The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward(aclu.org)
aclu.org
The Privacy Lesson of 9/11: Mass Surveillance Is Not the Way Forward
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-privacy-lesson-of-9-11-mass-surveillance-is-not-the-way-forward/
95 comments
OK I'll bite. From this article:
>The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve [...] warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale.
The US executive branch engineered an automated, massive breach of the constitutional rights of US citizens and the rights of people abroad.
> The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records had produced “little unique value”[.]
These programs have yielded almost no positive results in actually increasing security, which was their stated purpose. How much does this cost? What do we get in return? What is the chilling effect on society?
>The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance.
Mass surveillance programs have been adapted to routine policing matters and have served to dramatically enhance existing biases in policing against marginalized communities. Over 75% of warrantless searches conducted by US police under the auspices of the Patriot Act were for drug related offenses [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-s...
>The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve [...] warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale.
The US executive branch engineered an automated, massive breach of the constitutional rights of US citizens and the rights of people abroad.
> The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records had produced “little unique value”[.]
These programs have yielded almost no positive results in actually increasing security, which was their stated purpose. How much does this cost? What do we get in return? What is the chilling effect on society?
>The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance.
Mass surveillance programs have been adapted to routine policing matters and have served to dramatically enhance existing biases in policing against marginalized communities. Over 75% of warrantless searches conducted by US police under the auspices of the Patriot Act were for drug related offenses [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-s...
The article provides no principle by which we can say that mass surveillance is wrong. It does observe (per your quote) that mass surveillance has not worked very well. This raises an obvious question: if mass survillance did work well, would it be acceptable?
The broader point here is that there are arguments against mass surveillance on principle, the ACLU just doesn't find them convincing.
The broader point here is that there are arguments against mass surveillance on principle, the ACLU just doesn't find them convincing.
We don't actually need to worry about your obvious question, because it doesn't work. Yours is hypothetical. (And hypothetical questions can be interesting. Also, it can be good to have answers while they're still hypothetical, because sometimes they quit being hypothetical, sometimes very abruptly. But for the current discussion, we can reject mass surveillance on pragmatic grounds without worrying about the theoretical.)
It's not obvious that mass surveillance doesn't work. It seems to work pretty well for the Chinese.
Anyway, we have a mass surveillance program because people thought it would work. Perhaps we could have avoided the program if we had more people in that room who had effectively argued that, even if it worked, it was not to be pursued for reasons that have nothing to do with its efficacy. Sometimes principles come in handy.
Anyway, we have a mass surveillance program because people thought it would work. Perhaps we could have avoided the program if we had more people in that room who had effectively argued that, even if it worked, it was not to be pursued for reasons that have nothing to do with its efficacy. Sometimes principles come in handy.
Not sure the efficacy of mass surveillance can be determined within timespans of less than several decades. As there seem to be two major effects at play, one is the direct usage of information learned from mass surveillance which can be used by the surveyors. I can only assume this is the "works pretty well" you refer to. On the other hand, there are the (indirect) effects of mass surveillance on the surveyed population. Maybe the best example here is the GDR, which had a massive surveillance operations run by the Stasi (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit). They might have well delayed the ultimate dissolution of the GDR, but ultimately they could not stop it.
While you're not wrong, it seems very clear that these measures are not being pushed for their stated purpose. The fact that they are ineffective at that purpose is powerful and important supporting evidence that we should not ignore.
Here's an example: Article 20 of The French Military Programming Law, which entered into force on 1 January 2015 against heavy criticism from civil liberties groups, gave the state full access to all unencrypted telecommunications, including SMS.
11 months later, Paris was attacked by a wave of terrorism, coordinated by... unencrypted SMS.
In response, the government... pushed through even more intrusive surveillance legislation, and coordinated a public relations push to implicate encrypted messaging providers as "complicit".
Here's an example: Article 20 of The French Military Programming Law, which entered into force on 1 January 2015 against heavy criticism from civil liberties groups, gave the state full access to all unencrypted telecommunications, including SMS.
11 months later, Paris was attacked by a wave of terrorism, coordinated by... unencrypted SMS.
In response, the government... pushed through even more intrusive surveillance legislation, and coordinated a public relations push to implicate encrypted messaging providers as "complicit".
