Declassified Report Shows Doubts About Value of NSA’s Warrantless Spying • Hacker News Board

Re: Declassified Report Shows Doubts About Value of NSA’s Warrantless Spying

#71

Post by glitchdout » Mon, Apr 27, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

junto wrote: post #11

kmonsen wrote: post #9

Does anyone seriously think the program is actually to stop terror? It is here to control the population in the country. Oh you want to run for president with ideas we don't like? It would be sad if someone publishes all this data we are sitting on.

For that to be true, that would mean that the existing president would have been campaigning to curb the powers of the NSA before he became president and then afterwards flip flopped, changed his mind and backed off to the point of supporting more surveillance. No way! That actually happened! [1] my god, why aren't the American public and press even asking these questions? However, he must have changed his mind for s…

Given that the NSA spied on Obama when he was still a wannabe-senator, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was blackmailed [1].

Also, just watch candidate Obama debate President Obama on government surveillance [2].

I mean, short of someone providing a document detailing how the NSA intents on spying on the next presidents of the United States and manipulating them, I don't see any more clear evidence than this.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&t=3m11s

[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

Re: Declassified Report Shows Doubts About Value of NSA’s Warrantless Spying

#72

Post by cm2187 » Mon, Apr 27, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #70

cm2187 wrote: post #65

It's kind of like security checks at airports, I am not aware that in the long history of terrorism, a single attack has been stopped at one of these security checks.

That doesn't really say anything about whether the checkpoints are effective or not. If they are ineffective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint due to its ineffectiveness. If they are effective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint because the attackers know about the checkpoint. If they don't know how to get past it, they will not start the attack. We do know that befor…

Then you can justify any vexation to passengers with this logic. If I am forcing all passengers to strip naked, and for 20 years I do not catch any terrorist like that, it means I am doing a good job!

Re: Declassified Report Shows Doubts About Value of NSA’s Warrantless Spying

#73

Post by tzs » Mon, Apr 27, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #72

tzs wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really say anything about whether the checkpoints are effective or not. If they are ineffective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint due to its ineffectiveness. If they are effective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint because the attackers know about the checkpoint. If they don't know how to get past it, they will not start the attack. We do know that befor…

Then you can justify any vexation to passengers with this logic. If I am forcing all passengers to strip naked, and for 20 years I do not catch any terrorist like that, it means I am doing a good job!

Using the lack of terrorists caught at a checkpoint to justify the checkpoint would be invalid, just as using that lack to say the checkpoint is not stopping attacks is invalid.

My point is that "attacks stopped at checkpoint" is not a useful measure, because it has little if any connection to the effectiveness or lack thereof of the checkpoint.

Re: Declassified Report Shows Doubts About Value of NSA’s Warrantless Spying

#74

Post by coldtea » Tue, Apr 28, 2015, 10:10 AM UTC

kevinnk wrote: post #66

coldtea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).

> In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. In this context what exactly would that entail?

If you mean "in the context on secret spying on citizens what would that entail" then the answer is that not all contexts are appropriate for a democracy. Those who are not should be altered to fit democratic procedures or be abolished.

If spying needed to happen, the procedures should be open and transparent. All the stuff Snowden brought forward, should have been released officially in advance.

But before of that, the democratic thing for such a mass offense against privacy would be a referendum: "We need to massively track you, including such and such information and sources. Yes / No".

Furthermore, nothing secret should go on that's not explicitly voted, e.g. absolutely no sharing of the data meant for national security with police departments to head-start a case against a citizen etc.

No indefinite storage of those items either. Delete them with a rolling delete every few years or so.