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

End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 176 posts

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#81

Post by Nursie »

javert wrote: post #75
onli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting people posess the means of production, and the capital to produce as well. It was not only rhetoric that in the fight between USA and UDSSR, there was a fight between freedom and authority. But mainly, it was a fight between different ways to regulate the means of…

Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non-essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR. Capitalism lost because of Euro…

>> Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion

I love how libertarians redefine words to mean what they want!

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#82

Post by Silhouette »

rayiner wrote: post #65
samolang wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed, the focus is clearly on personal things (house, person), not things possessed by third parties. You need to understand the context. People did not store information about their private communications with third parties in 1776. Can you call AT&T and ask for someone else's records and get them? Why not? Things you wish to stay private do stay private unless a warrant is issued citing probable cause to violat…

> People did not store information about their private communications with third parties in 1776. People stored all sorts of private information with third parties in 1776. They had accountants and bookkeepers and suppliers and vendors, etc. > Can you call AT&T and ask for someone else's records and get them? Can you call up Ernst and Young and ask for someone else's accounting records? No, but the government can. Th…

The test isn't "things you wish to stay private." It's "reasonable expectation of privacy." It's an objective test, not a subjective one.

But if you're going to argue that this objectively means "reasonable expectation that your privacy will be respected in this case" rather than "reasonable expectation that your privacy should be respected in this case" then you have reduced any protection to something meaningless through circular logic. By this kind of argument, anyone can violate your privacy, in any way, for any reason, and it's all OK as long as they make sure you know it's happening.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

Silhouette wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People did not store information about their private communications with third parties in 1776. People stored all sorts of private information with third parties in 1776. They had accountants and bookkeepers and suppliers and vendors, etc. > Can you call AT&T and ask for someone else's records and get them? Can you call up Ernst and Young and ask for someone else's accounting records? No, but the government can. Th…

The test isn't "things you wish to stay private." It's "reasonable expectation of privacy." It's an objective test, not a subjective one. But if you're going to argue that this objectively means "reasonable expectation that your privacy will be respected in this case" rather than "reasonable expectation that your privacy should be respected in this case" then you have reduced any protection to something meaningless t…

> But if you're going to argue that this objectively means "reasonable expectation that your privacy will be respected in this case" rather than "reasonable expectation that your privacy should be respected in this case" then you have reduced any protection to something meaningless through circular logic.

That's what the reasonable expectation of privacy test has always meant, so its not reducing it at all. Whether its meaningless or not, well, actual actions by government have been found to violate it, so its clearly not a null protection, even if it isn't what you'd prefer.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#84

Post by Silhouette »

rayiner wrote: post #68
hobs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, but as the op-ed states, they dont think the government should be unable to surveil the citizenry, just not surveil them all the time for no reason besides they said so. The op-ed states: "So we offered amendments: One would end the bulk collection of Americans’ records, but still allow intelligence agencies to obtain information they legitimately needed for national security purposes by getting the approval of…

I don't disagree with the article. I'm objecting to the characterization 'dalek_cannes makes about security versus freedom as a binary affair. Balancing of security versus freedom is written in to the Constitution. We're just arguing about the appropriate balance. But grandstanding like the OP is much easier when dealing with binary things than when dealing with balancing.

I don't see the OP by dalek_cannes arguing that this is a binary affair. It seems to imply quite clearly that there is some sort of balance where freedom and safety weigh on opposite sides. In fact, its main point seems to be arguing against the premise that going right to one extreme of the scale is a good idea.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#85

Post by rayiner »

adventured wrote: post #15
AsymetricCom wrote: post #5

The thing about the NSA dragnet is that if the NSA wasn't doing it, then corporations would (are) doing it. You can't stop technology from moving forward. Someone is going to be sniffing your packets now until the end of time.

Not very worried about Google arresting me at some point in the future with their jackboot thugs for something I did or said in the past (when X wasn't illegal). This applies to Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Snapchat, and so on. When these guys start trying to acquire their own domestic armies, then I'll get really concerned. There seems to be a common gloss-over regarding the fact that it's the United S…

As a practical matter, I worry about corporations screwing me over more than I worry about "jackboot thugs." The government has very little incentive to mess with me. I'm much more worried about employers using my browsing habits to deny me jobs, companies using my spending habits to deny me a mortgage, etc. Not as bad as having "jackboot thugs" break down your door, but a heck of a lot more likely and potentially life-ruining by itself.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#87

Post by enraged_camel »

javert wrote: post #75
onli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting people posess the means of production, and the capital to produce as well. It was not only rhetoric that in the fight between USA and UDSSR, there was a fight between freedom and authority. But mainly, it was a fight between different ways to regulate the means of…

Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism. If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non-essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR. Capitalism lost because of Euro…

>>Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion

Wrong. Capitalism is synonymous with free enterprise, not free markets. And free enterprise simply means that enterprises (rather than states) own the means of production.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#88

Post by 001sky »

rayiner wrote: post #50
001sky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that 'data' vs 'metadata' loophole has been scaled beyond belief to undermine the plain english understanding of 'reasonable' is worthy of new jurisprudence.

"Data" versus "metadata" doesn't go to the definition of "reasonable." It goes to the definition of "their" in "their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." The basic distinction is your data versus data that's about you. If I own a store, and make a note that 001sky came in to buy a box of cookies at 2:00pm on January 23, 2005, that's my paper. It's not your paper. I can claim 4th amendment protection if the FBI b…

Thes boundaries are blurred quite easliy with sufficiently advanced technology. That is the point. I can FLIR your house from a public location. Or isps and email providers could store every message (full data) just like the metadata and now 'own' a free copy. Arguably gmail has walked this line in their argument that scanning the metadata to route the message and scanning the content for meaning are equivalent interrogations of bits. But there are strong arguments about piercing of protected speech or inpinging on the veil privacy in the home, using technology to blunt force your way in are limited by jurisprudence already. That is why the surveilance by artifacts of speech and surveilance of actual speech is not such a simple issue.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#89

Post by shitgoose »

dalek_cannes wrote: post #32

Surveillance. It always starts with a desire to be safe. And that comes from fear. It seems Americans today are afraid of more things than ever: pedophiles, guns, terrorists, lawsuits. Some news reports are ridiculous by foreign standards: teachers not being allowed to shake hands with students out of fear of sexual harassment allegations, boys suspended from school for drawing guns, bystanders not administering firs…

Good post, but this part you got it wrong:

"I guess this is what surveillance is trying to do. Rather than accepting a level of risk as the price for being free and handling disasters when they do occur, we seem to be increasingly trying to avoid danger at all costs."

Surveillance doesn't try to reduce the risk or anything like that. Surveillance institutions treat the whole population as suspects.

Re: End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

#90

Post by hindsightbias »

twoodfin wrote: post #73
danenania wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think common fucking sense is pretty well on his side.

That's not an argument. rayiner has this exactly right: it is not a slam dunk violation of the Constitution as currently understood by the folks who make it their living to understand such things, and spodek was wrong to characterize it as such. Outrage doesn't make you right; at this point it's just making hn boring.

> boring

boorish.

You'd think all these experts would have bothered to read up just a little bit on SCOTUS cases like Smith v Maryland, etc, but I guess it's just easier to grunt Freedom.

Post reply on HN