By "work[ing] well", what is the metric you see as success?
A broad society that has rendered itself completely nonthreatening to its ruling class?
A place where certain forms free expression can result in imprisonment, torture, or execution? [1]
Mass surveillance serving as the infrastructure of religious, ethnic, and political persecution, including genocide? [2]
[1] https://organharvestinvestigation.net/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide#Use_of_biometr...
A broad society that has rendered itself completely nonthreatening to its ruling class?
A place where certain forms free expression can result in imprisonment, torture, or execution? [1]
Mass surveillance serving as the infrastructure of religious, ethnic, and political persecution, including genocide? [2]
[1] https://organharvestinvestigation.net/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide#Use_of_biometr...
Both your points are fair.
I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause?
Then there's this entire paragraph:
> The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance. The people who feel the impact the most are Muslims, Black and Brown people, people of Asian descent, and others who have long been subject to wrongful profiling and discrimination in the name of national security. Routine surveillance is corrosive, making us feel like we are always being watched, and it chills the very kind of speech and association on which democracy depends. This spying is especially harmful because it is often feeds into a national security apparatus that puts people on watchlists, subjects them to unwarranted scrutiny by law enforcement, and allows the government to upend lives on the basis of vague, secret claims.
They don't actually come out an explicitly state it, but the idea they're getting at is that we shouldn't oppress people, particularly people who are already disadvantaged, without cause for suspicion. That would seem to be a second principle we can apply here. You can also combine this with the general ineffectiveness of said mass surveillance and use utilitarian principles to reach the same conclusion.
Then there's this entire paragraph:
> The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance. The people who feel the impact the most are Muslims, Black and Brown people, people of Asian descent, and others who have long been subject to wrongful profiling and discrimination in the name of national security. Routine surveillance is corrosive, making us feel like we are always being watched, and it chills the very kind of speech and association on which democracy depends. This spying is especially harmful because it is often feeds into a national security apparatus that puts people on watchlists, subjects them to unwarranted scrutiny by law enforcement, and allows the government to upend lives on the basis of vague, secret claims.
They don't actually come out an explicitly state it, but the idea they're getting at is that we shouldn't oppress people, particularly people who are already disadvantaged, without cause for suspicion. That would seem to be a second principle we can apply here. You can also combine this with the general ineffectiveness of said mass surveillance and use utilitarian principles to reach the same conclusion.
> I'm confused. At the top of the second paragraph, it explicitly mentions the erosion of privacy rights. Isn't that a valid principle upon which to oppose mass surveillance without cause?
"We should oppose surveillance because we have privacy rights". Sounds like a tautology. It raises the question: why should we have privacy rights?
The long passage you quoted enumerates negative consequences of surveillance. We should have privacy because democracy depends on it, we should have privacy because surveillance doesn't work, surveillance is racist (how trendy), etc. What's missing, in my opinion, is an assertion that people have a fundamental right to privacy solely based on their being human. That's a natural rights perspective, I think it's indispensible, and I think it's unfortunate that we (not just the ACLU) no longer find it convincing.
As long as we justify our rights based on contingent circumstances they will always be up for debate.
"We should oppose surveillance because we have privacy rights". Sounds like a tautology. It raises the question: why should we have privacy rights?
The long passage you quoted enumerates negative consequences of surveillance. We should have privacy because democracy depends on it, we should have privacy because surveillance doesn't work, surveillance is racist (how trendy), etc. What's missing, in my opinion, is an assertion that people have a fundamental right to privacy solely based on their being human. That's a natural rights perspective, I think it's indispensible, and I think it's unfortunate that we (not just the ACLU) no longer find it convincing.
As long as we justify our rights based on contingent circumstances they will always be up for debate.
Without the right to privacy, the other rights frankly don't matter much.
Well, you've got a problem, then. You don't get rights just for being born. You only get rights within the context of a society that has agreed to respect those rights.
Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?
Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?
You're proving my point. You don't find the idea of natural rights convincing. That's exactly what I wrote. The problem is that, in your framework, there will always be a good reason to violate people's rights. "If we don't spy on people, the terrorists will blow us up" sounds silly today but it convinced people after 9/11. As did "we have to torture these people to prevent a terrorist attack".
