New CIA Chief to Gladly Spy on Americans, Even If Using Info Hacked by Russians(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
New CIA Chief to Gladly Spy on Americans, Even If Using Info Hacked by Russians
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170123/10335936551/proposed-cia-chief-seems-happy-to-spy-americans-even-if-using-info-hacked-russians.shtml
116 comments
[deleted]
The CIA is, very specifically, not allowed to spy on American citizens.
Like Germany condemning Snowden, but having no problem using his leaks in their investigation of the NSA Bundestag hacking.
It's not a post-truth world, it's a post-hypocrisy world.
It's not a post-truth world, it's a post-hypocrisy world.
JohnStrange(3)
Playing devils advocate, but if Russia warns the US about another Boston bomber Tsarnaev -alike, should the citizenship of the suspect or the source of the intelligence affect the investigation?
I would imagine that if Pompeo had used such a hypothetical scenario in answering it would have been harder for a senator to vote against him.
I would imagine that if Pompeo had used such a hypothetical scenario in answering it would have been harder for a senator to vote against him.
I'm not an american citizen but I was under the impression that the CIA was foreign intelligence and local threats are the responsibility of other departments like the FBI which can legally spy on american citizens (following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants).
It's not like the russians would tell the US government about a threat and the US government would throw the arms in the air and say "Well, shit. He's a US citizen, can't do anything then!"
It's not like the russians would tell the US government about a threat and the US government would throw the arms in the air and say "Well, shit. He's a US citizen, can't do anything then!"
This more or less used to be true. But then Obama,in his last days in office, gave virtually all US law enforcement agencies unfettered access to nsa/Cia data. But you know he freed Chelsea Manning so all is good right?
Semi-Relevant, but they aren't supposed to kill American citizens either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
However, killing non-American citizens with drone strikes is apparently A-Okay.
> following the appropriate procedures like obtaining warrants
If only
If only
[deleted]
It's impossible to have a conversation about these appointees without it sounding like hyperbole, because it's on its face too ridiculous. But I guess appointing foxes to govern henhouses at least has the upside of being honest regarding its purpose.
Yes, it's honest for them to say, "we're scared of terrorists," but they're not also self-aware enough of the ramifications of mass surveillance, so they can't be honest about that. And motivated reasoning explains why they're not likely to become aware of it; They're not incentivized to.
Of the many problems mass surveillance brings, the least hyperbolic one I see pending is corporate leverage to wrest private resources like farmland, home ownership, water, vehicle and computer ownership away from individuals. With their complete economic models of the citizenship, banks and businesses can ensure through operating costs, fees, interest rates, etc. that we never gain complete control of our own resources, that we'll always have to be working for the system in the way it wants.
If we're run as a completely data-driven entity with greedy power holders choosing the parameters, the only lucky ones who can opt out are the clever who are able to expand the surveillance economy. This violates the will of the Constitutional pursuit of happiness. We should be free to live independently, happily and simply from a modest amount of hard work without getting drawn into the black hole of the surveillance economy.
Of the many problems mass surveillance brings, the least hyperbolic one I see pending is corporate leverage to wrest private resources like farmland, home ownership, water, vehicle and computer ownership away from individuals. With their complete economic models of the citizenship, banks and businesses can ensure through operating costs, fees, interest rates, etc. that we never gain complete control of our own resources, that we'll always have to be working for the system in the way it wants.
If we're run as a completely data-driven entity with greedy power holders choosing the parameters, the only lucky ones who can opt out are the clever who are able to expand the surveillance economy. This violates the will of the Constitutional pursuit of happiness. We should be free to live independently, happily and simply from a modest amount of hard work without getting drawn into the black hole of the surveillance economy.
As horrid as that is, I think it could go way beyond it even. In some form or other, we need privacy not "just because", but because it's vitally important to become and be a person. Not (just) to do evil things without others knowing, but because a mass is not a group of persons, it's just a mass. Everybody needs to be alone sometimes, everybody needs to be able to be alone, at least I think so; and consciously or subconsciously, known or not, the fact of everything being recorded and look at and/or datamined to hell and back, forever, to be twisted into new narratives completely out of the reach of the person living their life, might have very drastic effects, in the long run.
We "killed God" and Nietzsche asked if we have even the faintest idea of what that implies, and I feel regardless of that, killing man is already well underway, with a similar sleepwalking quality to it. It might start with garden variety rush tyranny and mass murder, but maybe it goes way deeper than that, deeper than even AI or automation, wiping personhood (for lack of a better way to put it) out at the root with nobody even feeling it. We get used to everything, why not get used to regressing to individual mindlessness for the sake of some ill-defined greater good of some ill-defined greater entity? Crazier things have happened.
We "killed God" and Nietzsche asked if we have even the faintest idea of what that implies, and I feel regardless of that, killing man is already well underway, with a similar sleepwalking quality to it. It might start with garden variety rush tyranny and mass murder, but maybe it goes way deeper than that, deeper than even AI or automation, wiping personhood (for lack of a better way to put it) out at the root with nobody even feeling it. We get used to everything, why not get used to regressing to individual mindlessness for the sake of some ill-defined greater good of some ill-defined greater entity? Crazier things have happened.
oh yes, I agree. it may be much, much worse. the above was an exercise for me in presenting the most probable and relatable, yet least fearful, scenario as a persuasive effort.
I like the way you place privacy in the same place as Nietzsche's dead god... a gift that may disappear if we don't keep it alive.
I like the way you place privacy in the same place as Nietzsche's dead god... a gift that may disappear if we don't keep it alive.
