of confidence in the integrity of elections, especially given what’s been revealed in the Twitter files and that “mules” documentary. I don’t see how anything can change without election integrity and ensuring the standing government cannot interfere in elections. That’s the only way any of the government overreach can be curtailed. Bureaucrats aren’t going to oversee themselves. They w…

I saw that documentary - I didn't find it convincing. To put it mildly.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#76

Post by mistermann »

sylware wrote: post #12

That's why you cannot ask any government to protect its citizen digital systems, because there are too much interested in to get security holes for their own benefit... Yep, we are alone in this, and with all those horrible standards/software(open source or not)/hardware, don't bother that much, it is unreasonable anyway.

> That's why you cannot ask any government to protect its citizen digital systems, because there are too much interested in to get security holes for their own benefit...

Any government that currently exists maybe, but not necessarily any government that is possible.

The governmental forms we have now are ancient, designed in a period that pales in comparison to the complexity and power currently available to mankind.

The runtime we are in physically supports improvements, but it appears to not support improvements psychologically - you can test this theory by asking questions of agents within the runtime, and you will discover that there is extreme and almost unanimous opposition to improvements, which to me seems highly counter-intuitive but that is what data suggests.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#77

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

uog2jeeY3Jaiphu wrote: post #35
boomboomsubban wrote: post #15

>While the analyst attempted to remove the US information, in some cases, it said, they “inadvertently failed” to do so. A reminder that every abuse we hear of is one they failed at covering up. The most famous example of this is MKUltra, where everything we know about the program is from one document cache that survived the incinerator by being mislabeled.

[dead]

This sounds fake

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#79

Post by ttyprintk »

wpietri wrote: post #68
ttyprintk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using civilian oversight of police as a metaphor, the high-profile civilian killings lately have come from police departments with civilian oversight. Less than 1% have it, which means an even smaller fraction have civilian discipline.

The US has a long history of dubious police killings. That some are now high profile seems like a step forward to me. Yes, civilian oversight of police in many places is weak. But to me that's an argument for stronger oversight.

I should have picked a milder example. If in the future, civilian oversight has burgeoned to be powerful-enough that it impedes what law-enforcement feels it’s entitled to, then civilian oversight will have passed traditional American powers.

Your metaphor is begging the question, how do we get there from here? America has the institution of juries and grand juries, and in a very small number of police departments, long-term officials with regular contact with the department.

I suppose juries and grand juries are the path toward overpowered civilian roles rather than today’s meager civilian oversight boards.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#80

Post by mistermann »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #73
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

Perhaps we could move collected intelligence data into an agency, specifically tasked with insuring it's only used in a constitutional manner. Search requests would be submitted to agents who know when warrants are required.

The temptation to abuse intelligence data is too great. I can't think of any structure centralized structure that wouldn't eventually be corrupted. This is why police powers reside with the states not the federal government. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure states are following the Constitution.

> I can't think of any structure centralized structure that wouldn't eventually be corrupted.

Do you mean this literally? Like, if you were to start with a clean slate, free of all norms, premises, and axioms, you couldn't design a system that wouldn't be corrupted (which is different from a system being imperfect)?

Heck, one obvious approach is to involve citizens, and make the death penalty a consequence for corruption in certain roles. I think this would substantially alter people's behavior.

Something else we could do in conjunction with this: start teaching the public how to think skilfully so they are not so easily misled by people who are taught such things (in schools not available to the public).

Post reply on HN