I agree with you that this is linked to a distinction between humans and animals. The fact that we no longer find that distinction convincing is linked to the fact that we no longer find natural rights convincing.
I agree with you that this is linked to a distinction between humans and animals. The fact that we no longer find that distinction convincing is linked to the fact that we no longer find natural rights convincing.
I'm open to being convinced, if you're open to trying.
> Consider this: if you have rights simply because you are human, then there must be something different about humans that gives them those rights, which chimps and bonobos don't have. What is that?
Uhm consciousness?
Uhm consciousness?
How do you know chimps and bonobos aren't conscious?
Surveillance of public spaces with some controls (like needing just cause or warrants or a human in the loop) seems appropriate and obviously useful. This would allow police departments to more easily track and apprehend criminal suspects. I don’t believe the frequency of biased policing to be significant enough to offset the clear boost to pubic safety this would bring.
I've encountered this statement before. Without reading the article, here's the argumentation I heard:
Basically, the perpetrators were already known - there basically was already (close to) enough information to foresee serious problems (in hindsight * ), just no one connecting the dots. Adding mass surveillance to this doesn't make things easier: signals were already swamped under, that's not going to improve just by getting more data. Rather the opposite.
I don't know how this argumentation squares with the facts. But if the intelligence problem was "failure to connect dots", getting more "dots" is not a solution.
* also, hindsight is 20/20.
Basically, the perpetrators were already known - there basically was already (close to) enough information to foresee serious problems (in hindsight * ), just no one connecting the dots. Adding mass surveillance to this doesn't make things easier: signals were already swamped under, that's not going to improve just by getting more data. Rather the opposite.
I don't know how this argumentation squares with the facts. But if the intelligence problem was "failure to connect dots", getting more "dots" is not a solution.
* also, hindsight is 20/20.
I've read many scathing critiques of intel services preferring SIGINT over HUMINT. Hard to disagree.
SIGINT doesn't imply on mass surveillance, and HUMINT doesn't imply in targeted actions.
And yet that's what happened.
The ACLU has been useless as a civil rights organization for quite some time.
If you haven't already, I'd say it's definitely time to find a new defender of these sorts of issues.
If you haven't already, I'd say it's definitely time to find a new defender of these sorts of issues.
The ACLU has let the government increase surveillance, force mask usage, and now enforce vaccine usage across millions during the pandemic.
They're staying silent because they agree with the policies - and you may too - but there is no denying that in terms of invasion of personal freedom it's very great and they're turning a blind eye to it.
They're staying silent because they agree with the policies - and you may too - but there is no denying that in terms of invasion of personal freedom it's very great and they're turning a blind eye to it.
The ACLU is a finite organization that needs to chose which battles to fight. Suggesting their not doing enough because they don’t prioritize your issues generally means you should be funding some other organization.
https://www.eff.org/ for example may better fit your personal beliefs.
https://www.eff.org/ for example may better fit your personal beliefs.
The ACLU chose its case mostly in terms of the impact they will have. This is why the ACLU used to defend the KKK's 1st amendment rights even as recently as 2012. Now many of its members, even high profile ones, are arguing for the suppression of speech; justified by the Marxist ideological thinking that it mostly benefits "those in power" (https://archive.is/tL7Rj)
All the way back in “the 1930s, the ACLU started to engage in work combating police misconduct and supporting Native American rights.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union So it’s been about far more than free speech for the vast majority of it’s history. And it still defends such causes, one example is even in the article:
“In August 2017, officials in Charlottesville, Va., rescinded a permit for far-right groups to rally downtown in support of a statue to the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Officials instead relocated the demonstration to outside the city’s core. The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown.“
So while it’s scope has increased over time which has created increased internal tension, that’s always been the case. “The A.C.L.U. has in fact often gloried in its internal contentions. It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.”
Frankly the organization has never been filled 100% with defenders of free speech the Twitter age combined with a wider scope has brought this internal tension to the general public. The important work they do is generally in the courtroom which is far more focused.
“In August 2017, officials in Charlottesville, Va., rescinded a permit for far-right groups to rally downtown in support of a statue to the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Officials instead relocated the demonstration to outside the city’s core. The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown.“
So while it’s scope has increased over time which has created increased internal tension, that’s always been the case. “The A.C.L.U. has in fact often gloried in its internal contentions. It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.”
