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

171–180 of 208 posts

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#171

Post by diminoten »

APoliteRequest wrote: post #145
diminoten wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Can you point out what you're talking about? I've been responding a lot of places, and HN isn't exactly great about keeping track of conversations.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#172

Post by foobarqux »

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.

Of course it is. If they know everything about me then they can coerce me. And if not me then other officials. How can you have a government where many people are subject to powerful coercion?

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#173

Post by diminoten »

dreamfactory wrote: post #140
diminoten wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see what you've read that makes you think the majority of US citizens think the NSA shouldn't continue in its current incarnation. Furthermore, I'd like to see what you've read that shows the TSA doesn't need to exist. Also, what makes you think the UK hasn't had a global intelligence network since its inception?

They call it the second oldest profession but intelligence can take different shapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service... post-dates the British empire for example. I didn't say anything about the majority US opinion (which is volatile of course), but it's plausible that a sufficiently large number of powerful Americans could call time out for a restructure as they see their international…

Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe. His arguments amount to, "people would be just as safe without it" but we have no evidence to that argument, as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea.

But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#174

Post by foobarqux »

diminoten wrote: post #118
foobarqux wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs. They are being assassinated by drones overseas.

The NSA doesn't own any drones. It has no ops.

It is not material that the actual kill is done by a different part of the government.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#175

Post by diminoten »

lukifer wrote: post #163
diminoten wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Citizens elect representatives who do the "spying back" on the NSA. If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones.

There will never be a "next" Stalin. We're past the days when such a person is possible.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#176

Post by diminoten »

natrius wrote: post #147
diminoten wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was asking you to elaborate on why you think the storing of some of the communications of some Americans is a) blatantly unconstitutional and b) dangerous for our democracy. I'm also asking you why you think anyone who believes there are small changes we can make for the better is unamerican, or as you put it, "preserving privacy and democracy matters to you"?

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#177

Post by diminoten »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #141
diminoten wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "convicti…

Where have I been hyperbolic? Show me literally one instance in our conversation where I've been hyperbolic, please.

What I'm asking is why you insist on assuming the US government is going to abuse all of the power it has. If that were true, wouldn't the US military be in charge? The idea that the US is absolutely and irrevocably corrupt is demonstrably false, and frankly I'm getting sick of the insinuation.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#178

Post by DanBC »

diminoten wrote: post #173
dreamfactory wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They call it the second oldest profession but intelligence can take different shapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service... post-dates the British empire for example. I didn't say anything about the majority US opinion (which is volatile of course), but it's plausible that a sufficiently large number of powerful Americans could call time out for a restructure as they see their international…

Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe. His arguments amount to, "people would be just as safe without it" but we have no evidence to that argument, as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea. But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds…

> as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea.

We have the years before 911. We have the various rail systems, which are vaguely similar to airliners.

And, really, the onus for providing proof of efficacy is on the people spending the money and adding time to everyone's travel.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#179

Post by rhizome »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #165
rhizome wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, no, since the government has taken pains to say that they don't "collect it all." For instance, spam email. What they have done is say they need to collect what they think they need to collect. As the leaks have illustrated, this can indeed be expanded to "it all" if they want it.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#180

Post by diminoten »

pdonis wrote: post #161
diminoten wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

This is an argument about words, because words matter, dammit, and I refuse to pretend they don't.

The word used was control. The NSA does not control the Internet. The US has not commandeered the Internet - frankly, they've always had power over the Internet because it was invented and is still maintained in the US.

As for where concern begins, concern should never leave us. We should always be concerned. It is fundamentally different, however, to claim someone or something can monitor a thing vs. manipulate that thing. It is an entirely different scenario and set of conversations that get had when someone monitors something vs. when someone controls that something.

Post reply on HN