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

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 407 posts

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#371

Post by charlieok »

jacoblyles wrote: post #247
temp9251 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 20 now, and I think I'm smart. When I was 15 I did as well, but now I think I was pretty stupid at the time. No doubt the pattern will continue at 25.

I hated most literature when I was 18, then magically fell in love with the same novels I hated when I was 24. Still, there is more nuance I can pick up now at 30 with more study of history. If you haven't read the Iliad and a majority of the Bible, then you simply can't understand most of Western literature and those things take time. It's interesting to see that this is a universal experience. School gave me litera…

The “Knowledge Maps” used by sites like Kahn Academy [1] strike me as immensely helpful in deciding what to teach someone next, given what they've already learned.

I think it would be cool to replace the one-size-fits-all required reading assignments with something more tailored. Some way of answering the question, “what books(s) is this person likely to get the most insight from at this point in their education?”

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#372

Post by grey-area »

leoc wrote: post #368
grey-area wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're to criticise journalists, we should hold ourselves to the standards we expect of the them. The article said: 'In a statement, Google said' You paraphrase this as the article saying: 'Here's a denial of what we are alleging' The article said or implied no such thing, as your direct quote shows, it merely attributed the quote, without comment. It didn't talk about back doors or denials, Google did, probably in…

> If we're to criticise journalists, we should hold ourselves to the standards we expect of the them. In the interests of precision, let me first amend the Guardian non-paraphrase and paraphrase above to 'here's a weaselly statement that doesn't deny what the NSA document claims' and 'here's a denial of what the NSA document claims'. This matters because the article deliberately sets out to report the NSA slides inst…

I see what you mean now from this context, thanks for the clarification, however it is just restating that they are denying that they knew of prism, not all allegations. Part of the confusion here is that the slides say one thing, the article summarises it (perhaps loosely) and google denied something else altogether (back door etc). I would note though that the article did not say they had unfettered access via a back door, or root access or any such detail, those are things implied in the google statement, which curiously denied things the article did not allege.

Personally I thought the article did an OK (though far from perfect) job of summarising the puzzling gaps between the slides and the company statements, and didn't imply all the things people have read between the lines, but wish it had gone into more detail, however I don't feel that's a hugely important part of this story. It sounds like we might hear a bit more detail over the coming weeks.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#373

Post by unclebucknasty »

tptacek wrote: post #246
unclebucknasty wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? The subject of this thread is that the NSA admitted that analysts can listen to the content of all of our phone calls without a warrant. We are having this discussion because the Snowden link put the NSA front and center. Yet, you are arguing some mundane semantics? Instead of smearing the people responsible for these revelations, why not try to focus on the big picture? That is, all of this is leading to lo…

No, I am arguing that AT&T rolled over (and, as it turns out from today's Gellman piece in WaPo, took money from the USG to do it), while Google fought back. But commenters on boards like this are happy to shit all over Google because (a) any allegation that Google rolled over to the USG confirms their biases, (b) they're inclined to put people into binary "agrees with me entirely" or "disagrees with me entirely" buc…

I don't want you to shut up or back down. I am just baffled by your priorities and incoherent sense of scale.

Here we have revelations by the NSA, that analysts can listen to anyone's phone calls. In America. This subverts just about the entire spirit of the Constitution and some of the letter.

But, you would rather spend your time isolating some relatively minute detail that Snowden or others may or may not have gotten wrong.

And the thing is, neither you nor anyone here even knows enough to draw conclusions as to these minute details. A few weeks ago, we didn't know that the NSA was collecting metadata on so many calls. A few days ago, we didn't know that analysts were eavesdropping without warrants. Yet people like yourself would argue vehemently on behalf of the government. The more that comes out proving you wrong, the more you dig in and move the goalposts. It makes one wonder what the government would have to do to actually concern you.

And the thing is, while you argue things you couldn't possibly know, there are now enough solid facts coming out (including admissions by the NSA) that should be of grave concern to you. Yet, here you are again focused on trivial, unprovable details.

I won't argue the subjective notion of whether the details are mundane. That's opinion. But, I don't understand how anyone can have such a skewed sense of scale when comparing the relative importance of what you choose to argue versus that of the astonishing revelations being brought to light about our government.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#374

Post by foobarbazqux »

dag11 wrote: post #365
foobarbazqux wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just mean whatever he happens to find shallow. I can't read his mind, I can only speculate. It might be joining the football team. It might be doing donuts in the parking lot. It might be getting drunk at a party and having his first sexual experience. It might be shopping for cool clothing. It might be riding a skateboard. It might be skipping class, getting high, and failing the 10-point math quiz after recess. I…

Whoa there. You're projecting your own regrets onto him.