Frankly the organization has never been filled 100% with defenders of free speech the Twitter age combined with a wider scope has brought this internal tension to the general public. The important work they do is generally in the courtroom which is far more focused.
They are actively supporting civil non-liberties now though, in print.
They are not what they used to be.
They are not what they used to be.
The odd thing about civil liberties is they also curtail other freedoms. The right to own property means the right to exclude others from your property. Trial by a jury of your peers means jury duty etc.
If you have fundamental disagreements around these issues you really can’t blame the organization for not doing enough. Them doing more or less isn’t the problem, them having other priorities is.
If you have fundamental disagreements around these issues you really can’t blame the organization for not doing enough. Them doing more or less isn’t the problem, them having other priorities is.
You might want to read this article and the HN comments around it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920.
The GP is not arguing against your political positions, but pointing out that an organization which use to focus & care about one position no longer seems to.
The GP is not arguing against your political positions, but pointing out that an organization which use to focus & care about one position no longer seems to.
It’s clear the ACLU is internally conflicted, but that’s completely normal. “It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s.”
The real change has been mostly how individuals say things that the organization may disagree with. Still, I am concerned US politics has become so divisive that the right wing is viewed how the Nazis where back in the 70’s.
As to my politics, I don’t support the ACLU. Requiring locations to host rallies they disagree with isn’t a free speech issue anymore than allowing protesters to block a freeway in rush hour would be. Protests at government buildings are different, but rallies don’t need to be allowed to block public streets.
The real change has been mostly how individuals say things that the organization may disagree with. Still, I am concerned US politics has become so divisive that the right wing is viewed how the Nazis where back in the 70’s.
As to my politics, I don’t support the ACLU. Requiring locations to host rallies they disagree with isn’t a free speech issue anymore than allowing protesters to block a freeway in rush hour would be. Protests at government buildings are different, but rallies don’t need to be allowed to block public streets.
A protest that inconveniences no one is a protest that's easily ignored. You have to bring attention to the issue, otherwise everyone else will just go on with their day.
Civil disobedience is not a bad thing.
Civil disobedience is not a bad thing.
Peaceful protests don’t inconvenience 99.9% of the US population and are largely ignored by the media. Civil disobedience isn’t signing up ahead of time and standing in free speech zones, it’s marching anyway and getting arrested.
Yup yup yup. During the civil rights movement people would do sit ins at businesses that segregated, blocking that businesses ability to make money. They marched in the streets, blocking traffic. Humans hate to change anything unless it becomes necessary, so to bring about meaningful change, you have to be a thorn in the side.
There are ways to address that conflict. I'm not trying to join the trope of criticizing the contemporary ACLU, but rather pointing out that rights aren't purely relative constructions. Negative liberty (prohibitions on government infringing rights) and tradition (eg property rights) are two ways of non-relatively reasoning about rights. And of course when rights are in balanced tension on a topic, it's possible to simply not advocate.
For example on the topic of employment discrimination, one could stay silent and thus not be advocating against the right to earn a living nor the right of free association. Furthermore, one can advocate for freedom from the employment treadmill that makes most everyone need continuous centralized-flow employment in the first place (this would be necessary for the negative rights construction to have good results).
For example on the topic of employment discrimination, one could stay silent and thus not be advocating against the right to earn a living nor the right of free association. Furthermore, one can advocate for freedom from the employment treadmill that makes most everyone need continuous centralized-flow employment in the first place (this would be necessary for the negative rights construction to have good results).
Many things don’t have a neutral middle ground. What can governments or other employers require of their employees?
Can cops lie to suspects is another tricky one. At one end is a flat no, at the other is misrepresent themselves as the defendants lawyer or pretend to offer immunity in exchange for turning on other suspects.
Can cops lie to suspects is another tricky one. At one end is a flat no, at the other is misrepresent themselves as the defendants lawyer or pretend to offer immunity in exchange for turning on other suspects.
My point about employment is that if employees had a good amount of bargaining power to say no (and not just yes to a different employer that will tend to move in lock step), then arbitrary requirements by any given employer wouldn't much matter. It's only the fact that people need a continual income to pay their financial rents that is the source of their needing to work and accept poor conditions. If we want to increase liberty in the general sense, then we need to concentrate on making it so people aren't mashed together in such zero sum engagements.
