Live data from Hacker News

End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

nytimes.com

111–120 of 176 posts

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

#111
This is a Murphy's Law matter. The disaster cannot be prevented until it is technically impossible for it to continue.

If legislation were to declare that the names and numbers used to identify a computer on a network could not be legally used to identify either the physical location of the computer or the human that might have been using it, I think it likely that the number of VPN access points and Tor exit nodes would increase wildly overnight.

End-to-end encryption of all electronic traffic, everywhere, is the only reasonable solution.

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

#112

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. It's like a feller can't even write a serious editorial in support of American liberty without kowtowing to irrational fear-mongering anymore. The battle to keep us jumping at shadows has been won so conclusively that no one even bothers to stand up and say anything like: You are safe. Your family is safe. You are safer now than you would have…

That was wonderfully said. May I share that with friends/family?

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

#113
post #54

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…

The Ben Franklin quote is apropos here: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither." While it's wildly misquoted on the interblags, you can't read out the word "essential." The point of the quote isn't that no trade-offs between freedom and safety are appropriate, but rather that we shouldn't trade away those freedoms that are "essential." It is debatable whethe…

"realized that freedom versus security was a trade-off"

Really, "Preserving security imposes constraints. Preserving freedom imposes constraints. Sometimes those constraints are at odds, at which point we must trade one against the other or against still other constraints."

Which, as a full picture, people on every side seem to gloss over pretty often.

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

#115
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least when it comes to call metadata, technology really has nothing to do with it I'm not sure this is logically possible. The metadata retention by the telco's is an artifact of their business process (minimize fraudulent billing liability)[1]. A similar process did not exist for mail until the government mandated and paid for it. Now, every piece of mail is photgraphed ("to collect the 'metadata' ")and the image…

The fact that metadata is generated and collected may be an issue of technology, but that doesn't change the essential characteristic of whether it's your data, or data about you . E.g., in 1776, there were no video cameras in public places. But technology doesn't change the essential character observing you in a public place versus in a private place. > That notwithstanding, the entire notion of such meta-data is st…

And, of course, the first US metadata surveillance cases were litigated in the 1800s. I believe that fact pretty much kills this part of the thread.

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

#116

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.

>That's not an argument. rayiner has this exactly right

I actually disagree...common sense is in fact an argument...in fact it is a 4th Amendment legal argument. When a Court hears whether a search and seizure was reasonable common sense arguments often prevail. For example, you have reasonable expectations of privacy if you were in an old school public phone booth, but not on your cell phone in public...you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your trash, that is until it hits the curb then the government can seize it (without a warrant) and use it against you in trial.

As interesting as Rayiner's points are, even if he is citing case law/legal precedent it does not make him right. At the end of the day it only matters what 9 people think, and guess what more often than not those 9 people are at odds with one another, and often to the tune of 5-4 - nevertheless what the majority/plurality of those 9 opine becomes the law of the land, still that does not make any of them right either.

One of the more interesting 4th Amendment issues is that it only applies to the Government, so the Government can not simply have a private citizen seize evidence without a warrant and use it as evidence, but they can use unlawfully obtained evidence so long as they did not direct the individual who originally obtained it...think how the Government used the photos hacked by Anonymous in the Stubenville Rape case. Ironically I think this could be one of the strongest arguments is that telecoms are actually working on behalf of the Government to obtain evidence they could otherwise not get without a warrant - in fact I would go so far as to say the Government is paying telecom companies to do this on their behalf.

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

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

That's what the reasonable expectation of privacy test has always meant

Obviously I disagree with you and rayiner over how ambiguous that phrase is, but that doesn't really matter. This entire HN discussion is about a call to change the situation, in particular, the current behaviour of the US government and the laws that the US government argues permit such behaviour. Arguing that something is OK because it's what the law currently says doesn't seem to advance that debate in any useful way.

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

#118
post #81
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

"Libertarians" are not a homogenous group.

What he's referring to in mainstream libertarian literature is called "anarcho-capitalism". This is well known in the libertarian sub-culture. A distinction the above commenter likely just doesn't know yet.

Very similar to how everyone seems to perceive socialism to be authoritarian-communism. Fallacies are everywhere, hardly unique to libertarians.

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

#119
I disagree with this quote, "There is no question that our nation’s intelligence professionals are dedicated, patriotic men and women who make real sacrifices to help keep our country safe and free."

I argue that the weight of evidence says the opposite. First the "there is no question" bit is wrong, because clearly there is a huge question. Further, people that want power tend to be attracted to positions that give it to them. We see this in things like police, lawyers, and politicians.

Note that I do no mention the military, because in the US the military is largely about subservience and not about control.

There is also little evidence suggesting that the men and women working for the NSA are patriotic. I argue that they are not. Patriotism involves holding up the rights of citizens as defined by the Constitution, especially against those who would change or remove these rights. Further, patriotism involves defining new law, as needed, explicitly in the spirit of the Constitution. Under this definition, it is very unclear that the people working at the NSA have been remotely patriotic. Quite the opposite, in my view.

Last, I believe we are fundamentally less free and less safe now than we were 13 years ago. The erosion of freedom and safety is often a very gradual process. When I say we, I do not refer to We as in The United States. I refer to all the people living under it, both citizens and non-citizens alike.

I have to be more cautious of what I say at 33 than I did at 21. I seriously consider alternatives to flying during the holidays because "safety" has become a physical impediment to travel. I have to think twice about what I should pack in my luggage, for the certainty that someone will search my belongings.

When I see police, I do not feel safe. I get more nervous and afraid. These are people walking around with weapons who can hurt, imprison, and murder people almost at will and we as citizens have almost no recourse to defend ourselves without being further harassed and harangued.

That is not how someone should view their police departments. Yet I do, because in my short life I hear more about police brutality than stories of police helping people. My own experiences were particularly forged by being arrested at a peaceful protest (FTAA) and trying to watch the inauguration parade in DC in 2005. I stopped respecting police officers a long time ago, though I view them as a necessary evil.

So to wrap. We are less free and less safe now than before, the people working for the NSA are working towards their own ends or the ends of people wanting power, and there is nothing patriotic going on. We are in pot being slowly boiled.

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

#120

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. It's like a feller can't even write a serious editorial in support of American liberty without kowtowing to irrational fear-mongering anymore. The battle to keep us jumping at shadows has been won so conclusively that no one even bothers to stand up and say anything like: You are safe. Your family is safe. You are safer now than you would have…

No kidding. I have tried to put it to people in terms of the cold war. The US faced the existential threat of hundreds of ICBMs aimed and ready to fire. Heck, the combined arsenals may have been an existential threat to all intelligent life on the planet. Those are stakes that could start to justify being afraid all the time and surveilling everyone (if it would help with the threat).

But terrorism? Not even close. The fear of it has already caused damage on us far in excess to what the pissant terrorists have accomplished. All we really should have feared was fear itself. Perhaps one can still make the claim that we are not descended from fearful men, but it will be quite a bit less true should our children try to claim it.

Post reply on HN