Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/
265 comments
> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case
You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?
If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.
You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?
If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.
It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.
And then he lied to the American people about the FREEDOM Act. Claimed it was some type of reform.
Both parties have expanded the powers of the agencies. That's no secret.
Citations needed.
Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...
https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...
https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...
[deleted]
> If that's the type of monitoring you mean
Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
> holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"
For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.
Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
> holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"
For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.
> Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump
This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy.
I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease.
> and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.
This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy.
I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease.
> and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.
> There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI").
What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:
- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:
- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
Here's another perspective on Snowden's claims
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-ciphe...
He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks.
From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.
He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks.
From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.
> He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files.
I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself.
My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.
Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls.
As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.
I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself.
My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.
Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls.
As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.
> My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.
This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.
This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.
> people want you to have.
Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?
Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?
I believe that was a (not so nice) way of saying that Snowden had intentionally exaggerated his history in order to establish himself as more of an authority on these matters regarding things he did not actually have access to.
Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.
Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.
The documents agree with the person you're arguing with and disagree with you and Snowden.
examples? There was not really any press vetting of the information so it's been difficult to evaluate the claims.
I do think it's troubling that major news orgs won't go near the details.
I do think it's troubling that major news orgs won't go near the details.
> What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...).
> Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap.
> Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious).
> Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!").
> the FISA warrant argument
If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it:
1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest.
2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI.
3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation.
This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much.
There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.
I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...).
> Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap.
> Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious).
> Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!").
> the FISA warrant argument
If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it:
1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest.
2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI.
3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation.
This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much.
There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points.
One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump.
It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance.
If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president.
I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election.
I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.
One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump.
It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance.
If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president.
I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election.
I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.
I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.
However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.
But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.
Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.
Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.
But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.
Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.
>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party
No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.
>If there had been evidence
There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty
He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.
The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.
No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.
>If there had been evidence
There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty
He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.
The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.
> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.
But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.
But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here.
I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.
And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
>But it all rests on trusting the agencies
No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.
Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?
I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.
And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
>But it all rests on trusting the agencies
No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.
Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?
The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence.
This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements.
> not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements.
> not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
[deleted]
Any oversight of the NSA is entirely voluntary. Queries may well get flagged but then what? Does every flagged query get reviewed? We have to trust the NSA, who have clearly demonstrated that they are not to be trusted. Now in the probably very rare event that the NSA decides to tell on itself to the oversight committees, tell me just exactly what you think they are going to do about it. Nothing, that's what.
I think this is a misconception, but I totally do understand where it comes from. The OGC and IC IG genuinely do care a lot about these things but due to the classified nature of the NSA's work any disputes and arguments about all the nuances are occurring behind closed doors.
The specific big case which the public knows about would be the domestic telephony metadata collection. Nobody knows about the discussions related to this or any pushback, or how exactly this was deemed to be a legal practice, and so on. This looks very bad as it causes the assumption to be that there is no proper oversight rather than seeing this as a bad interpretation.
Instead of the learned helplessness and assumptions about NSA, it would probably be far better to have an aggressive push for declassified briefings regarding these kinds of decisions. After the Snowden leaks I recall ODNI declassified and published a good amount of documentation in order to demonstrate the IC"s side of the matter, so it is known that declassification reviews for very sensitive subjects can occur when they put ample resources into it. The IC is very sensitive regarding sources and methods, so that's why most declassified information usually comes from FOIAs and specific "IC On The Record" releases. If they would declassify and publicize information regarding these decisions, there can at least be more of a dialogue on the topic using concrete facts versus assumptions.
The specific big case which the public knows about would be the domestic telephony metadata collection. Nobody knows about the discussions related to this or any pushback, or how exactly this was deemed to be a legal practice, and so on. This looks very bad as it causes the assumption to be that there is no proper oversight rather than seeing this as a bad interpretation.
Instead of the learned helplessness and assumptions about NSA, it would probably be far better to have an aggressive push for declassified briefings regarding these kinds of decisions. After the Snowden leaks I recall ODNI declassified and published a good amount of documentation in order to demonstrate the IC"s side of the matter, so it is known that declassification reviews for very sensitive subjects can occur when they put ample resources into it. The IC is very sensitive regarding sources and methods, so that's why most declassified information usually comes from FOIAs and specific "IC On The Record" releases. If they would declassify and publicize information regarding these decisions, there can at least be more of a dialogue on the topic using concrete facts versus assumptions.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to make that kind of defense of the IC in 2017. It is also incredibly insulting to imply that nobody was aware of or upset about any of this before Snowden. What's clear to see is that when these concerns were being hashed out, the Tom Drakes and Bill Binneys lost. What won was so bad that we haven't even discovered the bounds of their malfeasance. The mistrust that the IC has rightly earned won't go away with such a trite dismissal. There is no proper oversight, not for any reasonable definition of the word. We wouldn't be here today if there had been.
> There is no proper oversight, not for any reasonable definition of the word.
Could you elaborate on what practices you precisely take issue with?
If it is regarding domestic telephony metadata collection, I am in agreement and I am glad that the USA Freedom Act restricted that. Otherwise, I don't really know how to answer you as you haven't stated any specific problem that you have.
Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.
Could you elaborate on what practices you precisely take issue with?
If it is regarding domestic telephony metadata collection, I am in agreement and I am glad that the USA Freedom Act restricted that. Otherwise, I don't really know how to answer you as you haven't stated any specific problem that you have.
Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.
> Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.
This is an interesting point. Over the past few years I've come to think that the most responsible perspective to adopt as a citizen is that officials and government are all, to some extent, bad actors who deserve a good measure of scrutiny and accountability.
The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.
Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
This is an interesting point. Over the past few years I've come to think that the most responsible perspective to adopt as a citizen is that officials and government are all, to some extent, bad actors who deserve a good measure of scrutiny and accountability.
The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.
Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
> The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.
I agree. I don't intend to defend anything problematic. I just worry that it will be hard to demand actual changes if people are concerned about vague issues driven by a misunderstanding of how things work, versus actually being able to call up their representatives with specific changes and demands in mind.
> Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
I think this was due to the amount of material he leaked. If it was only the metadata-related material or other material related to problematic practices, I would think there would be far more leniency. But because he had taken and leaked everything he could get his hands on, much of it unrelated to anything domestic, the disclosures were viewed very differently. I personally think it makes no sense to charge him with relation to the leaks regarding domestic metadata collection since it was already admitted that this was overreach, but it is hard to figure out why he would blindly copy and leak other sensitive unrelated material (Easy example: I do not understand how he justifies scraping the content of certain internal wiki pages and giving it to The Intercept, there are no injustices described there, just legitimate sensitive intelligence information).
I agree. I don't intend to defend anything problematic. I just worry that it will be hard to demand actual changes if people are concerned about vague issues driven by a misunderstanding of how things work, versus actually being able to call up their representatives with specific changes and demands in mind.
> Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
I think this was due to the amount of material he leaked. If it was only the metadata-related material or other material related to problematic practices, I would think there would be far more leniency. But because he had taken and leaked everything he could get his hands on, much of it unrelated to anything domestic, the disclosures were viewed very differently. I personally think it makes no sense to charge him with relation to the leaks regarding domestic metadata collection since it was already admitted that this was overreach, but it is hard to figure out why he would blindly copy and leak other sensitive unrelated material (Easy example: I do not understand how he justifies scraping the content of certain internal wiki pages and giving it to The Intercept, there are no injustices described there, just legitimate sensitive intelligence information).
> I would think there would be far more leniency.
I'm less concerned with Snowden's treatment than with the way that our leaders dealt with the revelation that crimes had been committed in the excessive collection of data.
In my opinion, at least a few senior intelligence officials should have faced prison time, several more should have stepped down, and we should have seen full details disclosed about the problematic programs and seen the technology infrastructure get dismantled.
But we saw nothing like this. President Obama pretended nothing had happened and things just continued on pretty much the way they had been.
The key point is that the surveillance programs Snowden revealed are illegal, criminal programs and there is zero accountability for those whose misdeeds and lies led to the programs.
While I have no doubt that the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are honest, law-abiding people, I am not comfortable with a massive surveillance system being built behind closed doors with no democratic oversight. The stakes are just too high.
I have a number of friends who work in government and I wonder whether they feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about the programs since for all we know there is a sentiment analysis being done on the emails, tweets, texts, and phone conversations of all government employees with security clearance.
From the standpoint of preventing crimes by leveraging surveillance and data mining, of course there would be a sentiment analysis system, and the threat level posed by dissenting sentiment would be easy to monitor so that measures could be taken to prevent undesirable occurrences from happening.