Sad thing is a lot of Democrats are collaborators...I worry that democrats can't put up a serious resistance necessary to protect civil liberties: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall...
also the following statement is false, because he was confirmed as of today: "However, the Senate blocked Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee for CIA."
also the following statement is false, because he was confirmed as of today: "However, the Senate blocked Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee for CIA."
A lot of Democrats were the primary perpetrators no more than a week ago. I've gotten sick of this 8 year cycle in which everyone flips their stance on whether or not a President who is for the most part doing the same things as the one before him is a bad guy or not.
It's nice to have the anti-war left back, but I'll miss the small-government conservatives. My guess is the Patriot Act will stick around again but Democrats will be back to hating it.
It's nice to have the anti-war left back, but I'll miss the small-government conservatives. My guess is the Patriot Act will stick around again but Democrats will be back to hating it.
Didn't Obama just sign an 11th hour executive order expanding the CIA's ability to access the NSA's data on the citizenry?
I'm right there with you on the 8 year cycle. I despised GWB, as many did, and voted for Obama with full support, only to watch as he continued the very erosion of civil liberties that I held against Bush. And yet, in the echo chamber of my social circle, the condemnations, the rants, the protests, had all gone silent. It seemed much the same too in the larger picture of the culture with the sources I looked to for information. Silence and rapture where previously there was outrage.
I'm right there with you on the 8 year cycle. I despised GWB, as many did, and voted for Obama with full support, only to watch as he continued the very erosion of civil liberties that I held against Bush. And yet, in the echo chamber of my social circle, the condemnations, the rants, the protests, had all gone silent. It seemed much the same too in the larger picture of the culture with the sources I looked to for information. Silence and rapture where previously there was outrage.
I think one could say that this isn't just another typical 8 year cycle.
As far as "primary perpetrators a week ago", I mean I'd have preferred that Obama do more to protect civil liberties but he is the guy who pardoned Chelsea Manning, tried to close Gitmo, and god knows what else he pushed back against. Running the executive branch means that by default you're the primary perpetrator, but there are degrees of perpetrating here.
As far as "primary perpetrators a week ago", I mean I'd have preferred that Obama do more to protect civil liberties but he is the guy who pardoned Chelsea Manning, tried to close Gitmo, and god knows what else he pushed back against. Running the executive branch means that by default you're the primary perpetrator, but there are degrees of perpetrating here.
Yes, I also would have rather he pushed back instead of literally signing an executive order this month allowing freer information sharing between agencies, some of which were granted all sorts of "emergency" powers in laws he renewed.
* commuted sentence - still in jail, was in jail this whole time, still no accountability that I see for things leaked by Manning and Snowden, and alarmingly high collateral damage rates in drone killings.
Yeah, yeah, so different from Bush. Definitely not another typical 8 year cycle. Everyone's acting like Trump suddenly has unlimited power to be a tyrant while Obama couldn't do things like this just because those mean old white men got in his way. He expanded executive power plenty and didn't use it to keep very many campaign promises.
* commuted sentence - still in jail, was in jail this whole time, still no accountability that I see for things leaked by Manning and Snowden, and alarmingly high collateral damage rates in drone killings.
Yeah, yeah, so different from Bush. Definitely not another typical 8 year cycle. Everyone's acting like Trump suddenly has unlimited power to be a tyrant while Obama couldn't do things like this just because those mean old white men got in his way. He expanded executive power plenty and didn't use it to keep very many campaign promises.
The funny thing is that people are absolutely losing their minds now that Trump is in office which is completely overblown considering those same people freaking out didn't do much when Obama was in office, but somehow now feel the country is some emergency peril? Whatever.
It's been in peril for the last eight years and probably eight years before that. That suddenly people just came to their senses is a little too late. Surely these same people HAD to believe at some point a Republican would be in the White House (I mean fuck people, in a two party system it's a 50/50 chance) and that person would probably want to expand mass surveillance, right?
I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people who thought electing a Democrat would absolve them of mass surveillance and protect their civil liberties.
It's been in peril for the last eight years and probably eight years before that. That suddenly people just came to their senses is a little too late. Surely these same people HAD to believe at some point a Republican would be in the White House (I mean fuck people, in a two party system it's a 50/50 chance) and that person would probably want to expand mass surveillance, right?
I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people who thought electing a Democrat would absolve them of mass surveillance and protect their civil liberties.
part of it was, that all previous Presidents were capable. They had policy experience; they were public servants for a large portion of their lifetimes. Now we have, for the first time in history, a rampant capitalist businessman of questionable history. His first acts are to jam the executive branch with others like himself (including friends and family). Its alarming at many levels, not just security.
I'd be worried about him dropping tens of thousands of bombs on other countries without congressional declaration of war. Or about killing civilians with drones and a 90% collateral death rate. Or about getting picked via some system other than a direct popular vote. Or about expanding executive powers for broad surveillance. Or about accepting very questionable sources of financing with conflicts of interest.
Trouble is, those are all things Democrats defended for their 2008 / 2012 president or their 2016 candidate. I don't like Trump, but the Democrats are being enormous hypocrites here. Silly games as usual.
Trouble is, those are all things Democrats defended for their 2008 / 2012 president or their 2016 candidate. I don't like Trump, but the Democrats are being enormous hypocrites here. Silly games as usual.
> part of it was, that all previous Presidents were capable.
Is this true? I'll have to dig up the history on the previous 40 odd Presidents and see (I honestly don't know). Forgive me, but this just sounds like one of those made up things you read on the internet.
