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

NSA targets the privacy-conscious

daserste.ndr.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#41

Post by Holbein »

pessimizer wrote: post #35
Holbein wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's common sense. If you don't do something on the internet, there is no data. No data = nothing suspicious.

There is no state of no data. You are known to exist, you are known for not participating in something that is common for your group. That, in combination with the thousands of other data points about you will determine whether you are of interest. That may determine whether your car gets searched during a traffic stop, or whether you're put on a no-fly list. This is not complicated to build, it is simple to build, a…

I think you're overestimating the NSA's capability to cross-reference your actions and compare them to "what people like me should typically do".

My point is, you should not change your behaviour to be a lesser target to the NSA. You'd just quickly become super paranoid. Instead you should live your live exactly the same, and if the NSA tries to make your live bad, that's the moment when you call them out on it - after all, it's the NSA that is behaving out of line. So they should change, not you.

Oh, and http://defundthensa.com/ , sure.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#42

Post by yxhuvud »

ajays wrote: post #38
pekk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a conservative meme that raw milk producers are being unfairly persecuted, in those circles it's supposed to be a paradigm case of the overly intrusive nanny state. In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. So FDA bans it for interstate sales, but it's up to the state to decide how to regu…

> In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. I'd love to see the evidence, and see it compared to other food sources. I grew up in India. There all we got was raw milk from the cowherd; in fact, even today, my parents send the helper to get milk in a pail from the cowherd. It's always been raw m…

Boiling milk? No thanks, boiled milk tastes funny.

You should remember that not everyone live in the same hot climate as you where milk generally don't go bad immediately, and that there are plenty of people around in cooler climates that have stomachs that usually can handle milk without problem.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#43

Post by xvedejas »

ajays wrote: post #38
pekk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a conservative meme that raw milk producers are being unfairly persecuted, in those circles it's supposed to be a paradigm case of the overly intrusive nanny state. In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. So FDA bans it for interstate sales, but it's up to the state to decide how to regu…

> In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. I'd love to see the evidence, and see it compared to other food sources. I grew up in India. There all we got was raw milk from the cowherd; in fact, even today, my parents send the helper to get milk in a pail from the cowherd. It's always been raw m…

Boiled milk is also known as pasteurized milk. It's no longer raw milk if you've boiled it.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#44

Post by schoen »

pekk wrote: post #34
sroerick wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? Are you being facetious? This is so oddly specific.

It's a conservative meme that raw milk producers are being unfairly persecuted, in those circles it's supposed to be a paradigm case of the overly intrusive nanny state. In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. So FDA bans it for interstate sales, but it's up to the state to decide how to regu…

It's probably misplaced to focus only on NSA in this respect, but if we talk about government electronic surveillance capabilities generally, they've been expanding through many agencies and parts of government. ACLU's recent focus on local police use of IMSI catchers is just one example; they started out as super-secret high-tech spy stuff and now local cops think they're super-awesome and are afraid they may to have to give them up if word gets out and the courts or legislators start taking a closer look.

Electronic surveillance used to be more stigmatized in some ways, but it's becoming more culturally normalized as a basic government tool (at least in the culture of government agencies -- I hope not as much elsewhere). So you see it used in more and more contexts.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the raw milk regulations, but I think that people who are concerned about them could reasonably worry that electronic communications surveillance will be used to enforce them in the future. Likely not by NSA itself, but perhaps through something that's in part technological trickle-down from NSA development or procurement.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#45

Post by DINKDINK »

ajays wrote: post #38
pekk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a conservative meme that raw milk producers are being unfairly persecuted, in those circles it's supposed to be a paradigm case of the overly intrusive nanny state. In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. So FDA bans it for interstate sales, but it's up to the state to decide how to regu…

> In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths. I'd love to see the evidence, and see it compared to other food sources. I grew up in India. There all we got was raw milk from the cowherd; in fact, even today, my parents send the helper to get milk in a pail from the cowherd. It's always been raw m…

I would love to see the data with comparison to baseline too. and it is an example of a nanny state (the FDA is literally saying, we have to protect you from this) rather than acting as a licensed-milk-producer-seal issuer.

It's the same nanny state issue when the FDA shut down more beneficial AIDS treatments in the 80s and 90s when the only drugs on the market, that the FDA approved of (AZT), were essentially toxic and killed about the same number of people that they "helped". Why should the FDA decide what goes into the bodies of supposedly "free" people? They should only act to say, "This is the only type of drugs or milk the FDA approves of"

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#46

Post by nostrademons »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #25

I'd like to focus on: Merely searching the web for the privacy-enhancing software tools outlined in the XKeyscore rules causes the NSA to mark and track the IP address of the person doing the search. Again the media makes it sound like there exists a dragnet on (Google) searches. But this time one of the authors is J. Appelbaum. So which is it? Terrorist Scores based on search engine searches sounds fantastically ins…

One of the earlier Snowden disclosures was that the NSA had tapped private internal Google fiber lines carrying traffic between data centers. Same with Yahoo, Microsoft, other major Internet destinations. Google has since started encrypting all internal traffic, but for awhile pretty much anything was available to the NSA dragnet.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#47

Post by Zelphyr »

duaneb wrote: post #19
jobu wrote: post #16

Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... That's just wonderful. After 10 years of pervasive surveillance and not being able to catch a single terrorist I can't believe the NSA is trying to rationalize it as being a good thing. It's too bad the bill to defund the NSA didn't pass: http://defundthensa.com/

> I can't believe the NSA is trying to rationalize it as being a good thing Is it really a surprise people in power wish to remain in power?

I wonder if the sentiment here is that the NSA used to be known for being a highly intelligent group of people trying to solve hard problems but now they seem like a bunch of D-level bureaucrats snooping through everything hoping they'll get lucky.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#48

Post by rosser »

Holbein wrote: post #28
pessimizer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not doing something can't make you more suspicious. That's just stupid.

No. That's common sense. If you don't do something on the internet, there is no data. No data = nothing suspicious.

The absence of data is, itself, data.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#49

Post by reuven »

jqm wrote: post #30

"It also records details about visits to a popular internet journal for Linux operating system users called "the Linux Journal - the Original Magazine of the Linux Community", and calls it an "extremist forum"." WTF? I guess I am on a list. Who knew being an extremist was so easy?

I write for Linux Journal. Imagine how I feel! I had no idea that I was participating in subversive activities.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#50

Post by afarrell »

joe_the_user wrote: post #22
afarrell wrote: post #6

When the NSA collects evidence on someone and uses that evidence to prosecute a criminal case, they can and should file a motion to suppress that evidence. The NSA data is collected under search issued by a FISA court. So, during a suppression hearing, defense counsel can challenge the validity of the warrant. If their challenge is denied, they can appeal. If their appeal fails, they can petition the Supreme Court. I…

It isn't as if the government just takes that evidence and unilaterally decides to blow people up. Well, except when they do, in Afghanistan or Yemen, say.

Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that the NSA does not being criminal cases even if it does give data to the FBI.
Post reply on HN