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

No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#181

Post by Dalewyn »

orochimaaru wrote: post #165
salawat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly. It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will eithe…

I can understand a federal employee being placed under this considering they are representing the US and said crimes are committed while acting on behalf of the US government. But does it extend to private citizens? If you commit crimes outside the US I don't think you can be tried for it in the US. You could be extradited to the place where you committed the crime. But I don't think the government can prosecute you…

>But does it extend to private citizens?

Yes.[1][2]

As far as the US is concerned, the Constitution is the supreme authority to which Americans can and will answer to and is protected by.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#U...

[2]: "[Bolton] added that the U.S. would do everything 'to protect our citizens' should the ICC attempt to prosecute U.S. servicemen ..."

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#182

Post by oyashirochama »

candiddevmike wrote: post #168
nvy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the NSA conducts its activities in secret have little to do with "a little graft" and everything to do with the fact you don't show somebody you've broken their ciphers unless you have to.

If the NSA has broken them, they probably aren't the only ones. By keeping that a secret they're actually endangering national security.

They won't show what they have access to and actively use against adversaries. They have "NSA approved cryptos" such as TACLANES hardware that other countries can use at government level with their own crypto bases. Civilian level encryption was never meant to be Government level, we were only lucky that AES and such was opened up by US law in the 1990s.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#183

Post by cscurmudgeon »

eurebus wrote: post #144
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where democracies have enemies, how do you not have govt secrets?

Security through obscurity is inferior to security through transparency. Imagine if every interaction with the government; every contract, negotiation, communication was a matter of easily searchable public record. Try sneaking a little graft in there and get laughed at in public. It'd be great.

Sorry for any rudeness perceived:

1. Security through obscurity is different from secrecy. Not at all what we were arguing. You just pulled pop sci quotes from the crypo world.

2. > Imagine if every interaction with the government; every contract, negotiation, communication was a matter of easily searchable public record.

Democracies do have FOIA but it doesn't and shouldn't extend for foreign entities.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#184

Post by ericmay »

yterdy wrote: post #143
ericmay wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yterdy 1 hour ago | parent | next [–] "Property rights" are laughable, especially in America. Stolen or conned resources abound, and all that matters is that someone from the state recognizes your ownership over someone else's (however crooked that circumstance may have come about or been perpetuated). All humans in the world live, have lived, or will live under the exact same circumstances. It’s a good sounding cl…

I'm interested in how you might respond if asked to do so in something other than meaningless platitudes.

You offered surface level commentary that was immature and naive. If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude you should examine your initial commentary and understand why it was unpersuasive (and not very interesting).

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#185

Post by ericmay »

injeolmi_love wrote: post #87
ericmay wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights. Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.

There’s limits to property rights even among the most extreme voluntaryist political philosophers. Rothbard, a famous anarchocapitalist, wrote extensively about why property rights don’t extend to slaveowners. Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. These include limitation on liability, protection for many types of property, and much, much more. The prote…

I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I?

> Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state.

There are a few problems with this. To start, private business and private households also exist due to licensure from the state. The distinction between public and private is a matter of technicality, not categorical difference. The monopoly that the state holds on the initiation of violence applies categorically to your ability to purchase a home and pay taxes, and it applies to large tech companies.

The second problem is that public businesses were as a matter of fact private before they were public. So instead of offering shares to the public on government regulated, public markets that anyone can participate in, they could just be private instead.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#186

Post by jjtheblunt »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #59
master-lincoln wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But private companies do not have the legal option to invade your home or use physical force on you.

You just made me wonder if those smart TVs have the ability to packet sniff what’s going on on the Wi-Fi networks in the homes in which they’re installed.

Downvotes for a valid question?

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#187

Post by hedora »

dataflow wrote: post #134
Dalewyn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on. The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.

> Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home Not really. It's been inferred from the text by courts, but it's been a bit of a leap, and the Supreme Court can overturn the earlier interpretations at any time. "Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists." [1] htt…

Roe v Wade was based on a purported right to privacy (I don’t understand the legal contortions that link abortions to privacy).

When they overturned Roe v Wade last year they simultaneously overturned the previous rulings that established a (limited by international standards) right to privacy in the US.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#188

Post by insickness »

School-Cotton wrote: post #11
insickness wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all. Intelligence agencies can't just do whatever they want. They are beholden to the people just like every other government agency. They can be granted power to do things that ordinary people can't, but that doesn't mean they are above the law.

Yes they can do whatever they want and no they’re not beholden to anyone. When has the NSA ever been held accountable for their illegal spying on US citizens?

Right, I'm not saying that they don't break the law. They do. But technically, their role is not to break the law. There ostensibly is oversight but it obviously doesn't work well enough.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#189

Post by remram »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #141
joe_the_user wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm entire unfond of the NSA. The existence of secret agencies, especially on a large scale, make a mockery of democracy. At the same, government by congressional hobbling and sabotage also makes a mockery of democracy through agencies not ceasing bad behavior but rather a continuous war between congress and agencies being normalized in a way that makes agencies actually more autonomous from congress. The "Washington…

In a world where democracies have enemies, how do you not have govt secrets?

You can't suspend democracy when you have enemies. That's just losing.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#190

Post by remram »

appplication wrote: post #180
secfirstmd wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European in a country with complex multi-party coalitions and most people voting across the party system every couple of years. This comment is just so weird.

We don’t have that luxury in the US. It’s not that voters don’t want it, it’s that there is no feasible way to get there (without structural change to our voting system). Sure, US voters like the above comment have generally developed strong political identities to one of the two parties. But there is no chance for any third party under the current system. It allows for overwhelmingly entrenched party lines. Should y…

This is such a wrong take. Sure, you have to vote for a single party, but that doesn't mean you can't support specific ideas no matter where they come from.

And not even that, mostly voting does nothing either, because winner-takes-all: the way to be heard is packing up and moving to another state. Make a blue state bigger demographically because voting blue in a red state does nothing (and vice versa).

Post reply on HN