Edit: Well if wikipedia can be believed:
"1 President had neither served in the military nor elected public office before becoming president: Donald Trump. Trump, instead, was chairman of the Trump Organization, and a reality television star."
Is this true? I'll have to dig up the history on the previous 40 odd Presidents and see (I honestly don't know). Forgive me, but this just sounds like one of those made up things you read on the internet.
Edit: Well if wikipedia can be believed:
"1 President had neither served in the military nor elected public office before becoming president: Donald Trump. Trump, instead, was chairman of the Trump Organization, and a reality television star."
There were 14 presidents who never served:
- John Adams
- Thomas Jefferson
- John Quincy Adams
- Martin Van Buren
- Millard Fillmore
- Grover Cleveland
- William Howard Taft
- Woodrow Wilson
- Warren G. Harding
- Calvin Coolidge
- Herbert Hoover
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Bill Clinton
- Barack Obama
And then 6 with the least amount of experience entering office:
- Ulysses S. Grant
- Grover Cleveland
- Woodrow Wilson
- Dwight Eisenhower
- Barack Obama
- Donald J. Trump
You'll notice there were three on each list - Wilson, Cleveland and Obama. I'll let you decide on the merits of their administrations and how successful they were. Either way, your experience and military service are not clear indicators of how successful you'll be as a president. Harding, Wilson and Grant regularly make the list of the worst, while several non-military types like Clinton and Obama were two term presidents. Eisenhower is generally (no pun intended) regarded as a great president as well. Don't forget the founding fathers Jefferson and Adams are both seen as revolutionary hero's.
Honestly when you look back, it's a crap shoot.
EDIT: You forgot to mention that Trump did oversee over 500 business entities that were valued at north of $4 billion. His organization has interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries.
- John Adams
- Thomas Jefferson
- John Quincy Adams
- Martin Van Buren
- Millard Fillmore
- Grover Cleveland
- William Howard Taft
- Woodrow Wilson
- Warren G. Harding
- Calvin Coolidge
- Herbert Hoover
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Bill Clinton
- Barack Obama
And then 6 with the least amount of experience entering office:
- Ulysses S. Grant
- Grover Cleveland
- Woodrow Wilson
- Dwight Eisenhower
- Barack Obama
- Donald J. Trump
You'll notice there were three on each list - Wilson, Cleveland and Obama. I'll let you decide on the merits of their administrations and how successful they were. Either way, your experience and military service are not clear indicators of how successful you'll be as a president. Harding, Wilson and Grant regularly make the list of the worst, while several non-military types like Clinton and Obama were two term presidents. Eisenhower is generally (no pun intended) regarded as a great president as well. Don't forget the founding fathers Jefferson and Adams are both seen as revolutionary hero's.
Honestly when you look back, it's a crap shoot.
EDIT: You forgot to mention that Trump did oversee over 500 business entities that were valued at north of $4 billion. His organization has interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries.
The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely.
Even if we win one fight, it's going to be a constant battle against powers who do want more and better surveillance, and the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper.
The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally.
While we shouldn't stop the first fight, we really should be focusing on the second one.
Even if we win one fight, it's going to be a constant battle against powers who do want more and better surveillance, and the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper.
The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally.
While we shouldn't stop the first fight, we really should be focusing on the second one.
Frankly it went bye bye with the fall of the wall.
Back then they needed to appear to be better than the soviets, and thus upheld the laws on privacy.
But now there is no comparative low water mark, and whats worse they now have one or more snitch in every home. And that is compromised computers.
Every phone, every laptop, and soon enough every IOT device, will be a potential snitch on our activities.
And where they earlier needed large staffs to listen, watch, and take notes, they can now automatically transcribe every conversation with timestamps down to the second. And soon enough they can even do it with video (if not already).
Keep in mind that this is all tech that the likes of Google and Amazon is working on to provide more services for us all...
Back then they needed to appear to be better than the soviets, and thus upheld the laws on privacy.
But now there is no comparative low water mark, and whats worse they now have one or more snitch in every home. And that is compromised computers.
Every phone, every laptop, and soon enough every IOT device, will be a potential snitch on our activities.
And where they earlier needed large staffs to listen, watch, and take notes, they can now automatically transcribe every conversation with timestamps down to the second. And soon enough they can even do it with video (if not already).
Keep in mind that this is all tech that the likes of Google and Amazon is working on to provide more services for us all...
> While we shouldn't stop the first fight, we really should be focusing on the second one.
This seems crazy. The only fight is the first one.
If use of encryption is made illegal (for example), and the penalties involved include going to prison, will you, reverend_gonzo, personally still continue to use encryption?
If so, I applaud you, but my intuition is that only a tiny percentage will be willing to take that risk.
Any technological advancement, even breakthroughs that took decades to make, can be made illegal in a day. What use is privacy technology if you can be put in jail for using it?
Even if the risk is small, it will always be there, and a proper boot-on-face government like China will easily squash adoption of even the most miraculous privacy innovations.
This seems crazy. The only fight is the first one.
If use of encryption is made illegal (for example), and the penalties involved include going to prison, will you, reverend_gonzo, personally still continue to use encryption?
If so, I applaud you, but my intuition is that only a tiny percentage will be willing to take that risk.
Any technological advancement, even breakthroughs that took decades to make, can be made illegal in a day. What use is privacy technology if you can be put in jail for using it?
Even if the risk is small, it will always be there, and a proper boot-on-face government like China will easily squash adoption of even the most miraculous privacy innovations.
