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

211–220 of 229 posts

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

#211

Post by nvy »

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.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If the NSA has broken whatever cipher suite the GRU uses, or the Iranian RG, or whomever, please explain how keeping that fact a secret endangers the USA?

Keep in mind they share info with the other Five Eyes and select other allied nations.

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

#212

Post by bane »

phpisthebest wrote: post #173
bane wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't it?

Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments. If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all

But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.

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

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

bane wrote: post #212
phpisthebest wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments. If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all

But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.

The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.

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

#214

Post by cscurmudgeon »

remram wrote: post #189
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thankfully, having secrets is not suspending democracy.

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

#215

Post by salawat »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #126
salawat wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The Senator does not have the answer. They couldn't ask the question if they'd already signed the appropriate contracts on which access to SCI or other classified info is underpinned, If they had, asking the question would amount to a tacit disclosure. Other Senators who have signed those documents have confirmed as much. Once the IC gets burned by you, even if they don't press charges due to political impossibil…

Wyden is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. As such, he is guaranteed by law to have access to all intelligence activities. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/about

There is a difference between "guaranteed by law to have access to everything" and "has the prerequisite index and shape of data on hand with which to formulate queries capable of being answered such that access to the entire data space is possible".

The former is likely true. However, the lack of the latter, (which I assure you, is the case as SCI (Secret Compartmentalized Information) was developed specifically for that reason), sets an upper bound on the effective capabilities of anyone tasked with the job of oversight. You must be 10% smarter than that which you oversee to really do it effectively.

If you've ever chased down a memory leak, you'll understand what I mean. Senator Wyden cannot oversee the super secret Soylent Green program until somebody slips up enough to someone for word of a program that converts people to food to make it back to him to ask about.

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

#217

Post by bane »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
bane wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.

The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.

> The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world

I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be.

If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?

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

#218

Post by Slava_Propanei »

nvy wrote: post #211
candiddevmike wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the NSA has broken whatever cipher suite the GRU uses, or the Iranian RG, or whomever, please explain how keeping that fact a secret endangers the USA? Keep in mind they share info with the other Five Eyes and select other allied nations.

[dead]

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

#219

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #209
goodluckchuck wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’r…

I dont thunk anyone is saying that govt must not have secrets

The pushback in this article (and in this thread) is against some kind of supra priviledge that you can default certain secrets to "default opt out" from standard secret rules

There is a problem with an entity that has the monopoly on violence also having a monopoly on state information

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

#220

Post by yterdy »

ericmay wrote: post #184
yterdy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude

Therein lies the rub: you can't. Or, at least, didn't. Each of your statements is falsifiable, particularly the last, which is a confession masquerading as an accusation. There are few worse ways to "make progress" than to dismiss criticism of the status quo out-of-hand.

Post reply on HN