For cops lying to suspects, I have a hard time seeing how that is an exercise in liberty. They're working as agents of the state, and thus need to perform the specified job - if they wish to lie, then they can quit their job. For sure there is a tradeoff involving their effectiveness versus the liberty of individuals, but that isn't a tradeoff of liberty versus liberty. For this topic, the ACLU should be in the "flat no" camp regardless of where we might want the practical boundary.
For cops lying to suspects, I have a hard time seeing how that is an exercise in liberty. They're working as agents of the state, and thus need to perform the specified job - if they wish to lie, then they can quit their job. For sure there is a tradeoff involving their effectiveness versus the liberty of individuals, but that isn't a tradeoff of liberty versus liberty. For this topic, the ACLU should be in the "flat no" camp regardless of where we might want the practical boundary.
With the pandemic you have it exactly backwards, the goal of mask and vaccine mandates is actually to increase personal freedom and civil liberty, by preventing spread of the virus that has already claimed many lives.
The ACLU is a non-profit organization. They aren't responsible for your "freedom". Go put mask on and take a civics course.
That is the opposite lesson that the government is walking away with.
If Australia and Apple's CSAM programme are any indication, we are moving to a new era of mass surveillance enabled by ML.
That sounds absolutely scary... ML with thing we haven't used properly with humans in loop. So we don't even have proper good data for it...
That's a significantly naive view of things that stays on first step and utterly ignores implications and possible subsequent steps.
Given enough compute, CSAM detection can become part of the display pipeline, whereby the display is checked, in realtime, against some set of known "hashes", effectively providing a limited form of real time tracking of observed behaviour.
The fact that it exists, indicates that governments may use it to circumvent E2EE, or as I mention above, achieve so much more. Apple has been known to cave in to China and other countries.
If Apple does it, then odds are everyone will follow suite due to external pressures. This has _always_ been the case.
Given enough compute, CSAM detection can become part of the display pipeline, whereby the display is checked, in realtime, against some set of known "hashes", effectively providing a limited form of real time tracking of observed behaviour.
The fact that it exists, indicates that governments may use it to circumvent E2EE, or as I mention above, achieve so much more. Apple has been known to cave in to China and other countries.
If Apple does it, then odds are everyone will follow suite due to external pressures. This has _always_ been the case.
The US was always the most advanced police state. All the "freedom" indoctrination just thinly covers up the fact that the rich pull the strings, own the politicians, start the forever wars, and neglect the needs of the common person.
Why should the rich cater to the needs of the common person?
Also interventionist wars that only end up multiplying the death toll many orders of magnitude with no positive outcome for anyone.
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon? The oil/gas contractors operating in the region? Lobbyists, politicians?
Tragically there was an extremely positive outcome for a few very persuasive people.
Tragically there was an extremely positive outcome for a few very persuasive people.
Scanned this article.
I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights.
What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks?
This is a complicated topic.
Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One important facet is Zuboff's Surveillance Capitalism critique. How private and public, foreign and domestic interact. By analogy, it's like trying to talk about criminal cartels, focusing just on drugs, and ignoring human trafficking, arms trade, finance, and state actors.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Foreign and domestic. And I get that for national security, these same services cannot publicly take credit for their successes. So maybe we can infer how much benefit surveillance yielded thru some kind of meta analysis.
I care about privacy a great deal. As an election integrity activist, I defended voter privacy (with some minor policy wins). As a geek, I designed and implemented electronic medical record exchanges.
And yet I feel I still don't know what privacy is. Or what the trade offs are.
I recently heard Jill Lepore's recap of the very first privacy debates, at the dawn of the IT revolution. Sadly, as someone who's been working in privacy, most of what she discussed was news to me.
Right now I feel we simply need a do over. Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
The Computer-men https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-comput...
"In 1966, just as the foundations of the Internet were being imagined, the federal government considered building a National Data Center."
I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights.
What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks?
This is a complicated topic.
Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One important facet is Zuboff's Surveillance Capitalism critique. How private and public, foreign and domestic interact. By analogy, it's like trying to talk about criminal cartels, focusing just on drugs, and ignoring human trafficking, arms trade, finance, and state actors.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Foreign and domestic. And I get that for national security, these same services cannot publicly take credit for their successes. So maybe we can infer how much benefit surveillance yielded thru some kind of meta analysis.