First, if the use of encryption is made illegal, we are going to have much bigger problems than privacy.
My point is that it is not possible to eternally prevent the government for from surveillance. The technology is quickly getting easier and cheaper, and will very shortly, if not already, be available to any company who wants it. Look at things like Siri and Alexa. As those technologies get further refined, what's to prevent them being added to your smart TV, your smart refrigerator, your smart light bulb?
What's to prevent somebody, whether its your government, another government, or marketing firms, to pay other companies to add this technology to their products? To various extents, this has already happened.
If you want you information to not be available to the highest bidder, the only way will be to hide it, and that will require increasing vigilance and technology.
My point is that it is not possible to eternally prevent the government for from surveillance. The technology is quickly getting easier and cheaper, and will very shortly, if not already, be available to any company who wants it. Look at things like Siri and Alexa. As those technologies get further refined, what's to prevent them being added to your smart TV, your smart refrigerator, your smart light bulb?
What's to prevent somebody, whether its your government, another government, or marketing firms, to pay other companies to add this technology to their products? To various extents, this has already happened.
If you want you information to not be available to the highest bidder, the only way will be to hide it, and that will require increasing vigilance and technology.
Sure. Without government intervention you will need privacy technology to keep your life private.
My point is that any of that technology can be made illegal in an instant, making it completely irrelevant.
Without political rights and protections, privacy technology is worthless.
My point is that any of that technology can be made illegal in an instant, making it completely irrelevant.
Without political rights and protections, privacy technology is worthless.
> What's to prevent somebody, whether its your government, another government, or marketing firms, to pay other companies to add this technology to their products?
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
-- Hillel the Elder
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
-- Hillel the Elder
> it's going to be a constant battle against powers
Yes. The price of freedom is vigilance. If you are not creating your future, others will create it for you. This is true not only for privacy, but every freedom we enjoy.
In the last few decades there has been a trend toward more people taking a lot of our comfortable modern lives for granted. Some with a better understanding of the current political landscape have seen the people trying to dismantle the foundations of the freedoms and comfort we enjoy. The enemy is organized and powerful, so the battle seems hopeless.
Everyone needs to remember that previous generations had to fight the same powers, and they won. It was hard work, but we only have the many of the freedoms, civil rights, and middle class lifestyle thanks to the previous generations that fought power. We can win the war against privacy, but it will require a lot more solidarity and focus and a lot less infighting.
The smart way to win battles has always been to trick your enemy into choosing not to fight. Maintaining power is easy when the enemy gives up the fight or fights among themselves.
> the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper.
Then the technology should be fought (civil war), or its manufacture prohibited (Butlerian Jihad), or even better, put to use in the other direction. The latter may require a lot of creativity.
> The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally.
Except that doesn't exist except in specific situations. If the political side is ignored, technology doesn't matter because the boot, rubber hose, and rifle can prevent technology from being used. With modern methods of social manipulation (e.g. Sesame Credit), the firearm can be replaced with peer presure and social standing.
Both the technological and political battles need to be fought, becaujse they support each other and cannot stand on their own.
Yes. The price of freedom is vigilance. If you are not creating your future, others will create it for you. This is true not only for privacy, but every freedom we enjoy.
In the last few decades there has been a trend toward more people taking a lot of our comfortable modern lives for granted. Some with a better understanding of the current political landscape have seen the people trying to dismantle the foundations of the freedoms and comfort we enjoy. The enemy is organized and powerful, so the battle seems hopeless.
Everyone needs to remember that previous generations had to fight the same powers, and they won. It was hard work, but we only have the many of the freedoms, civil rights, and middle class lifestyle thanks to the previous generations that fought power. We can win the war against privacy, but it will require a lot more solidarity and focus and a lot less infighting.
The smart way to win battles has always been to trick your enemy into choosing not to fight. Maintaining power is easy when the enemy gives up the fight or fights among themselves.
> the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper.
Then the technology should be fought (civil war), or its manufacture prohibited (Butlerian Jihad), or even better, put to use in the other direction. The latter may require a lot of creativity.
> The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally.
Except that doesn't exist except in specific situations. If the political side is ignored, technology doesn't matter because the boot, rubber hose, and rifle can prevent technology from being used. With modern methods of social manipulation (e.g. Sesame Credit), the firearm can be replaced with peer presure and social standing.
Both the technological and political battles need to be fought, becaujse they support each other and cannot stand on their own.
I agree with you and think the longer it takes for people to realise it, the harder it'll become. Sometimes stuff gets grandfathered in and someday it may become a criminal offence to build privacy protecting tools.
But I don't think that'll be enough. We should focus on the 3rd fight, which is equal access to information. If loss of privacy is bad, a one-sided situation is worse. My professional feeling is pervasive surveillance will outpace privacy tech and policy wise.
So the best available option long term (100+ years) is to make everything completely open. Don't allow only those in power to have privacy because it will solidify their position.
But I don't think that'll be enough. We should focus on the 3rd fight, which is equal access to information. If loss of privacy is bad, a one-sided situation is worse. My professional feeling is pervasive surveillance will outpace privacy tech and policy wise.
So the best available option long term (100+ years) is to make everything completely open. Don't allow only those in power to have privacy because it will solidify their position.
I agree that long term data value will outweigh privacy on some level. I think that meta data will be the middle ground in that decision long term.
I do not know how governments(any form) can provide services to a user base of hundreds of millions/billions without detailed usage data. Attempting to guess the usage patterns of a user base that large is improbable. At some point in the future society will be faced with a decision to collect data for the improvement of resource allocation in all of its forms. We are currently in the before you can crawl period of data collection, of which we now collect just enough data to draw mostly incorrect or narrow hypothesis about its nature.
