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

191–200 of 208 posts

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#191

Post by jmcmichael »

diminoten wrote: post #186
jmcmichael wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because every group you've named has the same overarching goal - to keep people free and safe. This statement sounds hopelessly naive to me. Sure, those groups say they work to keep people free and save, but their track record with those goals is tragically abysmal. In fact, there is mountainous and credible evidence that their activities are accomplishing the exact opposite of their stated goals (see the history o…

The intelligence community doesn't ignore senators and representatives. That isn't happening except in a political fantasy world where being opposed to the NSA is beneficial. What's naive is believing that you have enough information to make a decision about whether or not the NSA is effective at what it does, or that you have enough information to determine that US foreign action is why we're being threatened. You e…

> The intelligence community doesn't ignore senators and representatives. That isn't happening except in a political fantasy world where being opposed to the NSA is beneficial.

You are ignorant of basic historical information necessary to have an effective discussion on this topic. If you were up to date, you would know about our elected representatives that sit on the security council being stonewalled, ignored, and lied to by the representatives of the intelligence community which are supposed to inform them. They are supposed to inform them of what they are doing so that they can do their jobs as our representatives. If our representatives are ignorant, how can they possibly do their jobs as our representatives?

Clapper LIED to Congress. This is not a disputable fact. He lied. This is Federal offense - why is he not in jail? The US Government is issuing the most bizarre, hypocritical, carefully parsed statements about everything relating to this fiasco - are you cool with this kind of behavior from the most powerful organization in the world?

I'm not advocating direct democracy or direct knowledge of what the NSA does. What I am advocating is that the IC follow the goddamn law - both the statutes and the Constitution: 'social contract' which keeps our society running.

I also note you skipped the entirety of my first point.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#192

Post by pdonis »

diminoten wrote: post #180
pdonis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fund…

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.

So basically, the US hasn't "commandeered" the Internet because it didn't have to? It already has power over the Internet, so it didn't have to take any? I don't see how that in any way opposes the point Schneier was making in his article. He wasn't talking about "control" in the sense of the NSA dictating who can visit what website: he was talking about "commandeer" in the sense of the NSA being able to commandeer whatever information it wants, whenever it wants, from any provider of an Internet service.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#193

Post by eliasmacpherson »

diminoten wrote: post #188
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, I am begging the question, the DOJ are investigating the question. Maybe they will find the DEA and SOD are acting illegally. Hopefully they will. Those who would defend the use of NSA data for domestic crimes are dangerously close to advocating for a police state. I may have written that quote and edited out because it was wrong. Sorry about that. I doubt I am mistaken about the poisoned tree though…

You're right when it comes to the investigation. If the DOJ finds that this parallel construction is illegal, then I would accept it as such. My gut says they won't (because of the example I gave), but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I still stand by what I said regarding the lack of "snatchings". If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the N…

There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first:

1:

a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision)

b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on)

c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal)

d. d:a) no evidence is found.

   d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins.
2:

a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway.

other steps as above.

My problem is with the first mode. Given the first mode, do you stand by your earlier statement and: "If a parallel chain of evidence can be constructed that leads to an arrest, that's not "because of" the NSA's monitoring programs."

See the NSA's statement re: evidence of a crime. If the first mode leads to an arrest it is by definition "because of".

In both scenarios I have a problem with d:a) where no evidence is turned up because it seems like a very unreasonable search to me.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#194

Post by natrius »

diminoten wrote: post #176
natrius wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

A plain reading of the Fourth Amendment clearly prohibits this sort of mass surveillance. Constitutional arguments tend to degenerate into semantic ones, so let's ignore that argument for now.

The threat to privacy and democracy is that anyone with access to this data can blackmail anyone. The NSA is storing as much data as possible for as long as possible. This means they have the communications (metadata or otherwise) of every potential politician, and thus the ability to blackmail them to distort their decisions. We're told that there are safeguards in place to prevent such abuse, but those safeguards are secret, and I can't imagine any safeguards being foolproof. The best safeguard to protect our democracy is to not allow such a system to be built.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#195

Post by apalmer »

dmix wrote: post #170
junto wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#196

Post by dreamfactory »

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…

> Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe.

Understanding that it is theater is enough. You realise nobody needed to prove the emperor had no clothes.

> What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?

Well you brought it up yourself when you said:

> Also, what makes you think the UK hasn't had a global intelligence network since its inception?

My point was simply that it would be inane to assume that any organisation is required to stay around forever, purely by dint of it existing today - let alone one that is giving every indication of careening out of control. Plenty of people are already calling for Clapper to face consequences.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#197

Post by foobarqux »

diminoten wrote: post #181
foobarqux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's of critical importance, actually. One person collects the data, "The man you're looking for is here." and another person decides what to do with that data. "We will kill him." or "We will capture him." or "We will kill him and anyone in the same room or building as him." The NSA doesn't decide what to do, the other part of the government does. It's of absolutely critical importance to remember that when discussi…

People wouldn't be "snatched up off the street" by the NSA either which was the original point of contention.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#198

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.

> Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens.

Aren't US citizens at risk of being harmed everyday in normal diplomatic bargaining? Isn't it debatable, among US citizens themselves, as to what constitutes harm or benefit? Isn't that what political discourse is about?

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#199

Post by TallGuyShort »

diminoten wrote: post #177
TallGuyShort wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't "insist on assuming the US government is going to abuse all of the power it has", and I haven't stated that "the US is absolutely and irrevocably corrupt" - so there's your hyperbole. I suggested that in the government, as in any political organizations, scopes tend to expand. I've pointed out several examples of this, including an example in the very issue we're discussing. You also equated this with "convicting the government of thought crimes" - and I still have no idea how you made that hyperbolic connection. You're obviously incredibly upset about this so let's just drop it. It doesn't even seem like we're speaking the same language because I have no idea where you're getting these ideas about what I've said.

Re: The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet

#200

Post by pessimizer »

apalmer wrote: post #167
pessimizer wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'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 author…

I'm not sure how those first two paragraphs made you any less wrong.
Post reply on HN