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

91–100 of 181 posts

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#91

Post by pyre »

sliverstorm wrote: post #84
higherpurpose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amplify this by 100, and welcome to Minority Report, where you get a arrested for having a "very high score". This is where the "mass surveillance" and "let's monitor everyone just in case they might do something bad" thinking inevitably ends up.

... you get a arrested for having a "very high score". Considering this is PRECISELY how spam filtering works, it doesn't seem entirely irrational. Much like spam filtering, it would all come down to dialing in your filters and picking a good threshold. Hell, if the system was good enough, it could actually improve freedoms. We currently arrest many innocent people as part of the legal process (who are later exonerat…

The 'arrest filter' is only as good as the inputs. As it currently stands, I'm sure that things like "uses drugs recreationally," "is black," "is Muslim," and "is not Christian," would end up counting towards your 'arrest score.' And also because your arrest score is computed by a machine rather than a human, that will be used as an excuse to call it unimpeachable. E.g. "Machines can't be racist, so the arrest score going after lots of poor, Black men must mean that there's something to it."

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#92

Post by tomphoolery »

pessimizer wrote: post #20

Of course this happens, and it's an obvious technique. I'm sure that not having a facebook account adds to your score, using AdBlock adds to your score, mentioning the NSA online adds to your score, refusing cookies adds to your score, using Linux adds to your score, etc. That's how a police state works. (XKeyScore += 5) My mother was involved in civil rights, so she has a file. It's fine that I have a file too. Hope…

I wish I could find out my XKeyScore. I'm genuinely interested in how threatening the NSA believes average people are.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#94

Post by mihok »

josu wrote: post #56
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/

>Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... No, that's not the reasoning. People that do bad things try to hide them. Therefore, a good first filter to catch bad people is to target those who hide things. They can narrow the search field afterwards.

Literally everyone hides something, its all relative. Not to mention the people that do bad things in plain sight.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#95

Post by frostmatthew »

bsder wrote: post #52
duaneb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 would amend that to: "Is it any surprise the bureaucracy wishes to protect the bureaucracy?"

"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." - Eugene McCarthy

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#96

Post by sliverstorm »

pyre wrote: post #91
sliverstorm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... you get a arrested for having a "very high score". Considering this is PRECISELY how spam filtering works, it doesn't seem entirely irrational. Much like spam filtering, it would all come down to dialing in your filters and picking a good threshold. Hell, if the system was good enough, it could actually improve freedoms. We currently arrest many innocent people as part of the legal process (who are later exonerat…

The 'arrest filter' is only as good as the inputs. As it currently stands, I'm sure that things like "uses drugs recreationally," "is black," "is Muslim," and "is not Christian," would end up counting towards your 'arrest score.' And also because your arrest score is computed by a machine rather than a human, that will be used as an excuse to call it unimpeachable. E.g. "Machines can't be racist, so the arrest score…

Only as good as the inputs, yes. But if it's a halfway decent filter, it will include machine learning, e.g. a Bayesian filter, and if "is Muslim" turns out to have low correspondence with actual criminal activity that input will quickly be deweighted. Or perhaps paired with other aspects- e.g., perhaps "is Muslim" is of no consequence and "Googles Jihad" is also of no consequence, but "is Muslim" && "Googles Jihad" gives you a point. Just as one example of the patterns a good filter could recognize.

Machines can't be racist, so the arrest score going after lots of poor, Black men must mean that there's something to it.

If a learning Bayesian filter targets a certain demographic, there probably IS something to it.

That really would be amusing/pleasing, if all this work we've spent developing spam filters became the lead-up to an accurate, learning crime filter. Perhaps the fork to spamassassin will be known as crimeassassin?

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#97

Post by opendais »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #89
bilalq wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can literally replace "seek privacy and security" with almost anything in that statement. I mean, out of all the people that prefer Coke over Pepsi, there are definitely some bad guys. While your statement is true, it doesn't really give any justification on targeted spying. That is, unless of course, we consider the desire to hide things to be a signal of being a bad actor. Thinking along those lines is a very s…

That's nonsense. If a credible actor poses a threat, they will attempt to do a competent job hiding their communications and data. Those that don't are by definition less competent and less likely to pose a threat. Pardon the bluntless, but it seems like an a priori conclusion that only people taking pains to hide their data/communications should be targeted. That is not because the vast majority of those people are…

> How do you balance national security and personal liberty in this case? That's the million dollar question.

That would be valid if they could point to any noteworthy success. The fact they can't ["because national security"] pretty much guarantees the program contributes very little real value.

If they had anything to do with something important, say Osama's death, you think they wouldn't trumpet it out as "proof" it works?

I'd say their lack of evidence that it functions is more damning than anything. They can't exactly hide they are doing it post-Snowden. Their one chance to justify funding for new programs that aren't compromised is to say "LOOK HOW SUCCESSFUL WE ARE!!!!" in broad terms.

The fact they cannot do this, and thereby justify larger budgets to Congress, convinces me they know the benefits are negligible.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#98

Post by jacinda »

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/

>not being able to catch a single terrorist

Except, you know, this guy named Osama Bin Laden. http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-c...

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#99

Post by bitchypat »

jacinda wrote: post #98
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/

>not being able to catch a single terrorist Except, you know, this guy named Osama Bin Laden. http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-c...

I think he meant before they wreak havoc.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#100

Post by gdewilde »

jacinda wrote: post #98
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/

>not being able to catch a single terrorist Except, you know, this guy named Osama Bin Laden. http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-c...

No, he had already died in 2001, people only get to die one time.
Post reply on HN