A realistic example is road construction. The public charges the government with constructing resource intensive roads, with only superficial data about their usage, traffic counts and building permits. In this scenario we ideally hope to get roads that support the most common traffic patterns, while providing decision makers with the results of the current system and not the actual patterns that created them. While I am sure they can deduce some form of meaningful analysis from something like traffic counts they are obviously an after the fact data set, that when used to plan future development lead to false analysis. The alternative data set would be all GPS meta data for all connected devices, and then applied to the decision process. The from where and to where piece of geo-analysis would fundamentally change the planning process.
A similar example would be for the Facebook UI team or networking team to provide new features and continuously optimize current features, while being only provided page views and raw user growth. No referral data, click tracking, dwell times, return frequency, workflow analysis, network paths, geographic usage data, browser info, or bandwidth data. Simply allocate the resources of the teams based on pageviews and raw user growth numbers. You would be able to research new features, but only by asking 100 users what they want or where they are from. Each feature you create cost $10mil and once launched can only be changed for $100mil, and the new feature deletes 1% of your user accounts.
I am not saying that privacy is not relevant, but I am saying that at some point in the future data will be more important, critically in the health sciences and public works(globally).
I do not know how governments(any form) can provide services to a user base of hundreds of millions/billions without detailed usage data. Attempting to guess the usage patterns of a user base that large is improbable. At some point in the future society will be faced with a decision to collect data for the improvement of resource allocation in all of its forms. We are currently in the before you can crawl period of data collection, of which we now collect just enough data to draw mostly incorrect or narrow hypothesis about its nature.
A realistic example is road construction. The public charges the government with constructing resource intensive roads, with only superficial data about their usage, traffic counts and building permits. In this scenario we ideally hope to get roads that support the most common traffic patterns, while providing decision makers with the results of the current system and not the actual patterns that created them. While I am sure they can deduce some form of meaningful analysis from something like traffic counts they are obviously an after the fact data set, that when used to plan future development lead to false analysis. The alternative data set would be all GPS meta data for all connected devices, and then applied to the decision process. The from where and to where piece of geo-analysis would fundamentally change the planning process.
A similar example would be for the Facebook UI team or networking team to provide new features and continuously optimize current features, while being only provided page views and raw user growth. No referral data, click tracking, dwell times, return frequency, workflow analysis, network paths, geographic usage data, browser info, or bandwidth data. Simply allocate the resources of the teams based on pageviews and raw user growth numbers. You would be able to research new features, but only by asking 100 users what they want or where they are from. Each feature you create cost $10mil and once launched can only be changed for $100mil, and the new feature deletes 1% of your user accounts.
I am not saying that privacy is not relevant, but I am saying that at some point in the future data will be more important, critically in the health sciences and public works(globally).
That genie is not getting put back in the bottle.
What we need to do is have laws which protect us against not only government surveillance but company as well as private individual surveillance. Government surveillance is but one aspect of surveillance. One way to mitigate the effects is to dull the effects legally.
The day will come when not only governments can snoop, but just about anyone who wants to and has means will be able to; so just preventing the gov from doing it will be at most a pyrrhic victory. But you're welcome to try but you won't stop foreign governments from their abilities to snoop on you.
Eventually we'll just have to live knowing just about everything about us is known but that that knowledge cannot be held against the individual, in a legal manner.
I don't think the cold-war tactics of escalation and countering with new measures is the ultimate outcome.
What we need to do is have laws which protect us against not only government surveillance but company as well as private individual surveillance. Government surveillance is but one aspect of surveillance. One way to mitigate the effects is to dull the effects legally.
The day will come when not only governments can snoop, but just about anyone who wants to and has means will be able to; so just preventing the gov from doing it will be at most a pyrrhic victory. But you're welcome to try but you won't stop foreign governments from their abilities to snoop on you.
Eventually we'll just have to live knowing just about everything about us is known but that that knowledge cannot be held against the individual, in a legal manner.
I don't think the cold-war tactics of escalation and countering with new measures is the ultimate outcome.
Eventually we'll just have to live knowing just about everything about us is known but that that knowledge cannot be held against the individual, in a legal manner.
That's the optimistic endgame. I don't think there is a technological solution to this.
The more pessimistic view suggests a future totalitarian surveillance state.
It's going to be an interesting four years.
That's the optimistic endgame. I don't think there is a technological solution to this.
The more pessimistic view suggests a future totalitarian surveillance state.
It's going to be an interesting four years.
What "legally-enforced privacy" are you talking about? In most of the world, at least until recently, Internet traffic has been in the same category as radio traffic i.e. essentially unprotected. Who is this "we" you're talking about? The people who are upset over privacy are journalist, lawyers and politicians not geeks making bank at tech companies. Why do you think "technologically enforced privacy" will work when there's already been 20 years to criticize standard agencies and companies for their failures to establish privacy in Internet communication?
Take a look at any given day on HN. Programmers want freedom to program in unrestricted languages like C, they want to make the high salaries of data mining companies, they want to continue using protocols that are hard to make secure like e-mail etc.
I don't think you have to decide much over which fight to fight considering there isn't really one in the first place.
Take a look at any given day on HN. Programmers want freedom to program in unrestricted languages like C, they want to make the high salaries of data mining companies, they want to continue using protocols that are hard to make secure like e-mail etc.
I don't think you have to decide much over which fight to fight considering there isn't really one in the first place.
