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

201–210 of 229 posts

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

#201

Post by zmgsabst »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #176
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #156

> CUI is not classified information, as its name indicates, but it should, generally speaking, be protected with access controls and not widely disseminated. Wyden is clearly not a fan of this labeling, which he described as a "made up designation with no basis in law." CUI was created by an executive order from President Obama in 2010. This is the bigger problem. Classified documents have a mandatory declassificatio…

Classification doesn’t derive it’s legal existence from statute. It’s the POTUS’s inherent authority to maintain (and disclose) state secrets under the constitution and separation of powers doctrine. Congress has limited authority to regulate this executive power.

Where is that power defined in the constitution?

I’m unaware of the “state secret” clause in the executive section, while Congress is explicitly granted the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.

Regulating classification sounds like “making rules for the government”.

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

#203

Post by goodluckchuck »

zmgsabst wrote: post #201
goodluckchuck wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classification doesn’t derive it’s legal existence from statute. It’s the POTUS’s inherent authority to maintain (and disclose) state secrets under the constitution and separation of powers doctrine. Congress has limited authority to regulate this executive power.

Where is that power defined in the constitution? I’m unaware of the “state secret” clause in the executive section, while Congress is explicitly granted the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. Regulating classification sounds like “making rules for the government”.

You’re misreading that line.

It’s referring to rules for how the military is governed, and for how the military is regulated. So the rules control the military’s government, and the military’s regulation.

It’s somewhat fair, that the words “state secrets” do not appear, but I would hope we could agree that any sovereign state would have to be anle to keep secrets, particularly in the realm of military, war, diplomacy, law enforcement investigations, espionage, etc. It’s a power the executive must have and “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Of course, the Legislature and Judiciary also have the inherent right to keep secrets. The Supreme Court keeps their deliberations secret, because they feel they need to. Congress keeps some meetings secret. None of that falls into the classification system.

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

#204

Post by zmgsabst »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #203
zmgsabst wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that power defined in the constitution? I’m unaware of the “state secret” clause in the executive section, while Congress is explicitly granted the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. Regulating classification sounds like “making rules for the government”.

You’re misreading that line. It’s referring to rules for how the military is governed, and for how the military is regulated. So the rules control the military’s government, and the military’s regulation. It’s somewhat fair, that the words “state secrets” do not appear, but I would hope we could agree that any sovereign state would have to be anle to keep secrets, particularly in the realm of military, war, diplomacy…

Where you lose me is declaring it’s a power that the executive must have without legislative authorization. (And similarly, the other branches.)

Where does that come from?

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

#205

Post by hereme888 »

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…

Exactly.

In the US it's not as simple as "voting for what you think is right", but being strategic in using your one vote to cause the most impact.

Since a 3rd party candidate with no chance to win by polls is a waste of the vote, it becomes a game of "the lesser of two evils", "the greater of two goods", or something like that.

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

#206

Post by goodluckchuck »

zmgsabst wrote: post #204
goodluckchuck wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re misreading that line. It’s referring to rules for how the military is governed, and for how the military is regulated. So the rules control the military’s government, and the military’s regulation. It’s somewhat fair, that the words “state secrets” do not appear, but I would hope we could agree that any sovereign state would have to be anle to keep secrets, particularly in the realm of military, war, diplomacy…

Where you lose me is declaring it’s a power that the executive must have without legislative authorization. (And similarly, the other branches.) Where does that come from?

It comes from the history and tradition of the terms as they were used at the time of the founding. Keeping secrets has always been something a king would do.

Consider the alternative. What if the legislature declined to provide authorization? If they decided not to approve a treaty, the nation could survive and the POTUS could still generally do their job. If the legislature denied the POTUS the right to keep secrets, it’d be utterly impossible to fulfill the duties of the office. If - per congressional mandate - he had to truthfully answer reporters questions about out nuclear capabilities and procedures, or explain to a wartime enemy his plans, reveal the identities of spies… These are all things that are so anathema the duties of the executive office that you can’t honestly say someone holds the executive power if they don’t have control over these things.

But, yeah, you’re completely fair in the fact that in constitutional law many of the most important aspects aren’t spelled out in great detail and can be up for honest debate.

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

#207

Post by oyashirochama »

phpisthebest wrote: post #115
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.

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on…

It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships.

Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.

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

#208

Post by oyashirochama »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #82
jjtheblunt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some IOT devices definitely do scan your network automatically to look for other compatible members of the ecosystem.

A reason why VLANing is important.

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

#209

Post by goodluckchuck »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #206
zmgsabst wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where you lose me is declaring it’s a power that the executive must have without legislative authorization. (And similarly, the other branches.) Where does that come from?

It comes from the history and tradition of the terms as they were used at the time of the founding. Keeping secrets has always been something a king would do. Consider the alternative. What if the legislature declined to provide authorization? If they decided not to approve a treaty, the nation could survive and the POTUS could still generally do their job. If the legislature denied the POTUS the right to keep secret…

I did want to clarify that the executive privilege allows the POTUS to keep and disclose secrets as desired, the classification system is also pretty necessary.

The President regularly needs subordinate executive officers, staff, etc. to know and keep secrets. The Executive Privilege is enough to help them keep the secrets if they’re willing, but sometimes subordinates want to leak secrets. If it’s wartime and they’re sharing secrets with the enemy, then that may be treason, but generally there wouldn’t be any criminal penalties for leaking secrets during times of peace, etc. The classification system exists to support the President. If he says to keep his secret and you don’t, the legislature says thats a crime.

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

#210

Post by tzs »

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.

I'm having trouble seeing how that makes any sense.

When the Allies in WW2 broke Germany's Enigma cipher, are you suggesting that by not telling Germany that the Allies could now read a large fraction of Germany's military communication they were endangering their own national security?!

Post reply on HN