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

The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 179 posts

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#101

Post by snowwrestler »

themafia wrote: post #66
alwa wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immunity from prosecution, maybe, but not immunity from consequence. I can’t imagine congressional leadership would think of it as a good look—and isn’t the “need to know” based on the congressperson’s role? For example don’t they brief only congresspeople in specific roles on specific matters, like the so-called “Gang of Eight” on intelligence matters? [0] It feels a little like keeping the filibuster around: maybe…

> congressional leadership would think of it as a good look Why do they have any power? Wyden was elected by his constituency. The "congressional leadership" can go pound sand. To the extent they have any power here it should immediately be completely neutered and then removed.

To answer your question, Congressional leaders are elected by their colleagues. Their power comes from that and from the rules that Congress writes for itself.

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#102

Post by pardon_me »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #13

Everyone who's not terribly worried about privacy always uses the line 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about', but my line of thinking is not 'do i trust the government' it's 'do I have faith in all future forms of government who will have access to this data' Given how fast and lose I've seen the DODGE folks play with the data they have, absolutely not . I still shudder over the fact t…

> Everyone who's not terribly worried about privacy always uses the line 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about', "Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say." - Edward Snowden

Locks on bathroom doors are for privacy, not security.

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#103

Post by SilentM68 »

That's insightful. Traditionally both political parties have expanded surveillance powers and engaged in actions that have usurped privacy of US citizens citing national security as the reason. That's historical fact. In my view, when one side does it, it is to stop the other side from doing something that does not align with the former side's interests or goals. But that's just a humble opinion.

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#104

Post by AceJohnny2 »

simulator5g wrote: post #28
tehwebguy wrote: post #20

The interpretation of the law is classified? That’s stupid and everyone who protected that classification, regardless of whatever the interpretation is, is a traitor!

Secret laws, secret courts... Jeez, man.

no no don't worry! They have courts! They're following due process, you see!

24 years of the Patriot Act, and counting...

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#105

Post by irishcoffee »

cestith wrote: post #39
briffle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen what happens with garbage-in/garbage-out in databases, so this kind of stuff terrifies me. I often think of a case where we had a person listed twice in our database, with same address, birthday, etc, only thing different was gender, and last 2 digits of SSN were transposed.. After we 'fixed' the issue a few times, they BOTH showed up to our office. Both Named Leslie, born on same day, a few small towns a…

My uncle married a woman with the same first and middle name as one of his sisters. My new aunt chose to use her husband’s name as her married name, without hyphenation or anything. His sister, my aunt, never married. One was an RN and the other is an LPN. They were born in different years. Their SSNs were not close. For one of them the name was her maiden name. For the other, a married name. They went to different c…

I’m missing something. Was your uncles spouse alive after your uncles sister passed?

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#106

Post by [deleted] »

arealaccount wrote: post #47
kasey_junk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone ever actually use that line? Most people will argue that the trade off in privacy is worth it for security. That is, if you frame your argument such that you believe people don’t understand the trade off it allows you to not engage with the fact they just disagree with your conclusion.

Yes all the time and it’s not worth debating them as they are not about to say anything interesting. Usually just make a quip about having curtains then move onto discussing just how moist the turkey is this year

[deleted]

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#107

Post by w10-1 »

Key point (mostly drowned): Feds can compel A to surveil B if A maintains equipment or services for B. The Feds can also compel A's silence on point.

Originally applied only to the largest communications companies, this now has effectively unlimited scope.

The only safeguard (which took years to add legislatively) was that the FBI had to clear it; but now the FBI is refusing even to record such requests, to avoid any record of abuse (and the person responsible is dubious).

Surveillance seems necessary, but in the wrong hands, it's systemically deadly: it grants overwhelming advantage, and destroys arms-length trust, driving transactions of any size into networks prone to self-dealing and corruption.

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#108

Post by nwallin »

Zigurd wrote: post #44
kasey_junk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone ever actually use that line? Most people will argue that the trade off in privacy is worth it for security. That is, if you frame your argument such that you believe people don’t understand the trade off it allows you to not engage with the fact they just disagree with your conclusion.

Have you ever sat on a jury in a criminal case? A frighteningly high percentage of people will swallow every lie a cop tells, even when thoroughly discredited in cross-examination. There's no shortage of people to guard the concentration camps.

I was on a jury a few years ago. The defendent was a homeless person with mental health issues. The cop was obviously lying about the one thing that was the core element of the crime. It was like a child telling the truth about every element of the indoor soccer game expect the part where they were the one who kicked the ball.

The jury was me, (white) nine other white people, and two brown people. Me and the brown people thought the cop was obviously lying, and was therefore not guilty. The nine other people thought he was guilty.

Like the cop was obviously fucking lying.

After three days of deliberation we declared a hung jury.

I was speaking with the prosecutor afterwards and he mentioned they were going for the felony version of the crime instead of the misdemeanor (he was obviously guilty of the misdemeanor, the felony depended on the element the cop was lying about) because the dude was a bad dude and they needed to get him.

I looked him up when I got home. (I didn't look him up during the trial, they expressly forbid you from doing that) He had done something bad and went to prison for four years. He did his time and got out. They were still trying to throw the book at him for bullshit.

I looked him up recently. He was never convicted of anything ever again, but died in jail two years after we declared a hung jury. Prosecutor got what he wanted in the end, I suppose.

Re: The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing

#110

Post by tptacek »

Zigurd wrote: post #44
kasey_junk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone ever actually use that line? Most people will argue that the trade off in privacy is worth it for security. That is, if you frame your argument such that you believe people don’t understand the trade off it allows you to not engage with the fact they just disagree with your conclusion.

Have you ever sat on a jury in a criminal case? A frighteningly high percentage of people will swallow every lie a cop tells, even when thoroughly discredited in cross-examination. There's no shortage of people to guard the concentration camps.

What does this have to do with what he just said?
Post reply on HN