>The days of legally-enforced privacy are at best numbered, if not gone completely.
Well, if not other legal means left, you have other options. You happy Americans can buy guns legally, and "right to revolution" is pretty much written in your constitution.
Well, if not other legal means left, you have other options. You happy Americans can buy guns legally, and "right to revolution" is pretty much written in your constitution.
It honestly shocks me when people think that the individual still has this much power. The power of government has changed a bit since the 1700s, unless people plan of acquiring a large fleet of planes and tanks, this is just farsical.
I recall Vietnam managing to survive the US Army despite lacking planes and tanks. Holding land ultimately requires boots on the ground, so unless the government plans to engage in total war against an insurrection (mass bomb American cities), guerrilla will be possible.
It's also highly likely a portion of the army would defect if things get that far, making it less a revolution and more a civil war.
It's also highly likely a portion of the army would defect if things get that far, making it less a revolution and more a civil war.
In my experience Americans get (rightfully) nervous just by the presence of police officers, the thought of protesting or even talking about politics. A US conflict involving guns is more likely to resemble Cambodia than Vietnam.
That's true. The situation needs to get very dire before random Americans are willing to take up arms.
Personally, I think a civil war is likelier than a revolution, due to the army dividing. Though to be clear, both seem rather unlikely.
Personally, I think a civil war is likelier than a revolution, due to the army dividing. Though to be clear, both seem rather unlikely.
I'm pretty surprised when people think the US government is essentially omnipotent. Look how poorly they fared against a bunch of people living in dirt houses and caves with rusted Soviet rifles. It's easy to win when you can just steamroll a country, but it's far harder when you need to balance the need for support & legitimacy from the non-fighting majority.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10752635#10753894
You should read my comment from a year ago that addressed why the situation would be much more complicated, and certainly not "farcical".
You should read my comment from a year ago that addressed why the situation would be much more complicated, and certainly not "farcical".
To be fair, while we have "right to revolution" we do not have the "ability to revolt", at least not militarily. Like another poster said, the strength of the government has come a long way since the 1700s.
On the same note, what is happening right now in the States is pretty much half of the country revolting, for better or for worse.
On the same note, what is happening right now in the States is pretty much half of the country revolting, for better or for worse.
I've started to think there are only two ways to impact government policy:
- Have hundreds of millions or billions to spend on lobbying and otherwise playing the regulatory capture game
- Create a reasonable sized public following of single-issue voters
As others have said, this is a battle that comes up over and over and over. Unless there are voters willing to go nuclear (cross party lines, support insurgent challenges to incumbents) these rights are precarious.
- Have hundreds of millions or billions to spend on lobbying and otherwise playing the regulatory capture game
- Create a reasonable sized public following of single-issue voters
As others have said, this is a battle that comes up over and over and over. Unless there are voters willing to go nuclear (cross party lines, support insurgent challenges to incumbents) these rights are precarious.
It doesn't help to cross party lines if both are trying to seize the power.
If you live in California and you are at all concerned about this, you must call Sen. Feinstein's offices and tell her staff that you oppose the Senator's vote to confirm Pompeo and will work to support her opposition in the 2018 midterms (she is up for re-election).
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-...?
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-...?
You mean this Feinstein ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinste...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/dianne-feinste...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160408/08381934131/burr-...
Yes that Feinstein. Call her office and exert political pressure. All we do is complain on the Internet about it, then wonder why our politicians don't listen to us. Feinstein doesn't read Hacker News.
> Call her office and exert political pressure
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. Call and that's it. Your 'representatives' are not your representatives. There is no pressure that you can place on them.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. Call and that's it. Your 'representatives' are not your representatives. There is no pressure that you can place on them.
They absolutely care if you call, if you show up to town hall meetings. It matters. They are elected officials, and they do ultimately care and worry that if they do unpopular things they will not get re-elected.
There is an excellent write up of how this works and why it works from a former congressional aide: https://qz.com/836737/fomer-congressional-staffer-twitter-ti...
Take action!
Write your senators numbers on a note by your desk, put them in your phone as contacts. Add your house representatives as well. When you hear about an important issue, make a quick call. Ask them to represent you on upcoming issues. Thank them for their position on issues you support, let them know you are disappointed in them for things you oppose.
There is an excellent write up of how this works and why it works from a former congressional aide: https://qz.com/836737/fomer-congressional-staffer-twitter-ti...
Take action!
Write your senators numbers on a note by your desk, put them in your phone as contacts. Add your house representatives as well. When you hear about an important issue, make a quick call. Ask them to represent you on upcoming issues. Thank them for their position on issues you support, let them know you are disappointed in them for things you oppose.
> if they do unpopular things they will not get re-elected.
An incumbent has over a 90% chance of being reelected until they decide not to run anymore. They literally do not need to care after they've told whatever lies they needed to tell to get elected the first time.
An incumbent has over a 90% chance of being reelected until they decide not to run anymore. They literally do not need to care after they've told whatever lies they needed to tell to get elected the first time.
> An incumbent has over a 90% chance...
You're assuming that public officials are automata that don't suffer from risk aversion, don't need to raise money in close races, and don't change their behaviour based on whether they have public opinion behind them. I wouldn't bet on that being true.
You're assuming that public officials are automata that don't suffer from risk aversion, don't need to raise money in close races, and don't change their behaviour based on whether they have public opinion behind them. I wouldn't bet on that being true.
They can read. They can see that they have a 90% reelection chance with their peers as a group having disgustingly low approval ratings. They can see that they still don't have problems raising money with those low approval ratings.