Can a democracy exist when there is a massive surveillance system that everyone realizes is lurking behind every web cam and ISP? I'm not sure it can.
We've seen a handful of generals and public officials get destroyed by "leaks" of data that were quite likely obtained via the surveillance infrastructure. This should probably terrify us, but there is very little scrutiny of the methods used, including parallel attribution, and most government claims are taken at face value.
I'm less concerned with Snowden's treatment than with the way that our leaders dealt with the revelation that crimes had been committed in the excessive collection of data.
In my opinion, at least a few senior intelligence officials should have faced prison time, several more should have stepped down, and we should have seen full details disclosed about the problematic programs and seen the technology infrastructure get dismantled.
But we saw nothing like this. President Obama pretended nothing had happened and things just continued on pretty much the way they had been.
The key point is that the surveillance programs Snowden revealed are illegal, criminal programs and there is zero accountability for those whose misdeeds and lies led to the programs.
While I have no doubt that the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are honest, law-abiding people, I am not comfortable with a massive surveillance system being built behind closed doors with no democratic oversight. The stakes are just too high.
I have a number of friends who work in government and I wonder whether they feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about the programs since for all we know there is a sentiment analysis being done on the emails, tweets, texts, and phone conversations of all government employees with security clearance.
From the standpoint of preventing crimes by leveraging surveillance and data mining, of course there would be a sentiment analysis system, and the threat level posed by dissenting sentiment would be easy to monitor so that measures could be taken to prevent undesirable occurrences from happening.
Can a democracy exist when there is a massive surveillance system that everyone realizes is lurking behind every web cam and ISP? I'm not sure it can.
We've seen a handful of generals and public officials get destroyed by "leaks" of data that were quite likely obtained via the surveillance infrastructure. This should probably terrify us, but there is very little scrutiny of the methods used, including parallel attribution, and most government claims are taken at face value.
There was only one illegal program in the leaks — the phone metadata collection program that the GP mentioned. At the time it was leaked, its legality was unknown, but the leaks contained arguments from the government's attorneys explaining why it was probably legal. Their arguments had merit and were supported by the District Court of Judge William Pauley, who agreed that Smith v. Maryland's ruling was precedent. Only after appeal was the program ruled illegal, but by that time, the government had already stated the program would be replaced.
USA Freedom act isn't reform, it's a post getting caught minor change of and extension of the Patriot act. Reporting is still voluntary for all practical purposes. Oversight of FISC matters is still the domain of the same FISC that did close to nothing to stop the rampant abuse, except maybe give cover.
My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
As for your facts you've made some very loquatious attempts. I'm skeptical as to the actual number of facts contained therein.
My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
As for your facts you've made some very loquatious attempts. I'm skeptical as to the actual number of facts contained therein.
I don't know if I would call it rampant abuse. It was one program which I also disagree with, and the USA Freedom Act rectified this (Or rather, it fixed the concerns that I had about it, you may disagree).
> My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
I fully agree. Serious changes are needed here in my opinion and I hope the pressure due to renewal this year will allow for some reform.
> My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
I fully agree. Serious changes are needed here in my opinion and I hope the pressure due to renewal this year will allow for some reform.
On what basis can you state these things with such authority? (Apologies if there is something obvious that I'm overlooking.)
Also, do you mean that these are the stated rules, or that these are the practices? I don't mean that in a conspiratorial sense. In any institution, the actual practices vary from the rules, sometimes significantly.
Also, do you mean that these are the stated rules, or that these are the practices? I don't mean that in a conspiratorial sense. In any institution, the actual practices vary from the rules, sometimes significantly.
What he's stated matches what was in Snowden's leaks. The big problem with Greenwald's reporting is that the leaked documents disagree with Snowden and Paul, but Greenwald believes Snowden and Paul instead of the leaks.
How do you know this?
yes I am sure there is NO WAY you could possibly have it get you information on anyone inside the US. just everyone else on the planet.
Trump is amusing. He'll say something absolutely obscene, then his surrogates will say that he meant something different and slightly less obscene. Then supporters will go to great lengths to translate his words into an extremely favorable reading that actually isn't obscene at all.
We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.
We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.
>We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.
Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
I think a lot of people do, but it's best not to rate it too highly. It's a lot easier to communicate clearly and effectively when your propositions are simple, and it's a lot easier to have simple propositions when you're not constrained by the evidence.
That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.
That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.
> demagoguery
Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.
Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.
By demagoguery I mean demagoguery — I mean highly charged oratory, persuasive whipping-up rhetoric (https://youtu.be/ZFD01r6ersw?t=40).
Yes, but isn't that a prerequisite for political success?
Doesn't look too promising so far.
> A demagogue ... is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.
Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
[deleted]
[deleted]
>serve the common people
Nowadays we call that populism. And we don't like it one bit! /s
Nowadays we call that populism. And we don't like it one bit! /s
A demagogue for the common people* !
*only certain people qualifyI wouldn't say that he means what he says. I think he says what he believes, without using reality-checking or diplomacy filters, which is a distinctly different behavior.
It is kind of refreshing, because while I have a sneaking suspicion that most politicians are secretly despicable people behind their masks, Trump is a despicable person right out there in the open. I know exactly where I stand in relation to him.
It is kind of refreshing, because while I have a sneaking suspicion that most politicians are secretly despicable people behind their masks, Trump is a despicable person right out there in the open. I know exactly where I stand in relation to him.
It would be if he wasn't a demented narcissist. His inability to ignore even the smallest trifle that casts him in negative light shows the extent of his mental illness.
I'm still trying to figure out how he is unlike Kim Jong Un.
I think that contains some degree of inherent value, sure.
Being honest and informed are much more valuable and refreshing traits to me.
Being honest and informed are much more valuable and refreshing traits to me.
It would be refreshing if he actually backed up his words, rather than just saying what he thinks you want to hear. It's not refreshing when he flip-flops depending on who his audience is at the time.
unityByFreedom says: " Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"."
No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.
No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.
Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement.
That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.
That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.
Except multiple leaks have proven this isn't some crackpot conspiracy theory. Whether or not the NSA, CIA, or FBI were specifically targeting Trump, his communications, and ours, ARE intercepted and monitored.
Listen to yourself. What you're saying does not logically follow. That some people, generally, are monitored by the TLAs, does not in any way validate Trump's very specific claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by Obama. Dragnet surveillance of the populace and targeted wiretap of a political opponent are very very different. One does not imply the other, and you can not walk back Trump's claim to pretend he meant something else. Words have meaning.
Think about it. Your rebuttal is akin to someone asserting that Trump specifically e-mailed Russian political contacts (on no evidence), and me claiming validation of that assertion when it turns out that yes, an e-mail address in Russia was one of 50 million to receive spam mail for Trump's shitty steaks. But it would be ridiculous for me to claim such a walk-back – even though what I just wrote actually happened [1] – because words have meaning.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/th...
Think about it. Your rebuttal is akin to someone asserting that Trump specifically e-mailed Russian political contacts (on no evidence), and me claiming validation of that assertion when it turns out that yes, an e-mail address in Russia was one of 50 million to receive spam mail for Trump's shitty steaks. But it would be ridiculous for me to claim such a walk-back – even though what I just wrote actually happened [1] – because words have meaning.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/th...
Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in order to satisfy the electorate. But with those disclaimers, as someone who has done a lot of document editing in Photoshop for the past 15 years, I found this video beyond convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWmWO18GTc8
Regarding Trump's claim that Trump Tower(?) was tapped, I find it very suspicious that Obama's reaction was a lawyered non-denial-denial relayed by an intermediary. Whenever people are accused of crimes and they do anything other than simply deny it, you should be somewhat suspicious. When they use weasel words or clever phrasing, be suspicious. I predicted Theranos' issues something like 8 months in advance due to this; Elizabeth Holmes never simply said "these reports are wrong because our technology works" (because she knew she would be open to lawsuits after the fact if she said as much). Just my 2 cents; ofcourse nobody knows for sure at this point.
Regarding Trump's claim that Trump Tower(?) was tapped, I find it very suspicious that Obama's reaction was a lawyered non-denial-denial relayed by an intermediary. Whenever people are accused of crimes and they do anything other than simply deny it, you should be somewhat suspicious. When they use weasel words or clever phrasing, be suspicious. I predicted Theranos' issues something like 8 months in advance due to this; Elizabeth Holmes never simply said "these reports are wrong because our technology works" (because she knew she would be open to lawsuits after the fact if she said as much). Just my 2 cents; ofcourse nobody knows for sure at this point.