Yes, I'm projecting my regrets; it's a useful mechanism for making predictions. I was like that, and I certainly have regrets about high school experiences that I missed out on because I was too busy being intelligent. But mostly, high school got a lot better once I realized that intellectual superiority was overrated and I made an effort to fit in socially. The things I value most from that time are the "shallow" experiences, that I also looked down upon for a number of years.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#375

Post by Tycho »

robbiep wrote: post #295
kunai wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not stereotype teenagers. I am merely fifteen years old, and if you take a look through my comment thread you may find more insight than you expected. Yes, most in my generation are shallow and passive; but that doesn't mean all are. There are some intellectuals on the fringes.

That's what I thought when I was 15. It's probably what most academically gifted 15 year olds think. Go back and read some of your stuff in another 5 years, and then another 5. And tally the face palms. It's a good exercise in humility, something that is often hard to appreciate as a 15 year old

It would be beneficial for the discussion if you could recall any specific examples of things you misinterpreted or missed as a teenage reader.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#376

Post by wololo »

Udo wrote: post #329
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #77

Since the modus operandi seems to be for the NSA to suck up everything it can and decide later it seems (wild speculation follows) that the NSA might be sitting on audio recrodings of all your phone calls for the past several years. Can you imagine the number of divorce cases that would impact? Civil lawsuits? Proof of innocence or guilt in a crime? Hell, get a decade or two of this and historians alone would have a…

Having just watched yesterday's RealTime (Bill Maher's show) as well as the mainstream news coverage of the week, I have finally come to the conclusion that no significant number of Americans has a problem with living in a surveillance state, not even the host and guests on a faux liberal talk show. Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire pr…

It's important to keep in mind that our national histories color what these words mean to us and what we think the implications are.

Another example of this is the massive paranoia in Germany about Streetview before it came out in that country. That one seems to have been unwarranted.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#377

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

tptacek wrote: post #353
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very naive to believe that. The gov't somehow manages to compel people to lie despite the absence of some "Federal Pants on Fire Act" 1. Place a Warrant Canary. 2. Receive NSL. Even those who've conceived of the Warrant Canary know that it depends upon the notion that the gov't will not coerce the NSL recipient to leave the Canary unmodified. We don't have to use the Warrant Canary hypothetical to see that the…

I don't follow any of this. I don't know what warrant canaries have to do with the fictitious belief that NSLs compel companies to lie.

Well, if you place a warrant canary, and then receive an NSL, the warrant canary must be modified, as that is its sole purpose. If you leave the warrant canary in tact, then you've lied. The act of changing the warrant canary will by definition violate the (secrecy) terms of the NSL and possibly invoke gov't reprisal. Even without the warrant canary the terms of an NSL may compel an individual to lie through coercion, depending upon circumstance.

I didn't say that the NSL compels each recipient to lie, in every case. I said the gov't can and does compel individuals to lie. That's not a "fictitious belief" it's a fact. Then I offered a concrete example of widespread gov't conduct supporting that claim.

If you keep waiting to see it spelled out in black and white, "Be it ordered on this day the NSA under the authorization of Congress and President Obama (with all their signatures) that you shall go on the Today Show and Charlie Rose's show and tell everyone that we can't read everyone's email and that we're all a great bunch of guys." you're likely to have to wait a while. You're being obtuse and I think you know that. It probably works well in other areas of your life, but it makes you ill-suited to make judgments about non-trivial issues because it is rare that all relevant facts become obvious as an atomic operation.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#378

Post by larrys »

Udo wrote: post #329
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #77

Since the modus operandi seems to be for the NSA to suck up everything it can and decide later it seems (wild speculation follows) that the NSA might be sitting on audio recrodings of all your phone calls for the past several years. Can you imagine the number of divorce cases that would impact? Civil lawsuits? Proof of innocence or guilt in a crime? Hell, get a decade or two of this and historians alone would have a…

Having just watched yesterday's RealTime (Bill Maher's show) as well as the mainstream news coverage of the week, I have finally come to the conclusion that no significant number of Americans has a problem with living in a surveillance state, not even the host and guests on a faux liberal talk show. Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire pr…

"Except when I'm on HN"

Very possible that there are people on HN that don't care as well. But because of the overwhelming amount of people who make their opinions known who do care, it would be karma suicide to admit otherwise except in the most delicate terms. Even if you don't need or care about karma points it generally doesn't feel good to have people load up on you.

