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

121–130 of 176 posts

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

#121

Post by 001sky »

rayiner wrote: post #107
001sky wrote: 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…

You make a strong case for certain points here and I don't dismiss them. But I also think several points are blurred. That is perhaps inevitable and that is the point I am making. for example

(1) That doesn't change the essential characteristic of whether it's your data, or data about you. The datacard in my FLIR camera is (a) my data; and (b) about you. Neither of these qualifications are insurmountable. The courts have not tripped over this technicality, because the of using the FLIR instrument is not considered a reasonable use of technology, when it has the impact of making surveilance per-se.

(2) The post office example. This raises two issues: (a) technology; and (b) scale. Mail by post is distinct from verbal speech and generates metadata because of the need to address an envelope. Its low technology, but this is an artifact of the technology. With respect to scale, what is 'reasonably' to collect is a function of resource expenditure. As the cost of collection decreases, the amount of data 'reasonably' collected . But that is beside the point of where my has changed or stayed the same.

(3) Scale, generally speaking. eg: Technology makes it easier to collect metadata, but it does not turn "data" into "metadata." The express purpose of the meta-data programs is to turn data into . This is sort of the fundamental question at the heart of the matter, from a constitutional perspective. The purpose of these systems is to surveil beyond the scope of what would normally be perceived as reasonable. In that regard, it is aking to using FLIR to make surveilance . Or at least that is an argument which should be ajudicated. Perhaps by legislation, as well, once a more coherent framework has been set forth by the courts. In otherwords, now that these 'edge cases' are being swept up into the norm.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

tokenizer wrote: post #102
enraged_camel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Agreed. We can definitly have unrestricted free markets with community owned syndicates and still be able to create tailored products and respond to demans. IMO, we need to start talking about workplace democracy if we're going to continue to entertain the idea of corporate controlled society, so that the common person can at least get their vote back (indirectly, by choosing who leads the company which bribes offici…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by mixmastamyk »

geuis wrote: post #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…

The senators are pushing a surveillance reform bill. It does them no good to question the motives of the intelligence community, the majority of which are employees like most of us. On the other hand, accusing them would just make them enemies instead of allies. Hence the paragraph.

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

#124

Post by rayiner »

Silhouette wrote: post #117
dragonwriter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed by Sens. Udall, Wyden, etc. This (sub-) thread isn't about whether the surveillance program is "OK" but about this comment that spawned this thread: "Senators have to go to the press to try to stop the government from doing what clearly breaks the law."

Most of the NSA programs that have been exposed to date are not "clear" violations of the law. They are attempts to operate at the boundaries of the law as currently understood, but they seem to reflect a genuine attempt to stay within those boundaries.

Distinctions that people on Hacker News dismiss because they have a broad-based ideological opposition to surveillance, like "metadata versus data" or "U.S. persons versus foreigners" are in fact the operative markers delineating the bounds of the law.

Merely following the law doesn't turn a bad idea into a good idea, or justify a program, but it does say something about whether people are acting in good faith. What doesn't advance the debate is saying that people in the government must be acting in bad faith because they are "clearly" violating the law, when in fact you just don't understand what the law is.

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

#125

Post by 001sky »

leokun wrote: post #110
001sky wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is likely a better use of resources than railing against her individually. As the face of hypocrisy, its (perhaps) actually worth rallying against her individually. Does she really represent you (or by extension CA, SF, SV...etc?). Human nature has very strong instinctual aversion to public demonstrations of hypocrisy of one's own activity. This is true because political power is power rested in delegated author…

She's not a hypocrite. She is very open and public about her positions. I do not think she is dishonest I just think she fights against progress.

There's something about (consevative, Liberal) that itches akward, although you may be right in a narrow sense.

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

#126

Post by ericd »

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.

Yeah I don't see that in the OP, I just see him saying that we've gone way overboard in terms of how afraid we are of things that are or at least should be laughably small risks.

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

#127

Post by anigbrowl »

opinali wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Internet privacy becomes essential in the moment that people put their entire lives on the Internet. All mail is email, all financial transactions are electronic, medical records are in computers, credit scores are in data centers--- you name anything important to your privacy/freedom, and it's in the cloud these days. No tradeoff is possible anymore.

I keep saying it, the US Constitution needs amending to create an explicit right to privacy. government surveillance is a problem, but so is the unilateral exploitation of personal data for commercial purposes. I'm Irish and living in the States, I really miss the EU Data Protection Act.

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

#128

Post by dllthomas »

001sky wrote: post #125
leokun wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not a hypocrite. She is very open and public about her positions. I do not think she is dishonest I just think she fights against progress.

There's something about (consevative, Liberal) that itches akward, although you may be right in a narrow sense.

That itch is your problem, not hers. Everyone operating in the public sphere should be honestly trying to pursue the policies they think will lead to the best results (for everyone, for their constituencies, and to some degree for themselves). They should not be trying to live up to labels whose definitions are different at different times, which are useful only when speaking in pretty broad terms, and which largely refer to coalitions with varied individuals of varied personal philosophy.

A ton of the "most Conservative" politicians in American politics aren't anything like "conservative" - changing a slew of things to the way they were 200 years ago, with no eye to the things that have changed technologically, demographically, &c, may still be the right thing to do, but it's not "conservative". I would even argue that opposition to abortion is ceasing to be a "conservative" position - it has been legal for longer than most of the population has been alive. That doesn't mean that people who oppose it on whatever grounds, and consider themselves conservative overall, are necessarily wrong or "hypocritical" to do so.

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

#129

Post by deelowe »

minikites wrote: post #28
deelowe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don't have the legal right to take my property or harm me or my family. The two aren't equal.

Yeah, no bank has ever foreclosed on someone's home.

The bank owns the home, not the occupant. As the other person said, that's a bogus argument.

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

#130

Post by deelowe »

personlurking wrote: post #20
deelowe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations don't have the legal right to take my property or harm me or my family. The two aren't equal.

unless we're talking Blackwater where legal is what you make it.

Sorry. I definitely left out GSEs and govt. contractors in my response. There's certainly some grey area there.
Post reply on HN