You watched a video that is over an hour long and you generally seem to have put a lot of thought into the veracity of Obama's birth certificate for someone who claims to "not particularly care" about it.
Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump himself offered zero evidence of this claim and is even trying to walk it back.
The short is that you seem to believe whatever fits your personal narrative. Worse, you try to convince others to blindly believe divisive, destructive, nonsensical conspiracy theories without a scintilla of proof.
Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge. One could just as easily say, "I think you're a rapist. Of course, I don't know for sure."
Unchecked disinformation wreaks havoc on democracy. This nonsense is literally destroying our country.
Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump himself offered zero evidence of this claim and is even trying to walk it back.
The short is that you seem to believe whatever fits your personal narrative. Worse, you try to convince others to blindly believe divisive, destructive, nonsensical conspiracy theories without a scintilla of proof.
Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge. One could just as easily say, "I think you're a rapist. Of course, I don't know for sure."
Unchecked disinformation wreaks havoc on democracy. This nonsense is literally destroying our country.
> Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge.
This needs to repeated more!
Thank you internet stranger, your words have lifted my spirits today.
This needs to repeated more!
Thank you internet stranger, your words have lifted my spirits today.
> Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge.
It is that at times. At other times, it is simply something people say when they suspect something but do not know it for sure.
It is that at times. At other times, it is simply something people say when they suspect something but do not know it for sure.
Agreed. I suppose you have to simply consider the context to help determine which it is. If it follows a load of other dissembling nonsense, then it's probably the former.
George Washington was born in Virginia colony.
Right. Doesn't that make him British? Asking honestly... How could he have been American if the USA didn't exist yet. Obviously he was North American, but his citizenship at birth would have been British, no?
When the area you were born or live in changes governments, does that make you an immigrant?
It's in the Constitution: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".
- Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5
As you can see, this covers the corner case you've identified.
Interestingly, the term citizen wasn't defined until the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
As you can see, this covers the corner case you've identified.
Interestingly, the term citizen wasn't defined until the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
> George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts.
No, he wasn't an immigrant of any sort. He was a native born citizen of one of the states that formed the United States, and one of the leaders of the movement by which they became the United States.
No, he wasn't an immigrant of any sort. He was a native born citizen of one of the states that formed the United States, and one of the leaders of the movement by which they became the United States.
Immigrant is possibly the wrong word, but wouldn't he technically have been a British citizen prior to the founding of the USA?
Repeat after me:
It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
> It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)
There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)
Would there be any dispute if my wife gave birth while we were on vacation in France?
I suspect that those who really hold to that definition are primarily concerned about the amount of melanin in his skin.The current system is worse than being designed to be used without warrant - it's explicitly setup to subvert the warrant process. Remember, FISA court proceedings are secret, and at least as of 2013 (I'm getting this info from Wikipedia), a massive 12 out of 35,529 FISA warrent requests were rejected.
> Remember, FISA court proceedings are secret, and at least as of 2013 (I'm getting this info from Wikipedia), a massive 12 out of 35,529 FISA warrent requests were rejected.
Yeah, that's a much higher rejection rate since 2003 than in the 24 previous years the court existed, when zero were denied. So, if the rate of rejections is a valid metric for how good the court is, with fewer rejections being worse, the process got better during the "War on Terror".
Yeah, that's a much higher rejection rate since 2003 than in the 24 previous years the court existed, when zero were denied. So, if the rate of rejections is a valid metric for how good the court is, with fewer rejections being worse, the process got better during the "War on Terror".
The rate of rejections does not actually tell you anything about the effectiveness of the court.
Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.
Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.
> Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.
Fair enough, but then one could argue that law enforcement are under-utilizing the powers they ought to have since so many requests are sailing through without impediment.
Fair enough, but then one could argue that law enforcement are under-utilizing the powers they ought to have since so many requests are sailing through without impediment.
If the agency submitting requests are denied often, the judge would look at future requests from that agency more closely and deny at an even higher rate. You don't go to the judge with garbage for probable cause.
More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions. https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-requests-for-a-search-wa...
More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions. https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-requests-for-a-search-wa...
> More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions
So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?
Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public, there is great pressure on the judge and law enforcement to act properly. No such check exists in the FISA system.
Think about the lax punishment of Brock Turner and all the attention it received. This is because the miscarriage of justice was public knowledge.
Behind closed doors people behave badly. There are numerous examples of this, including reproducible experiments.
So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?
Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public, there is great pressure on the judge and law enforcement to act properly. No such check exists in the FISA system.
Think about the lax punishment of Brock Turner and all the attention it received. This is because the miscarriage of justice was public knowledge.
Behind closed doors people behave badly. There are numerous examples of this, including reproducible experiments.
> So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?
No, you're arguing that FISA warrants are rubber-stamped, but if you believe that, you must also believe that search warrants are rubber-stamped, which is the "nonsensical conclusion" I alluded to earlier.
> Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public....
Search warrants and the justification for them are not guaranteed to be public and can be sealed like FISA warrants, and both can and have been unsealed following legal challenge. Therein lies part of your error. The second part of your error is that FISA warrants can only be used to search the records of non-citizen foreigners, who do not have fourth amendment rights, and people who have already been proven to be agents of a foreign power.
No, you're arguing that FISA warrants are rubber-stamped, but if you believe that, you must also believe that search warrants are rubber-stamped, which is the "nonsensical conclusion" I alluded to earlier.
> Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public....
Search warrants and the justification for them are not guaranteed to be public and can be sealed like FISA warrants, and both can and have been unsealed following legal challenge. Therein lies part of your error. The second part of your error is that FISA warrants can only be used to search the records of non-citizen foreigners, who do not have fourth amendment rights, and people who have already been proven to be agents of a foreign power.
Do you find anything odd about the timing of the release of this information, which so perfectly overlays with Trump's unverifiable charge and provides ammunition for reaching a conclusion such as yours?
I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know?
There is an over-emphasis on what's possible vs. what the actual evidence says. That is the path to a post fact world wherein literally any conspiracy theory can now thrive. At the end of this path lies the complete obliteration of democracy.
I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know?
There is an over-emphasis on what's possible vs. what the actual evidence says. That is the path to a post fact world wherein literally any conspiracy theory can now thrive. At the end of this path lies the complete obliteration of democracy.
[deleted]
I think you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump. My intent is only to highlight that a surveillance system that is designed to circumvent accountability is ripe for abuse.
This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
>you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump.
From this and your other comments, you undertake a lot of mental gymnastics to let Trump off the hook. And your assertions go well beyond decrying potential abuse by intelligence agencies.
>such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
Not really. Or, more specifically, only when people willfully use it in a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt, and others promote that it is a legitimate basis for that doubt. The people behind the most recent Wikileaks dump seem to understand this, wouldn't you agree?
Thinking people still understand that implausible is not the same as actually happened, and that actual proof is required when a president charges a former president with breaking the law.
From this and your other comments, you undertake a lot of mental gymnastics to let Trump off the hook. And your assertions go well beyond decrying potential abuse by intelligence agencies.
>such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
Not really. Or, more specifically, only when people willfully use it in a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt, and others promote that it is a legitimate basis for that doubt. The people behind the most recent Wikileaks dump seem to understand this, wouldn't you agree?
Thinking people still understand that implausible is not the same as actually happened, and that actual proof is required when a president charges a former president with breaking the law.
> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants
However, there is an audit trail in the system. As an investigation will occur on this matter, I am sure that cleared representatives will have access to this for review.
However, there is an audit trail in the system. As an investigation will occur on this matter, I am sure that cleared representatives will have access to this for review.
> As an investigation will occur on this matter
What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any raw data. Chances are that if there was any investigation going on into anyone on Trump's team (which we know there was), then those individuals showing up at Trump Tower for a meeting creates a metadata correlation to Trump Tower. Hence Trump's claim of "wiretapping Trump Tower" would seemingly be trivially true if even the simplest metadata link between, say, Flynn and Trump Tower were followed or considered potentially relevant by any analyst.
What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any raw data. Chances are that if there was any investigation going on into anyone on Trump's team (which we know there was), then those individuals showing up at Trump Tower for a meeting creates a metadata correlation to Trump Tower. Hence Trump's claim of "wiretapping Trump Tower" would seemingly be trivially true if even the simplest metadata link between, say, Flynn and Trump Tower were followed or considered potentially relevant by any analyst.
> What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.
