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

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#161

Post by pdonis »

diminoten wrote: post #146
pdonis wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is not historical fact.

What isn't? You're not saying the stuff I mentioned isn't historical fact; you're just saying that the historical fact doesn't meet your definition of "alter" or "control". Right?

If so, I'll be glad to adopt your definitions of terms for the purpose of this discussion. Then my question is: is "control" by your definition the appropriate threshold at which to be concerned? If so, why? If not, what is the appropriate threshold?

(If you're just objecting to the word "control" because Schneier used it, that's an argument about words, not about substance. Maybe Schneier should have used another word; but that doesn't change the substance of what he said.)

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#162

Post by apalmer »

diminoten wrote: post #49
apalmer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth are you talking about? The whole purpose of the NSA monitoring program is to provide actionable leads to enable intervention by law enforcement. You can think this is 'bad', you can think this is 'good', you can think it is highly effective, you can think it is ineffective... but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from realit…

> but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. Do you have evidence that indicates US citizens are being 'snatched' from the streets of the US without being arrested, tried, or convicted as per the US criminal justice system? You say it's wildly disconnected from reality and that the NSA's entire purpose is to do precisely this, an…

honestly? I dont understand what you are arguing. Who said anything about no arrests, trials, or convictions? I do not have classified info on what is or isnt done within or outside the justice system based on NSA monitoring.

I do know the government has claimed that this system has stopped dozens of terrorist plots. I make the assumption based on my judgement that these terrorists are not given a 'stop it or else we will arrest you' but are instead 'detained' in some way. Maybe you disagree with that, and feel these folks are issued a subpoena to appear in court at some later date. Further my understanding is this program is classified, and whatever is done with these 'detained' individuals is not a matter of public record. I guess this is an assumption as well, but seems like a pretty basic one, you don't issue gag orders and maintain top secret security and then throw on the publicaly available court dockets 'this guy was arrested due to the fact the NSA data captured he was interacting with a known foreign terrorist', this doesnt mean he wasnt tried by some secret court, I make no guesses as far as what happens once someone is 'detained'... disagree with that if you will, but its not a conspiracy theory, thats as far as i understand it the official government line on what the program is used for.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#163

Post by lukifer »

diminoten wrote: post #108
foobarqux wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you should know surveillance is used for far more broadly than for preventing terrorism. It is beyond comprehension that you can ignore documented abuses, even ones that have recently been reported. You cannot justify arbitrary powers simply by pointing to the fact that (US and ally) citizens may be safer from terrorism. Otherwise you should be advocating for more invasive surveillance. > Being investigated does n…

Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Otherwise, your autonomy is not lost, just because someone is watching you. That's malarky.

Have you ever read Sun Tzu? Knowing is way more than half the battle. Autonomy includes a balance of power and ability to defend yourself, and citizens are unable to spy back on the NSA. Even if the power is not being abused today (which I doubt), it hands over the keys completely to the next Stalin (or even just the next Nixon).

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#164

Post by apalmer »

hexis wrote: post #151
apalmer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This puts you against Thoreau, Gandhi, and King among others. Are you sure you'd like to hold this position?

Why would you assume that Thoreau, Gandhi and King would be against my position?

Individuals banding together for civil disobedience is completely different from commercial entities banding together. Hoping for commercial entities to break laws because you hope to happen to benefit from this rule breaking in this particular instance seems to be ill advised from my perspective.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#165

Post by knowaveragejoe »

rhizome wrote: post #29
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Black Hat Conference, a week and a half ago: "Terrorists driven by a desire to 'create a caliphate' of sharia law in the middle east continued to plot attacks. 'Terrorists live among us,' he said" GP conflates these statements to imply that those among us want to create Sharia or whatever among us , but Alexander did say the words. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-keith-alexa...