They do not need to care about you.
Talking about Feinstein in particular -
* January 17, 2011 Approval rating measured at 43%
* May 12, 2011, Feinstein co-sponsored PIPA
* PIPA gets mass blow back
* 2012 Reelected
* 2013 moves to continue mass survailance
* After the 2016 FBI–Apple encryption dispute, Feinstein, along with Richard Burr, sponsored a bill that would be likely to criminalize all forms of strong encryption
* 2016 Reelected
She knows she doesn't need to give a damn about your issues with mass surveillance.
They do not need to care about you.
Talking about Feinstein in particular -
* January 17, 2011 Approval rating measured at 43%
* May 12, 2011, Feinstein co-sponsored PIPA
* PIPA gets mass blow back
* 2012 Reelected
* 2013 moves to continue mass survailance
* After the 2016 FBI–Apple encryption dispute, Feinstein, along with Richard Burr, sponsored a bill that would be likely to criminalize all forms of strong encryption
* 2016 Reelected
She knows she doesn't need to give a damn about your issues with mass surveillance.
It's incredibly easy to be this casually cynical, but reality doesn't match this simple worldview.
When you start to meet people in positions of power you realise that they're not a bunch of sleazy villains, they're complicated people who (for the most part) think they're doing the right thing in a difficult and often contradictory environment.
When you start to meet people in positions of power you realise that they're not a bunch of sleazy villains, they're complicated people who (for the most part) think they're doing the right thing in a difficult and often contradictory environment.
You maybe right, but I have a hard time understanding how people can believe they are doing the "right thing", while trampling on their own citizens' privacy and basic rights.
I can understand if it is a super complicated trade treaty, but something straightforward like "don't spy on your people, that too with not much oversight etc" - is that too hard to understand?
I can understand if it is a super complicated trade treaty, but something straightforward like "don't spy on your people, that too with not much oversight etc" - is that too hard to understand?
> I have a hard time understanding... trampling on their own citizens' privacy and basic rights
Confirmation bias goes a long long way.
Take gerrymandering, which is as undemocratic is it gets. If you already believed yourself to be one of the 'good guys', it wouldn't be hard to convince yourself that gerrymandering (as a tool of last resort) is an acceptable way to hold at bay the forces of moral degeneracy... especially when other 'good guys' tell you its okay, and you can find some character flaw or weakness in your opponent that you can use to licence your own.
Confirmation bias is well documented, but check out Daniel Effron's work on 'moral licencing'. He showed that people tend to horse-trade ethics, excusing biased or self-serving behaviour with the points scored from virtuous behaviour... one example being an experiment where the subjects exhibited increased racial bias when they'd previously been given an opportunity to state that they'd voted for Obama.
Confirmation bias goes a long long way.
Take gerrymandering, which is as undemocratic is it gets. If you already believed yourself to be one of the 'good guys', it wouldn't be hard to convince yourself that gerrymandering (as a tool of last resort) is an acceptable way to hold at bay the forces of moral degeneracy... especially when other 'good guys' tell you its okay, and you can find some character flaw or weakness in your opponent that you can use to licence your own.
Confirmation bias is well documented, but check out Daniel Effron's work on 'moral licencing'. He showed that people tend to horse-trade ethics, excusing biased or self-serving behaviour with the points scored from virtuous behaviour... one example being an experiment where the subjects exhibited increased racial bias when they'd previously been given an opportunity to state that they'd voted for Obama.
2016 Reelected
That's why representative democracy is a broken and inefficient system that can be easily rigged (gerrymandering, poor turnout, bought politicians, media ignoring a candidate, media covering a candidate nonstop, broken promises, pulling a fast one etc.)
With today's advances in statistics and technology, people could be polled for their opinions on issues by hundreds of independent and transparent public polling companies. Just like jury duty but easier and on your phone. You can't buy all the people all the time. It's too expensive. But you can perpetuate the system that engulfs their representatives all of the time.
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212
With today's advances in statistics and technology, people could be polled for their opinions on issues by hundreds of independent and transparent public polling companies. Just like jury duty but easier and on your phone. You can't buy all the people all the time. It's too expensive. But you can perpetuate the system that engulfs their representatives all of the time.
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212
Yes - but is that because they respond to calls from people who wouldn't vote for them next time?
That is to say - may it's that high because they respond to people who call in.
That is to say - may it's that high because they respond to people who call in.
This is an easy one. No it's not
[deleted]
You should tell that to all the moderate republican incumbents that lost their jobs to the Tea Party drones in 2010. Overnight, the party transformed from far-right conservative, to bonkers-cut-off-nose-to-spite-your-face lunacy.
California is effectively a single-party state, Feinstein (and whoever replaces her) is secure enough in her position to not care about most of her constituents.
California may be a single-party state, but she can still be deposed in a primary. And if she's any good at surviving as a politician, that is the prospect that terrifies her.
This mechanism - calling your congressperson, threats to replace them in the next primaries, showing up to townhalls, etc, is precisely how the Tea Party seized power. The republicans they didn't replace fell in line with their agenda.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/download-the-guide
This mechanism - calling your congressperson, threats to replace them in the next primaries, showing up to townhalls, etc, is precisely how the Tea Party seized power. The republicans they didn't replace fell in line with their agenda.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/download-the-guide
Laugh or cry then, but get out of the way, and know that you did nothing for your country.
the only time any politician cares about voters opinion is elections. after that, the choice was made and that's it.
I mean, I like your enthusiasm, just wondering how come you didn't adjust it with reality of these days.