I agree with regards to viewing the data. But that would imply it was a matter of asking NSA to check the audit trail. With a topic so politically charged, I would hope that they would instead get an independent committee with proper security clearances to get access to the data in their SCIF and be able to ask questions to fully understand each action taken and assure it is all above board. I do not have direct knowledge of how such an investigation would work, but my point is that retrieving the audit trail is probably an easy aspect of a longer process.
I agree with regards to viewing the data. But that would imply it was a matter of asking NSA to check the audit trail. With a topic so politically charged, I would hope that they would instead get an independent committee with proper security clearances to get access to the data in their SCIF and be able to ask questions to fully understand each action taken and assure it is all above board. I do not have direct knowledge of how such an investigation would work, but my point is that retrieving the audit trail is probably an easy aspect of a longer process.
True. The sticky aspect of it is that what might technically constitute wiretapping may not reveal special intent to eavesdrop on Trump or his campaign.
But this is precisely what's problematic about the metadata program, it casts a very wide net which deprives many innocent bystanders of their rights.
But this is precisely what's problematic about the metadata program, it casts a very wide net which deprives many innocent bystanders of their rights.
I've not really been following it but isn't one of the main arguments that Obama would've had to have sign any FISA warrant?
> Obama would've had to have sign any FISA warrant?
No, the straw man argument is that we can tell whether Trump was wiretapped by the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.
The president does not sign FISA warrants, the entire purpose of FISA is to streamline (almost to automate) the issuance of warrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
No, the straw man argument is that we can tell whether Trump was wiretapped by the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.
The president does not sign FISA warrants, the entire purpose of FISA is to streamline (almost to automate) the issuance of warrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
My understanding is that "listening" to communication between Trump and a foreign national would not require a FISA warrant. I say "listening" because, I believe, all communications with foreign nationals are recorded but only some are actually listened to by actual people.
Why, in a thread about unacceptable reach of executive power, is the top comment a defense of the sitting president (the wielder of such power) and a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal?
> a thread about unacceptable reach of executive power
This is true no matter who is in charge.
> top comment a defense of the sitting president
It is not a defense, but if you perceive it that way you reveal your own bias. It is merely a point about the relevance of a FISA warrant when reasoning about the issue.
> the wielder of such power)
Of course, my caution about the irrelevance of FISA warrants applies equally to the sitting president and to past and future presidents.
> a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal
I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal. If we're talking about "wiretapping", Snowden revealed that there is a vast power of surveillance that can be wielded by a large number of people with little oversight.
While this does not lend credence to Trump's claims, it does reveal that those rebuking Trump for making the claims based on the lack of a FISA warrant are likely attempting to deceive/misdirect the public about how the apparatus actually works.
This is true no matter who is in charge.
> top comment a defense of the sitting president
It is not a defense, but if you perceive it that way you reveal your own bias. It is merely a point about the relevance of a FISA warrant when reasoning about the issue.
> the wielder of such power)
Of course, my caution about the irrelevance of FISA warrants applies equally to the sitting president and to past and future presidents.
> a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal
I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal. If we're talking about "wiretapping", Snowden revealed that there is a vast power of surveillance that can be wielded by a large number of people with little oversight.
While this does not lend credence to Trump's claims, it does reveal that those rebuking Trump for making the claims based on the lack of a FISA warrant are likely attempting to deceive/misdirect the public about how the apparatus actually works.
> I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal.
Which should have been your clue that you whiffed on the point.
"Obummer tapped my phones!" is the unrelated political scandal. If you don't want to be dinged for derailing the discussion, you could have jumped into a discussion about FISA/DoJ vs. NSA surveillance via any other technique. Instead you chose to go down this ridiculous "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.
Which should have been your clue that you whiffed on the point.
"Obummer tapped my phones!" is the unrelated political scandal. If you don't want to be dinged for derailing the discussion, you could have jumped into a discussion about FISA/DoJ vs. NSA surveillance via any other technique. Instead you chose to go down this ridiculous "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.
> "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.
Not at all. I don't care whether Trump was right, but I do care whether we have a system where an audit can be done that can actually provide reassurance that inappropriate surveillance is not being done. Note that I am not arguing that surveillance of Trump (if it occurred) was even inappropriate, since there were widespread concerns about his ties with Russia, and the administration in office at the time had an obligation to provide due diligence.
There has been very little focus on the rule of law and limits to the surveillance state. Trump is not a privacy advocate, but nevertheless his remark made some of the relevant issues around unchecked surveillance timely.
Not at all. I don't care whether Trump was right, but I do care whether we have a system where an audit can be done that can actually provide reassurance that inappropriate surveillance is not being done. Note that I am not arguing that surveillance of Trump (if it occurred) was even inappropriate, since there were widespread concerns about his ties with Russia, and the administration in office at the time had an obligation to provide due diligence.
There has been very little focus on the rule of law and limits to the surveillance state. Trump is not a privacy advocate, but nevertheless his remark made some of the relevant issues around unchecked surveillance timely.
Because there are three separate scenarios we could be in: the sitting president wants to get rid of this power, the sitting president wants to abuse this power, and the sitting president does not understand this power.
If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).
As a wise man once said, "Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country." "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name."
If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).
As a wise man once said, "Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country." "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name."
> If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).
imho this particular case seems like the incoherent ramblings of a nutcase, but bugs hidden in everyday devices are old-school espionage stuff (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) or countless others).
A microwave would be a pretty awesome target for a bug - it can live off the microwave's standby power, and transmit in the 2.4 GHz band when the microwave is operational. The high power usage of the magnetron (and the load-switching voltage spikes) would cover the increased energy demand, and using the 2.4 GHz band prevents it from being detected by bug sweepers (the noise from the microwave will drown out the sweeper).
imho this particular case seems like the incoherent ramblings of a nutcase, but bugs hidden in everyday devices are old-school espionage stuff (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) or countless others).
A microwave would be a pretty awesome target for a bug - it can live off the microwave's standby power, and transmit in the 2.4 GHz band when the microwave is operational. The high power usage of the magnetron (and the load-switching voltage spikes) would cover the increased energy demand, and using the 2.4 GHz band prevents it from being detected by bug sweepers (the noise from the microwave will drown out the sweeper).
For Trump to make such a claim, he would (presumably) need reasons. I would sincerely hope that his reasons are more than simply "I read it on my friends blog"
My opinion on hn was unpopular when I spoke out against Apple during the San Bernardino affair, because the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff and I think the motivation was obvious.
However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.
However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.
> the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff [in San Bernardino]
Due process means both sides get to argue their cases in front of a court. Apple chose to do that [1]. Presumably, the FBI figured it would lose and so dropped the case [2]. Apple contesting an executive branch order in a court is different from directors and employees at the NSA deciding they can act in defiance of our courts and laws.
[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timot...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/28/apple-fbi...
Due process means both sides get to argue their cases in front of a court. Apple chose to do that [1]. Presumably, the FBI figured it would lose and so dropped the case [2]. Apple contesting an executive branch order in a court is different from directors and employees at the NSA deciding they can act in defiance of our courts and laws.
[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timot...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/28/apple-fbi...
Your opinion was probably unpopular because DOJ signoff does not make good encryption with a master key any more technologically possible, and HN is a very pro-encryption crowd as a technical means to privacy. The disagreement for me is not about the warrant process but about why this warrant would be different. I think the warrant should not have been granted and needed to be fought in court. And the great thing about the warrant was, since it notified the defendant and could be eventually made public we could have this debate.
I think (hope?) we are all totally on the same page about warrants being necessary. I wouldn't hold your breath about due process coming back under trump, media intolerance hasn't changed a lot. What has is direct legal action on behalf of citizens, from states and agencies like the ACLU. I urge everyone to contribute to the EFF, and the ACLU, and let them, and your state legislature know this is a key issue to you.
I think (hope?) we are all totally on the same page about warrants being necessary. I wouldn't hold your breath about due process coming back under trump, media intolerance hasn't changed a lot. What has is direct legal action on behalf of citizens, from states and agencies like the ACLU. I urge everyone to contribute to the EFF, and the ACLU, and let them, and your state legislature know this is a key issue to you.
I've always felt like the intent of a warrant was to prove to ME that the police were authorized to search my property. I'm thinking back to when people had to physically show up and be allowed entry into your estate.
If my feeling on warrants match up with the true intention of the law (as it was originally written) then no-knock warrants are suspect as well as any kind of secret warrant to tap your phone/computer.
I think even with warrants we still have an issue, because what's really stopping them from getting a warrant in this day and age?
If my feeling on warrants match up with the true intention of the law (as it was originally written) then no-knock warrants are suspect as well as any kind of secret warrant to tap your phone/computer.
