261–270 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but a lot of those are not democracies, nor do much business at intel level with the US.
Why would it matter if they are democracies or not? Why would it matter if they "do intel business" with the US, EU, UK, etc. ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if this is a case of American intelligence outsourcing the surveillance of American citizens to foreign intelligence. If that is indeed the case, I’d expect a quid pro quo. Yet it is the US government who revealed it: "In a letter to the Department of Justice, Senator Ron Wyden said foreign officials were demanding the data from Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google and Apple (AAPL.O). Although details were sparse,…
> Yet it is the US government who revealed it Less "the government" and more "a member of government", the same member who has revealed and demanded accountability when discovering domestic government overreach. We should choose our congress critters carefully.
The problem with corruption is scale, when you have too large of an institution, it's easier to hide intent. I don't see how you can police that by voting when so much of what goes on is not easily seen.
For every persons that gets voted in to do the right thing, there are 4 others who are doing the wrong thing.
Hey other states, can you elect a few more Ron Wydens? He's been doing a ton of the heavy lifting lately. Every time we hear about the intelligence community egregiously violating civil liberties, it's always Wyden.
I'm an Oregonian and my biggest complaint about Ron Wyden is that he's usually ahead of me on technical issues. There are worse problems to have...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yet it is the US government who revealed it Less "the government" and more "a member of government", the same member who has revealed and demanded accountability when discovering domestic government overreach. We should choose our congress critters carefully.
Indeed. But government is also a process and in this case I think it is fair to say that the process is leading to good outcomes (transparency, accountability).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Con...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting point in Glenn Greenwald’s book is that metadata is often more informative than the “real” data. Consider: 1. A phone call in which Mrs. Smith talks to a receptionist to set an appointment with a doctor for 9:30 next Wednesday. Vs. 2. Knowing that Mrs. Smith called an abortion clinic. #2 seems like a bigger violation of privacy. Metadata is the real data.
how will actual data not be more informative? you can easily infer what the appointment was because the phone call will mention the name of the doctor or office and you can look that up plus all the details they discuss you'd still have to look up who the doctor they called is from the metadata; it's still info but absolutely not more informative than the real data so this line of thought makes no sense, and glenn gr…
You're assuming these things are mentioned. "Hi, I'd like to book/confirm an appointment with Dr. Jones." doesn't leak information about "abortion".
Yes, these things obviously depend on what information is transmitted. The point, however, is that metadata more reliably transmits sensitive information than does "the data".
Given a lot of journalists and activists use encrypted communications to be able to do their job without being unduly or unjustly persecuted (yes, the bad guys use them too!), and 12 US State Attorney Generals just signed a letter and delivered it to the major news agencies (NYT, CNN, Reuters, AP, etc.) that warns of any "support to terrorist organizations" and specifically points out Hamas, but is not very clear on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the "warrantless search"? > [CBP officers] demanded proof of citizenship from the passengers > CBP officers boarded a bus in Bangor, Maine None of those are searches, they are temporary detentions with strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry. To wit: > most people have no idea that they can refuse to be searched at a roadblock or bus boarding Ignorance of the law != warrantless searches. Arm your…
> strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one. I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at…
Oh, but you should - your freedom may depend on it.
> police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back
Maybe, but this is the world we presently find ourselves living in, and we can either choose to become empowered with knowledge about it, or throw a hyperbolic tantrum and wish for the moon.
> I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time.
You don't, at least not in the US. If you took more time to care about the laws you decry, you would know there is no such requirement, unless you have been suspected of a crime by a lawful sworn agent of the state. Which is a reasonable compromise in a society.
> smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence ... would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today
I agree. Those individuals knew well what an unchecked government can do, and took many reasonable precautions to safeguard against such infringements and tyranny. They were of course imperfect in their implementation, but the principals they set forth (freedom of speech, defense, religion, &c.) formed a radically different society to anywhere else on the planet today. Which is why I'm always puzzled when people disregard their hard work to take some agency's word and propaganda at face value, rather than consulting the original tenets which founded this great country.
It's fascinating that about half hese comments appear to be from younger people unfamiliar with "USA PATRIOT" Act gag orders, FISA, Five Eyes, Least Untruthful Response and related controversies that were big in the news 10-20 years ago. Amusingly and sadly, the law was called PATRIOT as a normal "give a bad law a Good name", but over time "patriot" has become synonym for "traitor" in common use.
Reminds me of the Eufy issue where they said everything was encrypted except for push notification images.
Hard to pick the most appropriate Orwellian quote. "All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force." ~ George Orwell
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, no Signal.
This isn't necessarily true. When you install the Signal app on an Android phone that doesn't have Google Play Services installed, it receives push notifications using its own notification daemon instead of using Google's. This, of course, has significant battery life costs.