91–100 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant. Most of the people working in the State department do not serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.
The bosses do. Government employees don’t just run around and do whatever.
We learned our lesson on this way back in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear. If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.
Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it. Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it. Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's…
Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we ca…
I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge.
Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the whole purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we ca…
We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions. I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge. Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basi…
Take that as you will. Their method worked.
> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case. The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers: https://www.politifact.com/punditf…
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith
This included a big expansion of the black budget agencies and their power since it was the one thing the exec has strong control over and little public blowback because of the secret courts and classified nature.
" 'iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,' the guidelines state."
I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google can access the content of messages, Apple can not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter which party they vote for as much of the day to day lives of citizens is determined by people who never stood for election, and barely answer to someone who did.
Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise[1]. The United States has a population of 330M and is the largest and most advanced economy in the world. Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication. Abdication is letting lobbyists and "model legislation" outfits author the laws which legislators have been known to almost literally just rubber stamp. [1] Just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we ca…
We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions. I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge. Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basi…
Do you have a citation for that claim?
There are vast[1] systems in place that violate laws and norms, so much so the IETF has labeled pervasive monitoring as an "attack"[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bosses do. Government employees don’t just run around and do whatever.
Those bosses are limited, both by law and by union contracts, in their ability to fire, punish, or reassign the career civil service professionals. We learned our lesson on this way back in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
Civil servants tend to occupy a public perception of a bunch of incompetent idiots or a malignant threat. The reality is that they just do their jobs, and they are on the whole pretty good at it.
If you want unmanageable, replace the professionals with political people. Have fun getting Senator so-and-so’s kid to stop drinking at his desk or having county chairman such-and-such’s spouse not screw up everything they touch.
The United States did the spoils system for 100 years, it sucked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we ca…
We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions. I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge. Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basi…