I think even with warrants we still have an issue, because what's really stopping them from getting a warrant in this day and age?
The 4th Amendment doesn't just require "a warrant". The English government was using "writs of assistance", a type of general warrant that granted broad powers. As a protection against that type of easily-abused power, the founders created a set of requirements that limit the scope of allowed warrants.
The violation of personal rights is allowed, because of specific reason ("probable cause"), in a particular place, limited to specified people or things. These limitations slow down the application of power and (hypothetically) create opportunities to fight back when authority is exceeded.
> no-knock warrants
I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant.
> secret warrant
That's may be a problem, but it may depend on the specifics.
> what's really stopping them from getting a warrant
Generally nothing, but that's the wrong question. If police are making many requests for specific warrants, that's the warrant system working as intended.
However, playing word games to pretend wiretapping everybody isn't "seizing" data until an agent looks at it is exactly the type of general warrant that is banned by the 4th Amendment.
... and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
The violation of personal rights is allowed, because of specific reason ("probable cause"), in a particular place, limited to specified people or things. These limitations slow down the application of power and (hypothetically) create opportunities to fight back when authority is exceeded.
> no-knock warrants
I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant.
> secret warrant
That's may be a problem, but it may depend on the specifics.
> what's really stopping them from getting a warrant
Generally nothing, but that's the wrong question. If police are making many requests for specific warrants, that's the warrant system working as intended.
However, playing word games to pretend wiretapping everybody isn't "seizing" data until an agent looks at it is exactly the type of general warrant that is banned by the 4th Amendment.
>I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant.
Almost every no knock is executed in such a way that 'proper' targeting is impossible.
A warrant cannot magically excuse police from their improper conduct. It took a deaf dumb blind and ignorant bench for that.
Almost every no knock is executed in such a way that 'proper' targeting is impossible.
A warrant cannot magically excuse police from their improper conduct. It took a deaf dumb blind and ignorant bench for that.
The intent of the warrant is to provide a check on the power of the executive branch, where hopefully the jusdge's incentives are divorced enough from the police's so that they can make a decision that is in the best interests of society and not just the police.
"Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions."
I haven't seen any indication that either party is looking to end these practices. It's hard to shut down "big brother" when it's your turn to play big brother. Furthermore, this doesn't exactly seem the the administration that's likely to dial-back intrusion into people's personal lives:
"U.S. House bill threatens employees with fines if they refuse to undergo genetic testing"
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/03/13/gene...
I haven't seen any indication that either party is looking to end these practices. It's hard to shut down "big brother" when it's your turn to play big brother. Furthermore, this doesn't exactly seem the the administration that's likely to dial-back intrusion into people's personal lives:
"U.S. House bill threatens employees with fines if they refuse to undergo genetic testing"
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/03/13/gene...
> Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration
Are you insane?? Didn't you hear many of Trump speeches saying that NSA doesn't have enough power??? And that we need to monitor more, especially certain groups but pretty much everyone as well?
And that companies like Apple should be forced to decrypt or have tools to decrypt their own technology.
Bush made surveillance wanted by public fear because of 911. Obama made it further legal by not doing anything against it and praising NSA as "your friendly neighbor". Trump is here to make it more invasive and to make it stay for good!
Are you insane?? Didn't you hear many of Trump speeches saying that NSA doesn't have enough power??? And that we need to monitor more, especially certain groups but pretty much everyone as well?
And that companies like Apple should be forced to decrypt or have tools to decrypt their own technology.
Bush made surveillance wanted by public fear because of 911. Obama made it further legal by not doing anything against it and praising NSA as "your friendly neighbor". Trump is here to make it more invasive and to make it stay for good!
Spying likely started during the Bush years
It got worse during the Bush administration, but government surveillance isn't a new thing.
Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration
Not sure if serious
It got worse during the Bush administration, but government surveillance isn't a new thing.
Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration
Not sure if serious
He must be kidding. Trump has said repeatedly "I want surveillance..."
Not that I endorse this reality, but we have been, for quite a long time, a society that has one set of laws for certain segments of society and another set for disparate segments of society.
Haven't we been spying on our own citizens since WWII? Or at least since J Edgar Hoover and thr McCarthy era?
Surveillance has been at smaller scale, but increasing as the technology behind the data footprint has moved from punchcards and magtape to farms of SSDs and gigabit optical links.
Hoover didn't know your shoe size. It's likely that the NSA could find that out in seconds to minutes (and I'm not kidding).
Hoover didn't know your shoe size. It's likely that the NSA could find that out in seconds to minutes (and I'm not kidding).
McCarthy didn't spy on anyone. He was a Senator not an intel agent. Additionally, McCarthy has been proven right. His estimate was that there were around 20 Soviet agents that had infiltrated the US government at the highest levels. Once the USSR fell and their documents became public it was proven they had well over 200. McCarthy was right but people still tarnish his name out of spite.
Hoover was an SOB far worse than McCarthy ever could have been but is still revered by many in the intel services. His name still adorns the FBI HQ building and other than accusations of cross dressing, no ones dug in to truly uncover the evil things that man did.
Hoover was an SOB far worse than McCarthy ever could have been but is still revered by many in the intel services. His name still adorns the FBI HQ building and other than accusations of cross dressing, no ones dug in to truly uncover the evil things that man did.
McCarthy's name isn't being tarnished out of spite. It's because he started a disgusting witch hunt with blacklists, demagoguery, etc to hunt down anyone who committed thoughtcrime (i.e. communist sympathy) that ruined the lives of many, many innocent people and turned the country down a very dark path.
The fact that there were soviet agents in the government is mostly tangential. It was because he went around saying there's a secret list of enemies, and that anyone who is left of center is probably one of them, that he was so horrible. It was because he made disgusting personal attacks and aired the dirty laundry of anyone who crossed him. It was because of his deep hatred for homosexuals and anyone who wasn't right wing.
He was one of the more vile characters in US history. J. Edgar Hoover was much worse, I'll concede; Hoover was actually a traitor, the worst in US history, and should have been jailed or executed. But McCarthy deserves every bit of tarnishing he gets, and a whole lot more that he doesn't get because people have forgotten.
The fact that there were soviet agents in the government is mostly tangential. It was because he went around saying there's a secret list of enemies, and that anyone who is left of center is probably one of them, that he was so horrible. It was because he made disgusting personal attacks and aired the dirty laundry of anyone who crossed him. It was because of his deep hatred for homosexuals and anyone who wasn't right wing.
He was one of the more vile characters in US history. J. Edgar Hoover was much worse, I'll concede; Hoover was actually a traitor, the worst in US history, and should have been jailed or executed. But McCarthy deserves every bit of tarnishing he gets, and a whole lot more that he doesn't get because people have forgotten.
Obama didn't spy on anyone, he was a president, not an intel agent. Bush didn't invade Iraq, he was a president, not a soldier.
[deleted]
The problem with the press coverage of this topic is a lack of personalization. What does the government know about me and why is that important? I think most US citizens would be shocked to learn that most of our personal information is accessible without a warrant. (phone records / bank account / email / web history / phone location data / Car location / Purchase history / Facebook etc....). Also, how much the government can interpret from that information.
Unfortunately I have found that most people aren't shocked when I explain this to them. Most commonly they just say That their life is boring and they've got nothing to hide. Additionally they think that it may be worth the invasion if we can catch the 'bad guys'. I'm not sure what would need to happen to change this sentiment on a large enough scale to get people motivated into political action.
> I'm not sure what would need to happen to change this sentiment on a large enough scale to get people motivated into political action.
A couple of razzias where they or their loved ones were taken to gas chambers should do the job.
But we have such short memories.
In just about every Dutch town, usually near the railway station there is a monument documenting just that and it still does not seem to make much of a difference.
A couple of razzias where they or their loved ones were taken to gas chambers should do the job.
But we have such short memories.
In just about every Dutch town, usually near the railway station there is a monument documenting just that and it still does not seem to make much of a difference.
The Nazis didn't have anything like modern surveillance, and they didn't need it to enact the Holocaust. So I'm not sure what your point is; could you clarify?
Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient. The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
ETA: many of the Dutch Jews who did survive were hidden by Dutch people. And yes, such efforts could be thwarted by surveillance. But that seems like an edge case; rare even in the Netherlands, where only a few percent of local Jews were so hidden, and vanishingly rare in the Holocaust as a whole across Europe.
Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient. The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
ETA: many of the Dutch Jews who did survive were hidden by Dutch people. And yes, such efforts could be thwarted by surveillance. But that seems like an edge case; rare even in the Netherlands, where only a few percent of local Jews were so hidden, and vanishingly rare in the Holocaust as a whole across Europe.
> The Nazis didn't have anything like modern surveillance, and they didn't need it to enact the Holocaust. So I'm not sure what your point is; could you clarify?
If they had there would most likely not be a Jewish people to speak of, as it was the little bit of automation they had coupled with a stereotypical dose of German thorougness already did a very good job (good is not really applicable here). Now combine that with say a twist of 'big data' and some nice pattern recognition algorithms (facial recognition for instance, or maybe DNA analysis) and it would have been possible to round up a significantly larger chunk of the Jewish population than what already happened.
The fact that we now have wall penetrating radar doesn't help either.
> The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
They had a hard time actually, because the local population did a reasonably good job of hiding them in the strangest spots.
> Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient.
Yes. But it won't be made any less efficient by all this helpful identification technology we have nowadays, most likely more, and communications intercepted long before a conflict might even help to identify those that would aid the hunted.
If they had there would most likely not be a Jewish people to speak of, as it was the little bit of automation they had coupled with a stereotypical dose of German thorougness already did a very good job (good is not really applicable here). Now combine that with say a twist of 'big data' and some nice pattern recognition algorithms (facial recognition for instance, or maybe DNA analysis) and it would have been possible to round up a significantly larger chunk of the Jewish population than what already happened.
The fact that we now have wall penetrating radar doesn't help either.
> The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
They had a hard time actually, because the local population did a reasonably good job of hiding them in the strangest spots.
> Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient.
Yes. But it won't be made any less efficient by all this helpful identification technology we have nowadays, most likely more, and communications intercepted long before a conflict might even help to identify those that would aid the hunted.
> The Nazis didn't have anything like modern surveillance, and they didn't need it to enact the Holocaust. So I'm not sure what your point is; could you clarify?
There was significant custom logistical technology developed for the challenge of tracking millions of people during the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
There was significant custom logistical technology developed for the challenge of tracking millions of people during the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
The Nazis had IBM.
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/bshytzp0on1dfvjdfw4-vq
https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/bshytzp0on1dfvjdfw4-vq
From what I understand, the Dutch are one of the most surveilled societies on earth. It would appear that a holocaust doesn't make a population sensitive to state surveillance.
Yep. Because 'we have nothing to hide'.
Interestingly though, just after the wall fell if there was one country that was hyper-sensitive to any kind of surveillance it was the Eastern part of re-united Germany. That was one part of Europe where people seemed to 'get it' in large enough numbers to actually make a difference. Some parts of Poland after their independence from Soviet domination as well.
Though for the most part that seems to have slowly crumbled away.
Interestingly though, just after the wall fell if there was one country that was hyper-sensitive to any kind of surveillance it was the Eastern part of re-united Germany. That was one part of Europe where people seemed to 'get it' in large enough numbers to actually make a difference. Some parts of Poland after their independence from Soviet domination as well.
Though for the most part that seems to have slowly crumbled away.
I've heard this same argument, "I've got nothing to hide." I personally don't understand how, even if that's true, someone would want to freely provide many personal details of their lives for strangers to look at. Maybe certain privacies are becoming uncommonly valued.
Even though I feel I don't have anything worthwhile to hide, I don't like the idea of random strangers finding out the details of my personal life and habits. I don't understand why some(most?) people are totally fine with that...
Even though I feel I don't have anything worthwhile to hide, I don't like the idea of random strangers finding out the details of my personal life and habits. I don't understand why some(most?) people are totally fine with that...
I agree. I think that a lot of it lies in the fact that it is hard for a lot of people to understand how digital surveillance works and they feel powerless to change it anyway. So they dismiss it away by not caring. Just my best guess on this though.
We're fighting an uphill battle against fear peddled by various media outlets to attract viewers and clicks. Fear that is useful to the surveillance apparatus.
The fight against apathy is unforgiving, relentless, and it only works in small doses. As long as the masses have their opiate of choice nothing will ever change.I've found that while it is true that most people don't care about government surveillance, many do care about cyber crime, identity theft, and unsettling ad personalization. I typically am successful in getting people to adjust their behavior to counter these things which has the added benefit of protecting against mass surveillance somewhat.
>What does the government know about me and why is that important?
This is why no one will care until we're years beyond too late. It won't be until the federal government starts mass-arresting (e.g. hundreds of thousands) people for some thing found through the dragnet. This probably won't be for several years, if not decades, but it will come.
This is why no one will care until we're years beyond too late. It won't be until the federal government starts mass-arresting (e.g. hundreds of thousands) people for some thing found through the dragnet. This probably won't be for several years, if not decades, but it will come.
Not as long as we have a second amendment it won't. Amazing the foresight the founders of this country had.
Someone (the EFF?) put out a really interesting widget a few years ago that demonstrated what you could learn about a hypothetical person using two-removes metadata. In fact, they managed to build a metadata feed which cast the innocent person as a major terrorism threat by sheer coincidences.
I'd love a link!
Don't think this is what OP meant, but this explains something similar in a less-interactive way: https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...
All that is available without a warrant? Strange then that the government gets search warrants for lots of that stuff.
edit: Maybe my sarcasm/snark wasn't clear: almost the entirety of the parent comment's list of stuff available to the government without a warrant actually requires a warrant.
edit: Maybe my sarcasm/snark wasn't clear: almost the entirety of the parent comment's list of stuff available to the government without a warrant actually requires a warrant.
Would be interesting to get a comprehensive list of what is and isn't available without a warrant from a judge. For example...
"Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — a 1986 law that underpins much of how the government can get digital data — requires providers to allow access to real-time data with a court order and historical data with a subpoena."
https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how...
"Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — a 1986 law that underpins much of how the government can get digital data — requires providers to allow access to real-time data with a court order and historical data with a subpoena."
https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how...
A formal statement of "we want this information and may be using it." There is a lot of paperwork that government goes through to document how it gets its information. Getting the information via warrant shows that this was asked for and received in a legal manner (rather than someone dropping some illegally obtained data on a website - even if there are legal channels to get it).
I think it is important to note, that thought "lots of stuff" may may be available to the government without a warrant, "lots of stuff" may not be usable in court without a warrant. So - search warrant is often needed...
They can't get the content of communications w/o a warrant is the reason. They need that for legal action.
However, the stuff they can get without a warrant is enough people /do/ freak out if its applied in a manner they understand.
However, the stuff they can get without a warrant is enough people /do/ freak out if its applied in a manner they understand.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I think most US citizens would be shocked to learn that most of our personal information is accessible without a warrant. (phone records / bank account / email / web history / phone location data / Car location / Purchase history / Facebook etc....).
They would probably be shocked if they did learn that, but there is no evidence for any of those besides phone records prior to 2015. Thankfully (after 2013 leaks), the USA Freedom Act was enacted in response to the "metadata" versus "data" interpretation, so now your phone records (Call Detail Records) will require a warrant if you are a US Person.
They would probably be shocked if they did learn that, but there is no evidence for any of those besides phone records prior to 2015. Thankfully (after 2013 leaks), the USA Freedom Act was enacted in response to the "metadata" versus "data" interpretation, so now your phone records (Call Detail Records) will require a warrant if you are a US Person.
It would have to be revealed in a fashion genuinely disruptive to the public. The average Joe Sixpack may grumble about the occasional privacy headline, but he won't feel the impact until it dwarfs our daily distractions.
It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting for it. I wonder what led to his change of heart. I haven't heard that explained.
Probably that he was running for president and wanted to appear on the side of the security services? Then when in office it clearly must be a useful tool to start build profiles of everyone and be able to mine their activities.
Exactly. I think it also underscores Obama's unprincipled, opportunistic nature. This is not a criticism of Obama, I think it applies to all presidents, and likely most elected officials worldwide.
Pragmatism is a principle.
> Pragmatism is a principle.
Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.
Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.
Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding.
And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.
And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.
> The proof is in the pudding.
Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".
Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".
It's easy to be principled when you're not calling the shots yet and not confronted with all the realities of the choice.
I imagine once Obama was in office, he was told what had been accomplished so far using this kind of intelligence (terrorists killed, plots prevented, lives (allegedly) saved, etc) that the US would give up if the intelligence dried up. Who will chose to accept that attacks might happen on your watch as President when the tools to avoid them are already in hand?
I imagine once Obama was in office, he was told what had been accomplished so far using this kind of intelligence (terrorists killed, plots prevented, lives (allegedly) saved, etc) that the US would give up if the intelligence dried up. Who will chose to accept that attacks might happen on your watch as President when the tools to avoid them are already in hand?
