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

US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 420 posts

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#261

Post by rayiner »

frisco wrote: post #130

I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…

> I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated.

They're not widely hated. I just polled my family: wife, mom, dad, and infant. None of them care. I don't really either, though I guess all else being equal I'd prefer it if they didn't collect this information. Anecdotal, I know, but I'd hazard a guess its representative.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#262

Post by einhverfr »

belorn wrote: post #191
frisco wrote: post #130

I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…

> These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. That's a common miss-belief. Its false on so many levels, but people keep believing in it even after it has been found to be false every single time it has been said. To take an example with wiretaps in US. First they said that any data found about innocent bystanders would be imminently destroyed. A…

Remember that British Antiterrorism laws were used to sieze assets of Icelandic banks after the meltdown of that country. I joked that the British were worried about a new Viking Age when that happened.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#263

Post by einhverfr »

cheese1756 wrote: post #254
samstave wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a very minimum - this guy needs to be tried for perjury and removed from his post. And millions of americans should sign a petition to have this happen.

I put up a petition along those lines a little while ago here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/cease-overbroad-su... Enough signatures would be able to put pressure on the White House and gain an official response.

Official response meaning "We have reviewed the petition and have decided that our surveillance is not overbroad and will continue unchanged."

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#265

Post by einhverfr »

brown9-2 wrote: post #205
frisco wrote: post #130

I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…

But the incentives the intelligence apparatus have to not use any data collected here against anyone for reasons less than "real" terrorism are strong enough How do you know this?

well, obviously if they are prosecuting the guy for growing pot based on these methods they must just know the money is somehow going to terrorists!

ducks

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#266

Post by dsl »

rdl wrote: post #112
dsl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropbox doesn't RMA drives, everything is de-duped then stored on S3. (or at least that is what they told me when I interviewed with them)

They were on S3 at one point in time (and pretty widely known as the biggest S3 customer). I'm not sure if they are on S3 today. This may depend on when you interviewed.

From the caliber of engineers I talked to, I can't imagine them bringing storage in house without some major churn. It is a sea of fresh CS grads with no real world operational experience.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#267

Post by jlgreco »

greedo wrote: post #196
tlogan wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is when things get "tough" certain individuals will use this for political purposes or some other gain. It is like IRS targeting "tea party" - but much more scarier. But I grow up in Eastern Europe, so I'm unreasonably concerned and paranoid. It will not happen here because we are so special. /sarcasm.

If more people knew their history, they would understand that this is a modern age Star Chamber, tied into a network that would make the Stasi envious.

I wonder if Americans will ever have their own BStU.

I fear that may never happen. It is easier to destroy encryption keys than it is to shred paper documents.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#268

Post by znowi »

frisco wrote: post #130

I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…

Sentiments like this bring despots to power and further cultivate erosion of the democratic process.

I can only applaud to secret agencies for this fine job of creating a favorable public opinion on the matter that would had been deemed atrocious only a decade ago.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#269

Post by jamesaguilar »

Afforess wrote: post #259
anigbrowl wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm perfectly aware of where it comes from, and I interpreted it according to the normal rules of English grammar. Just because it's against the spirit of totalitarian government doesn't alter the meaning of the words. After all, the NSA is not denying you information when it collects records of your phone conversations. It's doing so when it denies engaging inthis practice, but if the NSA (or those delegated to over…

It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you intentionally view anyone else's opinions in the worst possible light . You may have a valid interpretation of what I said, but it's clearly not the interpretation I intended to convey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

You cited an irrelevant quote and are invoking the principle of charity to demand that anigbrowl give it a pass. It would be easier if you just admitted that the quote is about censorship and not privacy and move on. You're weakening your rhetorical position by defending something that's obviously wrong, and not central to your point.

Re: US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program

#270

Post by jlgreco »

edwardunknown wrote: post #100

Devil's advocate, here: As long as it's restricted to terrorism investigations I don't care. If it stops bombs from going off go ahead and snoop through Facebook's database, big deal. If it ever trickles down to DEA or local police then it's a problem. If secret courts and SQL dumps become standard procedure then everything falls apart. If this is considered constitutional I don't know how you're going to tell Office…

Are you really playing Devil's Advocate when you argue a position because you actually believe in it?
Post reply on HN