I care about privacy a great deal. As an election integrity activist, I defended voter privacy (with some minor policy wins). As a geek, I designed and implemented electronic medical record exchanges.
And yet I feel I still don't know what privacy is. Or what the trade offs are.
I recently heard Jill Lepore's recap of the very first privacy debates, at the dawn of the IT revolution. Sadly, as someone who's been working in privacy, most of what she discussed was news to me.
Right now I feel we simply need a do over. Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
The Computer-men https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-comput...
"In 1966, just as the foundations of the Internet were being imagined, the federal government considered building a National Data Center."
> Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles.
Been hankering for this from media and politics for a long time, an outline of the general principles or overall vision that informs individual takes on various issues, but not expecting to ever see it in my lifetime. Disillusioned with the collective ability of humanity to reason together
Been hankering for this from media and politics for a long time, an outline of the general principles or overall vision that informs individual takes on various issues, but not expecting to ever see it in my lifetime. Disillusioned with the collective ability of humanity to reason together
> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks.
When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1]
From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014,
> Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1]
[1] https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/e...
EDIT: As to the question of 'what's at stake with privacy rights?', there are great films [2], talks [3], and reading [4] on what's at stake with privacy.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others
[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter...
[4] https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalis...
When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1]
From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014,
> Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1]
[1] https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/e...
EDIT: As to the question of 'what's at stake with privacy rights?', there are great films [2], talks [3], and reading [4] on what's at stake with privacy.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others
[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter...
[4] https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalis...
You using my talking points to argue against me is, um, well I honestly can't say. Clearly I'm not explaining myself very well. As someone who's actually done the work, tried to make privacy protecting systems, I can't help but feel that most people have very naive notions about the whole situation. Like virgins dispensing sex advice with grave authority.
It's fine to flap your lips and wiggle your hips about privacy. Advocacy as performance art. I might be more convinced by implementations, systems, code, legislation.
Might I suggest starting with Translucent Databases, or explaining how states might conduct intel on foreign threats without impinging rights of citizens, or sketching financial systems based on zero knowledge proofs, or show how medical research and clinical studies might be done effectively with differential privacy.
Whenever I think about these potential solutions, it breaks my brain. But I'm sure the non-tech people (ACLU, Greenwald, etc) are much smarter than me and will lead the way.
Or we can all demand the impossible -- because Something Must Be Done -- forfeit on practicalities, declare victory, and move on to next outrage.
It's fine to flap your lips and wiggle your hips about privacy. Advocacy as performance art. I might be more convinced by implementations, systems, code, legislation.
Might I suggest starting with Translucent Databases, or explaining how states might conduct intel on foreign threats without impinging rights of citizens, or sketching financial systems based on zero knowledge proofs, or show how medical research and clinical studies might be done effectively with differential privacy.
Whenever I think about these potential solutions, it breaks my brain. But I'm sure the non-tech people (ACLU, Greenwald, etc) are much smarter than me and will lead the way.
Or we can all demand the impossible -- because Something Must Be Done -- forfeit on practicalities, declare victory, and move on to next outrage.
All rights act in tension. Preferring one disadvantages others.
I merely ask we have better data to make better choices.
I merely ask we have better data to make better choices.
> I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks.
Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by domestic dragnet surveillance.
Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by domestic dragnet surveillance.
I'm split brain on this.
Our War on Terror has been a complete clown show, policy disaster, absolutely made things worse.
And yet, I'm at a loss for why there haven't been more attacks.
Could it be true that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and programs like the drone strikes are actually effective?
Are we decapitating terrorists org before they can become effective?
Was putting Saudi govt's nuts in a vice sufficient to stop them from funding follow on efforts?
Are our vassal states doing all the dirty work for us, taking all the hits?
Surely someone, somewhere knows these answers.
So here's my point:
In any of the scenarios where some kind of mass surveillance of foreign actors is necessary or useful, I cannot imagine a system or regiment where that does not bleed into domestic surveillance.
Which has been the whole argument from the beginning. Turf, jurisdictions, distinction between domestic and abroad, etc.
If our counter terrorism has been completely moot, then ya, scrap the whole system. But if its actually been working, then I'm not ready to pull the plug without some kind of plan.