Yes, but it's clearly illegal to search everyone under the constitution, so these sort of advances in counter terrorism should never have been allowed. Hard to argue with tracking everyone once it's happening without uproar, I imagine it's very very useful.
JFK.
Where exactly does Paul stand on issues of privacy like this? You'd think we is against it, but he is also okay with ISPs selling your browsing history.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new...
Whether or not you agree, there is a legitimate & legal distinction between a private corporation and a publicly-funded government organization.
Line gets fuzzy when ISPs, in most part, are government-backed monopolies (I'm "lucky" because both Verion and Comcast covers my area)
He is against them being government backed monopolies. According to him, and I agree, we should be able to switch ISP's at will. If we do not want an ISP selling our data we should have the freedom to move to one that doesn't.
This sounds great for N >> 1 ISPs. But most of us have N > 1 (and N <= 2) from which to choose.
You have that freedom now, you might just have to move to exercise it.
So in my mind there are two parts to publicly funded projects. One is whether the spending of funds is worth it and another is whether the people have a choice.
We think that by definition that when private companies have programs, they're not spending public money but I'd argue (somewhat controversial I agree) that any tax break is public money. Also the second part of whether participation is mandatory. I'd say if an ISP has a de facto Monopoly in a market, then we could say participation is mandatory. I hope this part is less controversial.
We think that by definition that when private companies have programs, they're not spending public money but I'd argue (somewhat controversial I agree) that any tax break is public money. Also the second part of whether participation is mandatory. I'd say if an ISP has a de facto Monopoly in a market, then we could say participation is mandatory. I hope this part is less controversial.
SSL should prevent that. Sadly, SNI leaks the domain name. Hacker News appears in favor of SNI though, because lack of IPv4 address space.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639112
Oddly, HN is really worried about server privacy. If we shared a single certificate across 20 domains, then people could see all those domains are hosted in the same place.
My point? We are part of the problem.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639112
Oddly, HN is really worried about server privacy. If we shared a single certificate across 20 domains, then people could see all those domains are hosted in the same place.
My point? We are part of the problem.
How exactly is one domain per IP better than SNI privacy wise?
If you run one domain per IP, then it's just as obvious who you're connecting to.
If you run one domain per IP, then it's just as obvious who you're connecting to.
SSL does not really keep the domain name private at all either way though. That is no good solution to this, because your ISP needs to know how to route your request, right? Or, am I misunderstanding your point?
>SSL does not really keep the domain name private at all either way though.
Sure it does. That's the whole point of SNI. SSL encrypts the request, including the domain name. If you share a single IP address with multiple vhosts, you have two options. SNI, which leaks the domain in the clear, or a certificate matching all the domains you vhost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
If a server hosts hillaryclintonisgreat.com and donaldtrumpisgreat.com, then SNI leaks the domain and lets the ISP know definitively which one you visited.
Sure it does. That's the whole point of SNI. SSL encrypts the request, including the domain name. If you share a single IP address with multiple vhosts, you have two options. SNI, which leaks the domain in the clear, or a certificate matching all the domains you vhost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
If a server hosts hillaryclintonisgreat.com and donaldtrumpisgreat.com, then SNI leaks the domain and lets the ISP know definitively which one you visited.
And in practice there will almost never be other domains on the same certificate that can cloak your actions. SNI takes a bit of metadata that is basically public and makes it fully public. If you want to hide the domain you need to use another method.
Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people have no recourse against this practice.
I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. This is part of the job of an intelligence agency.
Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.
Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.
No i don't think it is the job of an intelligence agency to spy on the rest of the world's citizens and i think its a terrible idea to normalise this behaviour as such or to somehow make it sound ethical.
The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.
The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.
Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage. It's an inevitable outcome of the technology being available. We have great weather satellites now partly because knowing the weather and observing agriculture in other countries makes us economically competitive.
If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.
If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.
I am curious how you would define "spying" though.
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues?
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring?
- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?
- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield?
- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry?
- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities)
- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally?
- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.
The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues?
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring?
- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?
- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield?
- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry?
- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities)
- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally?
- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.
The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.
Let's start with an easy step. Only intercept the communications of identified targets, not the masses. There, 7 billion people get the ability to speak freely. A solid start. That's without needing to stop any of the first 6 things you listed. The seventh one is a bit vague, detect via what method? Don't do it by tapping all the ISPs.
Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.
I do not understand. The question was:
> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?
> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?
And I'm responding specifically to that response.
If you don't think intelligence agency's should be doing this then what exactly do you think they should be doing?
I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.
I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.
Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal?
This is analogous to what the government is doing with privacy rights. The US can't say we're a nation rooted in innate human rights but then dismiss those rights when dealing with the rest of the world.
To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
This is analogous to what the government is doing with privacy rights. The US can't say we're a nation rooted in innate human rights but then dismiss those rights when dealing with the rest of the world.
To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
> Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal?
I have trouble understanding how this analogy relates, do you have a different one which can illustrate your point? (It may be a good point so I would like to understand it)
> To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
How would we go about doing this? Would we trust other nations if they said that they do not conduct any of intelligence gathering operations, or would we use a more covert manner of discovering and verifying that they indeed are not engaged in such activities?
Additionally, how would we be able to continue to ensure the safety of our allies if we removed all sensors responsible for detecting an incoming attack from an enemy?
I have trouble understanding how this analogy relates, do you have a different one which can illustrate your point? (It may be a good point so I would like to understand it)
> To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
How would we go about doing this? Would we trust other nations if they said that they do not conduct any of intelligence gathering operations, or would we use a more covert manner of discovering and verifying that they indeed are not engaged in such activities?
Additionally, how would we be able to continue to ensure the safety of our allies if we removed all sensors responsible for detecting an incoming attack from an enemy?
> Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal?
Interesting as that is exactly what China and Saudi Arabia are doing in the US.
Interesting as that is exactly what China and Saudi Arabia are doing in the US.
>> I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue.
Because it's a massive human rights violation. Just because the agencies job is to gather intelligence doesn't mean it can trod all over the rights of non-US citizens.
Because it's a massive human rights violation. Just because the agencies job is to gather intelligence doesn't mean it can trod all over the rights of non-US citizens.
Can you be more specific? This is often repeated, and I like to be open minded, but I have never seen it articulated as to how exactly intelligence gathering is a violation of human rights.
Article 12 of the UDHR for a start: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence...". Similar protections exist in the ECHR.
It could be also argued that it's a violation of our right to freedom of expression. Personally I have started to self-censor anything I post online.
The CJEU also recently ruled against mass data collection that the UK was doing and I believe that sharing data with agencies outside Europe was also ruled illegal.
I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. It's specific to bulk collection.
It could be also argued that it's a violation of our right to freedom of expression. Personally I have started to self-censor anything I post online.
The CJEU also recently ruled against mass data collection that the UK was doing and I believe that sharing data with agencies outside Europe was also ruled illegal.
I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. It's specific to bulk collection.
Thank you for the specific references. I can understand the argument of specifically bulk SIGINT collection being problematic.
> I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation.
As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks.
It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?
> I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation.
As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks.
It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?
My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights.
My point on warrants wasn't well thought out. You make some good points there.
As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. If we were able to say 'x' lives have been saved because of it I might more readily be willing to cede some privacy. I think that number would have to be quite high though as I believe privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and should be treated more seriously than it generally is.
My point on warrants wasn't well thought out. You make some good points there.
As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. If we were able to say 'x' lives have been saved because of it I might more readily be willing to cede some privacy. I think that number would have to be quite high though as I believe privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and should be treated more seriously than it generally is.
> My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights.
Well this is close to what is happening. As I understand it, to indefinitely store data the system would need to be tasked to track certain targets of interest. That said, I would be curious to see the success stories for data derived from specific targeting versus those which required past data that was only available due to the "rolling buffer" of data/metadata (I am assuming that this is what you're referring to when you say "indiscriminately"). The "rolling buffer" setup could not have been very easy to create versus the "retain data only for certain targets and drop other data" methodology, so there must have been some intelligence need for it at some point, but with the prevalence of HTTPS I'm not so sure it'd be useful. Could be wrong though, surely at least an interesting way this could be reconciled.
> As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that nearly all other countries are not performing similar forms of SIGINT collection in the same way we are. I believe that it is just USA and the UK who are in the spotlight for this due to the leaks in 2013. That said, I absolutely admit that I don't have much to stand on without the ability to point to public evidence of this.
