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

The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 208 posts

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#141

Post by TallGuyShort »

diminoten wrote: post #136
TallGuyShort wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa, slow down there - where do I mention convicting the government of thought-crimes? My point is that granting the federal government powers (because, under the constitution, they have no power that isn't explicitly granted to them) under the umbrella of counter-terrorism initiatives is inevitably going to expand in scope and usage, and will still be labelled as "counter-terrorism".

Where do you mention convicting the government of thought-crimes? In the very next sentence! You are not capable of predicting the future, you don't know what is going to happen if we grant the federal government additional powers.

Except for the fact that the NSA already cited the PATRIOT Act to justify PRISM, and law enforcement agencies have already used vaguely worded wire tapping legislation to prosecute unrelated things like video taping the police. Emphasis on past tense. Kill the hyperbole, dude. I'm arguing against granting additional powers to the government or looking the other way on abuse of existing powers. Where you see "convicting the government of thought crimes" in that is beyond me.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#142

Post by pessimizer »

apalmer wrote: post #113
pessimizer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you are for the rule of some laws and not others? Just because you are pro-pot doesn't mean you are pro-child-molestation, right?

'rule of law' means something specific. To vastly summarize, if a law is unjust change the law.

>'rule of law' means something specific.

No, it doesn't.

"Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as 'an exceedingly elusive notion' giving rise to a 'rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is.'

"At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or 'thin' definition, and a substantive or 'thick' definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the 'justness' of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

If believing in the rule of law that you are defining here means that one would believe that one should absolutely follow all laws at all times, then I'm not a believer in the rule of law.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#143

Post by diminoten »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #138
diminoten wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with this?

They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidenc…

This argument throws out the baby with the bathwater, though. "Parallel construction" is how every investigation is conducted. Investigators start with hunches, and search for evidence that proves/disproves this hunch. Parallel construction happens any time an investigator takes evidence and tells a story with it.

It doesn't matter much if you construct an investigation while being led by information obtained outside of the chain of evidence - at least it doesn't matter with any other kind of information.

You say, "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone" - but that's not what they're doing. They're doing exactly the opposite. They're using the legally obtained evidence to prosecute someone, and taking guidance from the other data that can't be admitted.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#144

Post by tlb »

S_A_P wrote: post #14

While I understand that Lavabit and others have taken a stand, Im not sure that I would call going out of business fighting. I see this as an NSA victory. If they could shut down all of these niche secure email businesses, what option will people have but to use less private alternatives? I would argue that a shut down is exactly what the NSA wanted from lavabit. Of course the flip side is that you don't want to be c…

Lavabit probably believes, correctly, that no company can provide secure-against-government email as a service. The only way for two people to communicate securely is with in-person key exchange and dedicated devices running open-source right down to the hardware. By continuing to exist, they create a false illusion of security which is worse than no security at all.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#145

Post by APoliteRequest »

diminoten wrote: post #134
Sauer_Kraut wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no. edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more. I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason. I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lac…

So why, exactly, is there no evidence that US citizens on US soil are being "renditioned" or otherwise extrajudiciously held as a result of NSA data collection? Because, if you'll recall, that's what we were talking about.

"Because, if you'll recall, that's what we were talking about."

This thread is called 'The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet.' Throughout it you have been attempting to diminish or shift the subject to "US citizens on US soil."

Please stop.

edit: I just noticed you took the subject of CIA renditions and attempted to turn it into a "US citizens on US soil" subject as you have done to the others in this thread. While completely ignoring the subject you made the response to.

What the heck, guy.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#146

Post by diminoten »

pdonis wrote: post #137
diminoten wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSA can't stop you from visiting Hacker News. That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. The NSA does not have the ability to do this. So no, this is not historical fact.