Our War on Terror has been a complete clown show, policy disaster, absolutely made things worse.
And yet, I'm at a loss for why there haven't been more attacks.
Could it be true that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and programs like the drone strikes are actually effective?
Are we decapitating terrorists org before they can become effective?
Was putting Saudi govt's nuts in a vice sufficient to stop them from funding follow on efforts?
Are our vassal states doing all the dirty work for us, taking all the hits?
Surely someone, somewhere knows these answers.
So here's my point:
In any of the scenarios where some kind of mass surveillance of foreign actors is necessary or useful, I cannot imagine a system or regiment where that does not bleed into domestic surveillance.
Which has been the whole argument from the beginning. Turf, jurisdictions, distinction between domestic and abroad, etc.
If our counter terrorism has been completely moot, then ya, scrap the whole system. But if its actually been working, then I'm not ready to pull the plug without some kind of plan.
[deleted]
This is from the ACLU nagware banner:
"Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win."
Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dragged into this? Why is Snowden not mentioned?
Seems that organization has been successfully infiltrated as well.
"Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win."
Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dragged into this? Why is Snowden not mentioned?
Seems that organization has been successfully infiltrated as well.
Because trans people deserve basic civil liberties? And who better to fight for them than the American Civil Liberties Union
What rights do trans people not have?
At least in the US, there has been a flurry of anti-trans legislation passed in the last year: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-leg...
And violence against trans people has also increased this year: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-trans...
Two years ago, many trans people were banned from serving in the US military. The ban was reversed earlier this year, but that's kind of the point: there are ongoing attacks against trans rights that are still happening right now and need attention. So that is why it gets the focus.
And violence against trans people has also increased this year: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-trans...
Two years ago, many trans people were banned from serving in the US military. The ban was reversed earlier this year, but that's kind of the point: there are ongoing attacks against trans rights that are still happening right now and need attention. So that is why it gets the focus.
As much as I want the government to stay out of bathroom policies, there's no recognized right to use whatever bathroom you want. Nor is there any right to join the military.
I'm not sure what you mean. Recognized by who? If you meant government officials, that's specifically the point: some may not recognize that it is a right, so the goal is to get them to recognize that it is.
Being trans is not a protected class, so discrimination against trans people is legal in many states. On top of that, states keep passing unconstitutional anti-trans bills like NC's famous "bathroom bill," which someone has to fight in court
[deleted]
gjsman-1000(3)
The ACLU has definitely been taken over by partisans who are more interested in defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles. This article, titled “The Disintegration of the ACLU”, covers the changes in leadership and culture:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
I found that article to be thoroughly unconvincing, and the article itself also seems to fall for the same trap of defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles.
The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin...
Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
> While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...)
The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing.
The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team
In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes...
But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises.
So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.
Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
> While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...)
The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing.
The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team
In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes...
But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises.
So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.
You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote?
> But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
"Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness."
> In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”.
A lawyer's job is making the strongest case they can for their client. And tactics aren't principles.
> But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
"Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness."
> In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”.
A lawyer's job is making the strongest case they can for their client. And tactics aren't principles.
> You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote?
That is a very creative way of framing a charter amendment that proposed to build 2,000 units of emergency housing for the homeless who are currently sleeping on the streets and in parks.
If there was a strong civil liberties argument here, why didn't the ACLU make it? Why did the entire legal argument rest on a claim that the measure conflicts with other state and local laws? The lawsuit did not cite any instances where this charter amendment actually violates any civil liberty of the homeless.
The ACLU is part of a progressive establishment that believes that the homeless must be allowed to continue sleeping on the streets and in parks, even if shelter options are available. They believe that we must spend until the homeless are enticed to choose shelter, and if they do not choose it, the only option is to spend more. I am against sweeping homeless camps when no other option is available, but I do not think it is reasonable if parks are occupied by encampments of homeless who have decided not to take offers of shelter.
That is a very creative way of framing a charter amendment that proposed to build 2,000 units of emergency housing for the homeless who are currently sleeping on the streets and in parks.
If there was a strong civil liberties argument here, why didn't the ACLU make it? Why did the entire legal argument rest on a claim that the measure conflicts with other state and local laws? The lawsuit did not cite any instances where this charter amendment actually violates any civil liberty of the homeless.