> It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is.
You are absolutely correct here, the current "trust us" reasoning is unhelpful. Solid statements such as "By performing bulk monitoring of internet traffic flows, we were able to task the system to capture all traffic from selectors (phone number, e-mail, IP, etc) associated with BadGuy X1 X2 and X3, who were planning Y attack on Z and we were able to have AlliedMilitary thwart it" would be a far more productive way to have a clear discussion on the topic at hand. The IC has an aversion to publicizing information regarding this sort of thing presumably due to fear that enemies would figure out how they got the required intelligence and then change their tradecraft accordingly. I think that concern is a valid one as well, and I truly hope that we can figure out a decent way to reconcile it so there can be a middle ground. Perhaps it could even be helpful to provide aggregate information at an unclassified level and have cleared representatives publicly confirm the accuracy by reviewing the case by case (specific) classified details.
Well this is close to what is happening. As I understand it, to indefinitely store data the system would need to be tasked to track certain targets of interest. That said, I would be curious to see the success stories for data derived from specific targeting versus those which required past data that was only available due to the "rolling buffer" of data/metadata (I am assuming that this is what you're referring to when you say "indiscriminately"). The "rolling buffer" setup could not have been very easy to create versus the "retain data only for certain targets and drop other data" methodology, so there must have been some intelligence need for it at some point, but with the prevalence of HTTPS I'm not so sure it'd be useful. Could be wrong though, surely at least an interesting way this could be reconciled.
> As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that nearly all other countries are not performing similar forms of SIGINT collection in the same way we are. I believe that it is just USA and the UK who are in the spotlight for this due to the leaks in 2013. That said, I absolutely admit that I don't have much to stand on without the ability to point to public evidence of this.
> It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is.
You are absolutely correct here, the current "trust us" reasoning is unhelpful. Solid statements such as "By performing bulk monitoring of internet traffic flows, we were able to task the system to capture all traffic from selectors (phone number, e-mail, IP, etc) associated with BadGuy X1 X2 and X3, who were planning Y attack on Z and we were able to have AlliedMilitary thwart it" would be a far more productive way to have a clear discussion on the topic at hand. The IC has an aversion to publicizing information regarding this sort of thing presumably due to fear that enemies would figure out how they got the required intelligence and then change their tradecraft accordingly. I think that concern is a valid one as well, and I truly hope that we can figure out a decent way to reconcile it so there can be a middle ground. Perhaps it could even be helpful to provide aggregate information at an unclassified level and have cleared representatives publicly confirm the accuracy by reviewing the case by case (specific) classified details.
I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can.
> I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can.
I do not understand what you mean by this. I am assuming you do not believe there is an analyst looking at every bit of data that flows through the internet backbone, so could you elaborate here? Are you referring to intelligence collection?
I do not understand what you mean by this. I am assuming you do not believe there is an analyst looking at every bit of data that flows through the internet backbone, so could you elaborate here? Are you referring to intelligence collection?
I'm not being specific about what the word "spy" means here, but just trying to make a general comment about what would appropriate for agencies like the CIA, NSA, FBI.
The parent comment seemed to imply that the goal/job of an intelligence agency ought to be to spy as much as possible on as many people as possible. I expressed doubt.
The parent comment seemed to imply that the goal/job of an intelligence agency ought to be to spy as much as possible on as many people as possible. I expressed doubt.
I was responding to the point that the initial commenter was making regarding spying as a whole. I agree with you that if we actually did literally spy on 7,000,000,000+ people it would be an incredibly massive waste of time and resources.
But I am also saying, more importantly, that it would be ethically wrong to try.
They could declare war on the US.
sounds like a problem for them and their governments
I have a question about this whole government intrusion thing. Perhaps a lawyer can explain:
Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some crime.
Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.
How does that work?
Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some crime.
Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.
How does that work?
If you gather other evidence, it's called "parallel construction" and it's A Thing. It doesn't just apply to wire-taps; all sorts of evidence would be inadmissible, but of course once investigators know something there are often other ways of figuring out a means to get evidence (or, at least, getting to the point you can justify a warrant).
Parallel construction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
TLDR: use illegal methods to find a crime, use that to make up a way to "discover" it legally. Present to a judge, easy conviction.
I think the short answer is that they could get away with it if they kept it secret, but if the courts found out about it that alone could be enough to through the entire case.
> The N.S.A.’s protections for attorney-client conversations are narrowly crafted, said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University’s School of Law. The agency is barred from sharing with prosecutors intercepted attorney-client communications involving someone under indictment in the United States, according to previously disclosed N.S.A. rules. But the agency may still use or share the information for intelligence purposes.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared...
> The N.S.A.’s protections for attorney-client conversations are narrowly crafted, said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University’s School of Law. The agency is barred from sharing with prosecutors intercepted attorney-client communications involving someone under indictment in the United States, according to previously disclosed N.S.A. rules. But the agency may still use or share the information for intelligence purposes.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared...
They hang up the recording when the lawyer calls. Have you watched The Wire? The cops get in trouble because they listen too long to a non-pertinent call which becomes pertinent when a shipment is discussed.
Watch the TV show "The Good Wife" for a detailed treatment of this technique.
The author of this article did a poor job of refuting Susan Hennessey's statement that reverse targeting is unlawful and not practiced. Taking an excerpt of a Hayden speech and then highlighting his statement that "communications with one end in the U.S." are the most interesting doesn't really prove this.
The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.
The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.
Why aren't politicians and their staff using end-to-end encrypted VOIP?
The same reason you aren't. The same reason PGP has been around for 25 years and only a miniscule fraction of people ever encrypt their email.
I.e., it's because none of this privacy technology is built-in as the default into our communications infrastructure. Therefore, for the average person (and even for privacy-conscious techies), it is inconvenient and difficult, and you have to convince the party you're talking with to also install and configure something that is inconvenient and difficult for them.
I'm convinced that the question of why end-to-end crypto isn't the default is a political one; i.e., there is pressure not to do it.
I.e., it's because none of this privacy technology is built-in as the default into our communications infrastructure. Therefore, for the average person (and even for privacy-conscious techies), it is inconvenient and difficult, and you have to convince the party you're talking with to also install and configure something that is inconvenient and difficult for them.
I'm convinced that the question of why end-to-end crypto isn't the default is a political one; i.e., there is pressure not to do it.
There's a big discussion about PGP here and why so many fail to use it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13114538
Some of the comments are worth reading if not for the sheer size of the discussion. It could take an afternoon or two to fully digest that thread.
The comments are in response to this: https://blog.filippo.io/giving-up-on-long-term-pgp/
Some of the comments are worth reading if not for the sheer size of the discussion. It could take an afternoon or two to fully digest that thread.
The comments are in response to this: https://blog.filippo.io/giving-up-on-long-term-pgp/
Shifting people onto E2E encrypted VOIP as we move off analog phone lines would be far easier than moving peoples existing email to PGP. Much like how it was pretty seemless for WhatsApp to turn it on.
Email is a special case because of the various semantics like searching and federated clients.
Email is a special case because of the various semantics like searching and federated clients.
It's really not that hard. Mumble works quite well in TCP mode, via Tor onion service. That gives you end-to-end encryption plus some anonymity. Except for the voiceprint issue, anyway. And you get cellular-level sound quality. Latency isn't problematic if you run in press-to-transmit mode.
Mumble is not end to end encryption, at least if the setup isnt one of a party of two running a server.
It's easy to run your own server in Whonix. Friends can run clients in Whonix.
Politicians and their staff should not be ignorant; they ought be very acutely aware of the risks and that they are a target, and ought be highly motivated to fix this for themselves by securing their own systems.
They often are definitely doing so, at least for sensitive calls. Did I miss something in the article indicating otherwise?
Dana Priest and William Arkin's project documents a lot of the issues w/ the intelligence bureaucract.... http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/
The world would be a much worse place without people like Greenwald.
One feels that Paul doesn't quite have a full grasp of the techniques he's describing (and it sounds like he's conflating a lot of stuff that Snowden leaked), but that headline sure gets the clicks, so let's go with it. Especially since it's Greenwald, who uses Paul's jumbled mess of an explanation to burn everything down.
Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing: Instead of getting a warrant to record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door and possibly sued if I did so.
Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing: Instead of getting a warrant to record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door and possibly sued if I did so.
Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, "You spy on your own people within the legal regime you've got, not the one you wish you had."
You can legally tap phones of Americans in a far less convoluted way than what Rand Paul attempted to describe.
The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not focused on the core issue.
It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.