That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. When it became public knowledge that the US government had backdoors in the long distance telephone network, that did alter people's behavior and the course of events. Similarly, the public knowledge that the NSA is spying on the Internet is altering people's behavior and the course of events. I agree the NSA can't stop people from…

Wrong kind of alter. You're talking about practical changes, but in no way was anyone forced to change their behavior. In this instance, 'alter' would be something the NSA did which literally changed an outcome. As in, block access to Hacker News, or redirect gmail.com to gmail.nsa.gov. The NSA does not have this power, nor has the US government ever done this.

So again no, it is not historical fact.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#147

Post by natrius »

diminoten wrote: post #127
natrius wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress and the NSA believe it is both constitutional and acceptable to collect and store any data they can get their hands on. They supposedly draw a fuzzy line to exclude most Americans when searching the stored data, but storing the communications of Americans is blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous for our democracy. It just takes one bad actor with access to that information to control elections and entire…

> storing the communications of Americans is blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous for our democracy Is it? > The idea that there are "not-so-big tweaks" that could be made to these programs is false if preserving privacy and democracy matters to you. So I'm either wrong or unamerican? Right.

No need to interpret ill will here. I clearly think you're wrong. The conditional there was to highlight the values I aim to protect that you likely share.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#148

Post by adaml_623 »

sigkill wrote: post #131
adaml_623 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind if the UK, Russian, or Chinese security agencies spy on you? After all that's their job? And by spy I do mean trojan your personal machine and keep you in a database?

Consider me the devils advocate, but wouldn't foreign spy-ing be better than local spying if they can't make use of that data to incriminate you in your daily life?

Better in that sense I agree but not 'good'.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#149

Post by eliasmacpherson »

diminoten wrote: post #143
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidenc…

This argument throws out the baby with the bathwater, though. "Parallel construction" is how every investigation is conducted. Investigators start with hunches, and search for evidence that proves/disproves this hunch. Parallel construction happens any time an investigator takes evidence and tells a story with it. It doesn't matter much if you construct an investigation while being led by information obtained outside…

Based on the information from the article, 40% of the time, this illegally obtained evidence isn't any help. The data you say they are 'taking guidance from' is illegally acquired and used (at least 40% of the time, but maybe as high 100%). That's indefensible.

"Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away."

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...

Your quotation marks are out of order, because I took pains not to say "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". It's more subtle than that.

In cases where the parallel construction was successful, it was probably illegal, and the convicted can appeal.

In refutation of your general thrust that all investigations are like this and it doesn't matter[2]: "Not all evidence gathered by a private investigator is legal, however. For instance if the PI breaks into a private residence, taps a phone, or uses a planted microphone or listening device in a private place, then in these cases such evidence is not generally admissible. That is because any conversations or activities done in private places, behind closed doors have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

[2] http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-...

one last edit, just in case you had any doubt about the chance of successful appeal, this is legal terminology so it has a strange name but it is worth reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree

Better article on the IRS link:

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#150

Post by ledge »

diminoten wrote: post #100
ledge wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I said that without doing any research on the subject ever. And yes one opinion of mine invalidates every other opinion I have, how true. You win, good arguments. Edit: For a more serious reply, there is evidence that countries that have decriminalized viewing child pornography (not production) have seen decreased rates of child sex abuse. Also, the definition of child pornography is so broad that we have a lot o…

Are you seriously trying to defend child pornography?

I am defending certain people convicted under child pornography laws, yes. I am also trying to engage in a serious discussion, ideas from which might reduce harm done to children, but you seem to have no interest in that.

Either way, you can strike "child pornography viewers" from my original comment and replace it with "prostitutes", "on-line gamblers", or any other person guilty of a moral crime. The point is that it's us vs. them because a large number of "us" are at risk of being targeted and incarcerated by "them". I have friends in jail for drug offenses, and it's very possible a lead from an intelligence agency was instrumental in their arrest. My own apartment was raided not that long ago, and I can't help but wonder if it's due to some text messages sent back in my college days, so speak for yourself when you say that they're on "our side".

Post reply on HN