The ACLU is part of a progressive establishment that believes that the homeless must be allowed to continue sleeping on the streets and in parks, even if shelter options are available. They believe that we must spend until the homeless are enticed to choose shelter, and if they do not choose it, the only option is to spend more. I am against sweeping homeless camps when no other option is available, but I do not think it is reasonable if parks are occupied by encampments of homeless who have decided not to take offers of shelter.
The ACLU has basically grifted vast sums of donations from people who believe in classically liberal values and foundational (to America) civil liberties while pivoting to a partisan progressive political organization in the Trump era. Their work now often resembles election campaigning more so than nonprofit work.
[deleted]
But without it, how will we catch domestic terrorists. Did people forget about trump!
> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely
This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/why-acl...
This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/why-acl...
> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union, summarizing the questions she considered. “The facts of H1N1 are different, and they lead to different conclusions. I don’t think that is inconsistent, because it is the same test being applied.”
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. A virus that has killed more people than WWII is very clearly over the line, even if I couldn't tell you exactly where the line is. (The same mushiness exists for free speech, unless you think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.)
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. A virus that has killed more people than WWII is very clearly over the line, even if I couldn't tell you exactly where the line is. (The same mushiness exists for free speech, unless you think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.)
So I suppose we should bring back prohibition as alcohol has killed more and is clear drag on public health. Maybe we should also extend this to everything, like drownings, stopping pedestrian traffic and so on...
IMO, it depends on the downside of the measure. I can pretty clearly state the problems with banning alcohol; I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how our society would be worse-off if in-person jobs required employees to be vaccinated. Particularly as e.g. schools have required vaccines for a very long time.
I agree that a vaccine mandate is reasonable at some point. As is martial law. But the death rate of covid is around 1% (and substantially less for young, healthy people). Given that death rate, I don't think a mandate is reasonable. Given a substantially higher death rate, I doubt one would be necessary.
The comparison to WWII is a little silly. We consider dying of viral infection to be an act of god, i.e. we do not hold people responsible for exhaling virons into "public air". If you want to question the wisdom of that judgement, consider that you quite possibly have been a link in a chain of infections that killed people. Does that make you a fraction of a murderer?
The comparison to WWII is a little silly. We consider dying of viral infection to be an act of god, i.e. we do not hold people responsible for exhaling virons into "public air". If you want to question the wisdom of that judgement, consider that you quite possibly have been a link in a chain of infections that killed people. Does that make you a fraction of a murderer?
On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy:
I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect.
It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.
I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect.
It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.
I'm reminded of that classic exchange:
-"Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose." -"But what if the other person's nose is continually growing?"
I could argue against the right to say anything I want on the grounds hearing it might exacerbate a self-diagnosed mental health issue. I might even find a way to do so honestly, if I worked at it. We can't have no impact on our fellow citizens, and I'm not saying I know the solution, but I'm sure giving them full control over our actions is not it.
-"Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose." -"But what if the other person's nose is continually growing?"
I could argue against the right to say anything I want on the grounds hearing it might exacerbate a self-diagnosed mental health issue. I might even find a way to do so honestly, if I worked at it. We can't have no impact on our fellow citizens, and I'm not saying I know the solution, but I'm sure giving them full control over our actions is not it.
You have every right to protect yourself. I don't think police will stop you from wearing gas mask and bio hazard suite. As such you have every right and capability to protect yourself. Or just don't leave your own home. Simple. No need to force others to do something against their rights.
~40% of Americans live in states that have laws against wearing a mask in public spaces. Preventing people from protecting themselves is absolutely a live issue. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
So maybe this is something that ACLU should take on. Actual civil liberty issue with states not protecting freedoms of people.
I can see the mask bans being useful to prevent crime. It’s hard to bring criminals to justice if their identities are hidden.
COVID-19 is not as bad as Smallpox or Ebola. The lack of acceptance of vaccines (partially) shows people aren't afraid of this disease and view this as an overreaction. If people were terrified because people were visibly dying in the streets and vomiting blood or walking around the grocery store disfigured for life - they'd get the vaccine like past mandates.
The article is also empty of any reason WHY mass surveillance would not be the way forward, or even why it should not be.
This is a particularly useless article.