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

Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#61

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #58
anigbrowl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn , which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@ and generalizing it to a fundamental aspect of the Commerce power. However, it's sort of off-topic here. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of the case.

> A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@ While, the court process and decisions occurred during WW2, the law and the acts which, under it, created the controversy occurred before US involvement in WW2, it was more about the Great Depression/New Deal than the War.

You're right, but I have always felt that the urgency of the wartime context tilted the balance of the court's opinion towards an overbroad endorsement of the government's side, and that that tilt has persisted via precedent.

I will go back and reread it to see whether that impression is correct or whether I've imputed my own bias to the court's decision since I read it, but given that I'm generally of a more statist bent than most people here I don't think it's just personal bias.

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

triangleman wrote: post #13
smoothgrips wrote: post #9

I've often wondered if the NSA is constitutional. Not what they're doing, but the organization itself. The constitution, from my understanding, grants the federal government power to do certain things. Therefore, if the constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government the power/ability to run, say the NSA (or other federal department), does that not warrant the entire thing unconstitutional?

Technically speaking, you are correct. Practically and legally, everything Congress does is jammed through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants it the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce. Also, what w4 said. But again if you want to get technical, the Constitution restricts Congress's authority to provide for the common defense to having an army or a navy, but not an Air Force, and not a Nati…

> Practically and legally, everything Congress does is jammed through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants it the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce.

Actually, virtually all of Congress' enumerated powers are in Article I, Sec. 8. The interstate commerce clause, specifically, is unlikely to be cited in a defense of the NSA -- more likely, the Necessary Proper Clause of Art. I, Sec. 8, along the military powers in the same section (and the obligation to protect the states against invasion in Art IV, Sec. 4) would be more likely -- those who view the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military in Article II as a power of that office might be inclined to cite that "power" along with the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art. I, Sec. 8, instead.

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#63

Post by canvia »

eevilspock wrote: post #44
vonmoltke wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns. Then there are people like my wife, who thinks disclosure hurt the US politically and economically, thus rationalizing that it is Snowden's fault for revealing all these surveillance pr…

> "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people Do you mean politically-UN-aware? Take your pick: - Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide' : http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127... - 3 Reasons the ‘Nothing to Hide’ Crowd Should Be Worried About Government Surveillance : http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-noth... - Privacy An…

Good links, one more: http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t...

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#64

Post by dragonwriter »

triangleman wrote: post #13
smoothgrips wrote: post #9

I've often wondered if the NSA is constitutional. Not what they're doing, but the organization itself. The constitution, from my understanding, grants the federal government power to do certain things. Therefore, if the constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government the power/ability to run, say the NSA (or other federal department), does that not warrant the entire thing unconstitutional?

Technically speaking, you are correct. Practically and legally, everything Congress does is jammed through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants it the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce. Also, what w4 said. But again if you want to get technical, the Constitution restricts Congress's authority to provide for the common defense to having an army or a navy, but not an Air Force, and not a Nati…

> But again if you want to get technical, the Constitution restricts Congress's authority to provide for the common defense to having an army or a navy, but not an Air Force

It allows Congress to raise "Armies" (plural) and a Navy, and it allows Congress to choose how to equip and train the Armies it raises. I don't see that it prevents it from choosing to a equip one of the armies primarily with fixed-wing aircraft, training it in doctrine for employment of such equipment, and give it the name "Air Force" to distinguish it from other armies that are differently equipped and trained.

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#65

Post by avn2109 »

pessimizer wrote: post #26
imgabe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook does not have the power to imprison you or mark you as a suspected terrorist and put you on a no-fly list and freeze your bank accounts.

The NSA can (and does) use Facebook to mark you as a suspected terrorist and put you on a no-fly list. The NSA doesn't have the power to imprison you or seize your bank accounts without the help of a judge.

However, the balance of power in our society has now shifted to the point where the NSA is trivially capable of securing the judges' cooperation. So the "help of the judge" will be granted anytime the NSA asks for it, and in a practical sense they can still do all sorts of unpleasant things to you at will.

Also, if a judge starts being uncooperative, the NSA has a lengthy dossier on his adultery, homosexuality, communist tendencies, suspected terrorist links, etc. It would be a real shame for that dossier to find its way to the public, wouldn't it...?

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#66

Post by Linear-b »

opendais wrote: post #37
Linear-b wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter, they are still building a profile on you and selling it. These are called "shadow profiles".

Good luck with that. Even the credit reporting companies get confused and can't figure out who I am accurately. And I actively help them since I like having credit cards and the ability to get mortgage loans.

Facebook has built a platform that's much more accurate and comprehensive than anything experian has, because experian isn't in the business of selling your political beliefs and sexual orientation and a hundred other demographics to marketers.

You can file a FOIA request with Facebook to see what they have on you. Other people have, and have gotten their dossiers. Have you had a phone number or mailing address in the past 10 years? If so, they've gotcha covered.

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#67

Post by Linear-b »

BankingAnon wrote: post #56
marincounty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wonder about using any site--including HN. Facebook would be easy to give up(It actually makes me more depressed, and the people I want on there left, or never joined.) HN is hard to give up.

HN tends to punish people using Tor or other methods to obfuscate their tracks. On the four or five other accounts I've abandoned, this is then first that allows me more than 3 minutes on the site without invalidating my token due to inactivity. I suspect because it's been a valid IP every time (or so they think). You should not expect privacy on computer systems you do not own. HN included.

"On computer systems" has a hollower ring now than it did a decade ago. Everything is on a computer system now. Even face to face interactions leave a plethora of metadata behind.

The nature of privacy has always been a function of social norms and technology, but given the directions we're headed in these days I think it's easy to make a case that the average citizen has given up a lot more privacy, then they have gained in convenience.

My life was easier when it took me an hour to download a megabyte and I spent more time outside... and I say that as a web developer.

Re: Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance

#68

Post by tzs »

opendais wrote: post #5
Stefanrio wrote: post #2

I love how people still make noise about NSA, while gladly using facebook.

I don't use Facebook.

It still massively affects you (assuming you are in the US), because of the 4th Amendment. That's the one that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

A key factor in whether a search or seizure is unreasonable is whether or not you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The standard for what is a reasonable expectation of privacy is what society considers to be reasonable, not what you individually consider to be reasonable.

So even though you are not on Facebook, all those people who ARE on it and are sharing publicly the most intimate details of their lives are moving the 4th Amendment boundary between searches and seizures that require a warrant and those that do not.

Post reply on HN