Was that statement paired with a declaration of needing to "collect it all"? It seems more like we're stretching to fit a nefarious plot on top of what started as a largely benign effort and has since expanded into a system that has been abused in the past and could be abused to great effect in the future.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#166

Post by apalmer »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #71
apalmer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I hope this is not the case. I am against the NSA monitoring program. I think powerful commercial interests colluding to purposefully break the rule of law is a huge negative. Lets disconnect this behavior from the specific instance's moral outrage: If Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell simultaneously came out and ignored all EPA restrictions would their CEOs all go to jail, doing enormous damage to the stock market? Thi…

Haha, its an absolutist vs. utilitarian moral argument. It is clear that from the absolutist perspective as you've stated, the outcome has potential for abuse. I assume that the precedence set bothers you, corporations were not intended to be a check against the gov't per se. The state of affairs is probably indicative of a larger issue which the failure of our checks and balances in our government. Utilitarian moral…

I disagree with you on points, but at least we seem to be operating from a shared logical framework.

I think our fundamental disagreement however is i don't think a company 'stands' for anything but making money. I think further that if commercial entities are allowed to hide behind 'morality' when determining which laws to follow this will lead to extreme abuse, since in my worldview commercial entities do not have a 'moral' code.

If say, mark zuckerberg wanted to do a sit in in front of the NSA knowing he is violating tresspassing laws (for the sake of arguement) then thats his personal moral choice, and as long as he is willing to face the consequences, kudos to him.

But realistically the majority of the american people dont have a problem with the NSA programs. I know it burns a lot of HN up, but as of right now, thats just reality. We know that the elected executive branch, the judicial branch, and the elected legislative branch more or less have signed on to this NSA thing. If perhaps they were in the dark before, this is no longer the case. This is democracy at work people, sometimes the majority of people want something I dont agree with, thats democracy.

Now just because democracy 'failed' doesn't mean I want some small cabal of very rich and powerful folks to decide they will not have to follow the laws of this country because they have the power to do so.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#167

Post by apalmer »

pessimizer wrote: post #142
apalmer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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,…

Honestly, if you going to selectively pick lines out of an information source that defend your argument then all hope of intelligent discourse is lost. Let me just say, I don't disagree with the source your quoting just with your selective quotation. Why don't we quote the whole thesis instead of the caveats after the main thesis?

'The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) generally refers to the influence and authority of law within society, especially as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2] This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3]

In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".[4] Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6]

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.[7]'

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#168

Post by diminoten »

APoliteRequest wrote: post #155
diminoten wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so not the streets of the US, which is what I said. Got it.

You are the one that shrank the topic from 'streets' to 'US streets.' Just as you have done to others in this thread.

I'm the one who asked the question. It's already a given that the US government cares more about the rights of its citizens than it does about noncitizens. That's been true for 200+ years.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#169

Post by diminoten »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #149
diminoten wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

You keep begging the question by calling it "illegally obtained evidence" which ignores the fact that it's not illegal to obtain, just inadmissible. There's a difference, and entirely defensible.

You literally said "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". Whether you went back and changed it later is a different story, but I copy+pasted what you wrote.

And if you think this is how fruit of the poisoned tree works, you're sorely mistaken. What you can't do is break into a home, take evidence, and use that evidence.

What you can do is, while you're executing a warrant on a home for another reason glance at your suspect's mail, notice a piece of mail is from someone you investigated prior who claimed to not know your suspect, go find another link between those two people, and then use their testimony once you've gotten them to confess to knowing the person as a link in a legit evidence chain. This isn't "fruit of the poisoned tree", and is basically what NSA tips are.

COMPLETELY different.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#170

Post by dmix »

junto wrote: post #160
dmix wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on which law is being broken. In addition to whether the law is moral, there's also the business implications. Markets serve customers first. If the companies colluded to act morally in their customers interest and against repressive governments, then I don't see it being a comparable issue. They would be rewarded longer term with customer loyalty. If oil companies collude to ignore safety regulations, that w…

Who are the "customers" exactly? The public using these free services are not the customers, that's for sure. We are the "users". The customers pay for information about users.

Well if a business depends on "users" to get revenue from advertising or other means, they are still essentially customers and equally influential to the company.
Post reply on HN