US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#2The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#3The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds.
The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are making progress), and things like Stop & Frisk are only problems for those affected.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — HL Mencken
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#4The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are…
> it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds.
I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are…
> it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
A DUI checkpoint is a search of your personal property, without a warrant, and without cause. They set them up at random locations, and at random times. They stop every car that comes across, whether they were acting suspiciously or not, require everyone to open their window, whereupon they peer inside and look for anything that remotely resembles probable cause so that they can get grounds to 'search' you, when in most cases, they've already done exactly that.
More simply, a police officer can't stop you for no reason. They must have a reasonable belief that you've done something illegal.
A DUI checkpoint violates that first tenet straight off the bat.
Moreover, a police cannot search you without probable cause, but requiring you to open your window while they shine a flashlight throughout your car, after already having stopped you for no reason, is going even further.
I won't bother touching upon situations where dogs are trained to 'alert' for illegal substances whether or not they exist (because I honestly don't know the frequency), but that also happens.
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are…
> it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
Many states have now set up DUI Checkpoints. These are not targeted based on behavior: Every car traveling between point A and point B is expected to pull over and take a breathalyzer. These are often targeted based on neighborhoods or proximity to 'party' districts. They are conducted without warrants, and cast a wide net on individuals traveling.
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are…
> it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
I'm not a lawyer and therefore not qualified to expound on what "Three-pronged Test" or "Doctrine" decides what qualifies as an invasion of privacy, but...
If the cops could easily tell you were driving drunk, they'd pull you over and cuff you. They have no particular reason to suspect you're DUI if they have an armed checkpoint set up. There's the first problem, "no particular reason". That's not supposed to happen in America, that was what happened in Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia.
The second problem comes from what's probably the real reason, or at least an important subsidiary reason, for the "DUI" armed checkpoints. According to some "N-Pronged Test" or "Doctrine" that non-lawyers can't possibly understand, the inside of your car is "public". If a cop sees something fishy, he or she can just search your car. That's the second problem: "DUI" checkpoints rapidly become fishing expeditions for whatever minor illegalities the cops can find.
The penalty structure for any crime or administrative infraction (at least in the USA) is set pretty high. This may have made sense when cops were few and far between. The USA had to make penalties pretty severe so that folks would stop at stop signs even when a cop wasn't there to watch. You didn't get caught very often, even if you did whatever crime. A fairly harsh punishment made sense in sparse cop circumstances.
But once you universally enforce some "sparse cop/harsh penalty" punishment regime, you've gone way off the ranch, and you're probably just doing it to increase revenue, either through fines, or through privatized prisons that need their bunks overfilled.
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#8At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance.
Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell...
... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important it was in a democracy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for...
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-web...
... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the parties, and that voting will make a difference. But so many of the places where their policies are identical are the ones I care about.
I wish this post wasn't coming from a place of deep frustration, but the only way I can imagine this working is as described by Daniel Ellsberg, where learning top secret knowledge changes people:
"... it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself.
"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-...
But if politicians always believe they know better on this subject, what does that say about democracy? And how does this line up with the same people happily admitting they don't understand modern technology?
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#9At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…
Likewise in the US --- Obama campaigned, to some extent, on a rollback of this stuff, but he's been gung-ho in favor of it once in office.
Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
#10At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…
Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government.
"Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.