I wonder at what point any issue within a group gets so lopsided in one direction that dissent almost never materializes. It becomes viewed as "so bad" on it's face that people rarely speak in favor of it. Or you have to walk on eggshells to even discuss the other side.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#379

Post by krapp »

larrys wrote: post #378
Udo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having just watched yesterday's RealTime (Bill Maher's show) as well as the mainstream news coverage of the week, I have finally come to the conclusion that no significant number of Americans has a problem with living in a surveillance state, not even the host and guests on a faux liberal talk show. Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire pr…

"Except when I'm on HN" Very possible that there are people on HN that don't care as well. But because of the overwhelming amount of people who make their opinions known who do care, it would be karma suicide to admit otherwise except in the most delicate terms. Even if you don't need or care about karma points it generally doesn't feel good to have people load up on you. I wonder at what point any issue within a gro…

There are a few, i've seen their posts here and there, and they do seem to get downvoted pretty severely. It's unfortunate, not necessarily because I agree with them but everyone has the right to at least make their case.

That seems to be one of the downsides of the karma system - when a population of high karma users tend towards a certain point of view it creates social pressure for others to reinforce the orthodoxy. It doesn't help that once you get the down arrow, you're free to simply downvote opinions you disagree with rather than engage the poster.

I've wondered once or twice whether karma shouldn't be publicly visible anyway. After all, one should be able to judge a post on its own merit without having a measure of the posters' relative popularity to tell you how much you probably should agree with them or not.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#380

Post by w_t_payne »

larrys wrote: post #378
Udo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having just watched yesterday's RealTime (Bill Maher's show) as well as the mainstream news coverage of the week, I have finally come to the conclusion that no significant number of Americans has a problem with living in a surveillance state, not even the host and guests on a faux liberal talk show. Except when I'm on HN, everywhere I go there just are no people who see anything fundamentally wrong with the entire pr…

"Except when I'm on HN" Very possible that there are people on HN that don't care as well. But because of the overwhelming amount of people who make their opinions known who do care, it would be karma suicide to admit otherwise except in the most delicate terms. Even if you don't need or care about karma points it generally doesn't feel good to have people load up on you. I wonder at what point any issue within a gro…

I am vacillating.

Fundamentally, I have a great deal of sympathy for the security services, understand the difficulty of the job that they have been tasked with, and can see no other reasonable way of achieving the goals that they have been set. However, my opinion flips and flops back and forth as I read each new revelation, get caught up in the moral outrage of the crowd, write something incendiary and provocative, then sit back, think a bit, and regret (maybe) being so rash.

But then again ... I understand all too well the tremendously vulnerable situation that the general population is in with respect to the state, and comprehend the risk of abuse, not so much from individual analysts or the current administration as much as from the opportunistic acts of a future administration.

But then again ... It is foolish to expect answers to come easily when the questions themselves are so difficult, so it is natural to strike out in the wrong direction a few times before finding a good path.

As a former member of the diplomatic community living in the US, I am (now as then) almost certain that the NSA were recording all of my telephone calls and internet browsing activity, as well as bugging the apartment in which we lived. It did not then and does not now stop me from browsing for kinky porn, having massive stand-up arguments with my wife, and emailing the Samaritans about wanting to commit suicide. (TMI, I know, sorry - but they can only hold something over your head if you want to keep it a secret).

I chose not to care then, and I have to continue choosing not to care. (Not a decision one can undo easily, anyway). Living in a glass goldfish bowl or not, life goes on; and perhaps the best (or least worst) thing that can come out of all of this is that we become a little bit more honest about human imperfection and fallibility - I do not think that I am alone in being an imperfect, flawed human being.

Perhaps if we stopped pretending to be perfect (or at least not-as-deranged-as-we-really-are) we would be somewhat less vulnerable to those who would seek to exploit the information imbalance.

So, I guess I do not care about them invading my privacy, because that boat sailed a long time ago. I do care in principle about them invading everybody's privacy, because of hypothetical future abuses. I think that at least some of the potential for abuse can be blunted by being more open and honest with ourselves, and by coming to terms with our own failings rather than trying to hide them.

Post reply on HN