I mean, I like your enthusiasm, just wondering how come you didn't adjust it with reality of these days.
The US is not my country. I just pay taxes here, but that doesn't make me blind.
The Tea Partiers were actually really effective in their tactics to continue to call their representatives, showing up for every election, and running their candidates for every single position in local government.
Calling and showing up counts.
Calling and showing up counts.
If you are a voting constituent of Senator Feinstein, you'd better believe she's going to listen to you,lest she put her or her sucessor's political career in Jeopardy. No good politician today is going to make Eric Cantor's mistake of ignoring activists in their own party, only to find themselves out of a job by the general election.
Just don't expect elected officials to pay attention to you if you aren't a part of their voting district.
Just don't expect elected officials to pay attention to you if you aren't a part of their voting district.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. Everything you say is true - politicians fear the primaries, they fear domestic outrage over their policies, and they don't care one whit for someone calling from the other side of the country to complain about them.
Isn't it interesting how only the elderly participate actively in politics in the US, and somehow the US political landscape is completely controlled by the elderly?
What a weird coincidence. Someone should tell them that political activism is pointless.
What a weird coincidence. Someone should tell them that political activism is pointless.
Sure there is.
You call.
You show up everywhere they talk.
You run against them. etc
The amount of apathy in america is impressive.
"Eh, it'll never work" seems to be the rallying cry of today's america.
You call.
You show up everywhere they talk.
You run against them. etc
The amount of apathy in america is impressive.
"Eh, it'll never work" seems to be the rallying cry of today's america.
So unless someone dedicates themselves full-time to holding every elected politician accountable they are considered apathetic?
I'm sorry but that's not realistic, people have lives to live and survive through.
I'm sorry but that's not realistic, people have lives to live and survive through.
That's not really fair, the Tea Party (and a broadening coalition of conservatives) did an amazing job of using activism to increase their influence.
I think he agrees, and that's his point.
As written the comment doesn't consider them part of 'today's america'. I think government skeptical conservatives end up being a pretty big chunk of the electorate.
and when do you do that when you have long working hours and kids at home too?
politicians absolutely pay attention to phone call numbers.
Also, are you really saying this after literally someone nobody thought had any chance for years, beat out an entire field of well-established candidates and a large favorite to become president?
You're going to try to say that Trump was subject to the people when he actually lost the peoples vote.
Trump is president because the US has an idiotic system that reduced the effectiveness of peoples votes for living in popular places.
Besides, we were talking about representatives, the people do not vote for the President, states do.
Trump is president because the US has an idiotic system that reduced the effectiveness of peoples votes for living in popular places.
Besides, we were talking about representatives, the people do not vote for the President, states do.
Only way to "exert political pressure" is to get big money out of politics by any means necessary.
This is so ridiculously false i don't know where to begin.
It's mostly something people who are too lazy to try anything effective tell themselves to make them feel better about doing nothing.
It's not all out of your hands and in the hands of "big money" or whatever boogeyman of the day is.
It's not all out of your hands and in the hands of "big money" or whatever boogeyman of the day is.
Not just big money but also dark money. We don't even know half of the organizations and individuals that our representatives are beholden to.
But feel free to state your case for why outsized spending on political influence is a good and/or neutral thing for society.
But feel free to state your case for why outsized spending on political influence is a good and/or neutral thing for society.
If you live outside her jurisdiction, her staff's default response is "You can't vote for me, so I'm going to ignore you."
So I write letters that say I'm contributing to her political opponents. You can do this if you live in another state. And money talks louder than votes.
So I write letters that say I'm contributing to her political opponents. You can do this if you live in another state. And money talks louder than votes.
It's already over, he's confirmed.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-confirms-mike-pompe...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-confirms-mike-pompe...
I'm aware. That why I said "oppose the Senator's vote to confirm Pompeo." She needs to be held accountable. Stop spending time responding to comments on the Internet if you haven't called yet. It takes 5 minutes.
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure California companies like Google, Palantir, or Cisco will happily provided the technologies for a distopia suvalience state.
Well, stop looking to profit-focused corporations to take care of us and start using what democracy we've got left.
I'm surprised to see you lump Google in with Palantir, of all companies. Google has been fighting back against government overreach since the beginning.
They were the first internet company to publish a transparency report, for example [1]. Now copied by all the big players.
I remember them fighting back over a decade ago against government requests for search data, when others simply complied. [2]
[1] https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/?authuser=1
[2] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-doj-moti...
They were the first internet company to publish a transparency report, for example [1]. Now copied by all the big players.
I remember them fighting back over a decade ago against government requests for search data, when others simply complied. [2]
[1] https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/?authuser=1
[2] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-doj-moti...
> Google has been fighting back against government overreach since the beginning.
Hey, no fair! That's our panopticon, not yours!
Hey, no fair! That's our panopticon, not yours!
For her to lose means a Republican wins. Never gonna happen in California.
That's not necessarily true given how the jungle primary system works.
Also I have my doubts that she will run for re-election. Garcetti will probably take a shot.
Also I have my doubts that she will run for re-election. Garcetti will probably take a shot.
For the CA senate election in 2016, two Democrats ended up running against each other in the general election as the outcome of the open primary. So for Feinstein to lose it doesn't guarantee that at all.
Reminder folks, this is where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has your back. Look at their Surveillance Self Defense kit for ways to defend against overzealous wiretapping.
https://ssd.eff.org
https://ssd.eff.org
They are giving Count Trump leskin everything that he needs to fail fast.