5 ms·

I get that NSA snooping is abusive if it's the norm. But who exactly would really want to protect themselves from the NSA? I mean ultimately, isn't the problem

• jMyles 11y ago
  One of the main things I want to keep private is just family life - conflicts, love, sex, etc. I don't want the government to know about my private family life. I don't see how a free, thoughtful, creative society can flourish if the government can always know the goods on everybody.
  • PlzSnow 11y ago
    I don't think the government wants to know about your private family life neither. I mean, it's edgy to imagine that the government has a secret file on all of us. But they don't do they? It's just very silly nonsense.
    • chongli 11y ago
      Sure they do. The details of your private life gives them a source of great power: to embarrass you, expose you, blackmail you, and destroy you. Why would they want this power? Because you might threaten to expose them or otherwise oppose them.
      • jonnybgood 11y ago
        People expose and oppose the government everyday in various forms. You would expect the news to be filled with scandals of government opposers or we would have no opposition at all in the US due to them being blackmailed etc. Neither is true.
        • Karunamon 11y ago
          And? They ought to be exposed and opposed. They serve at our pleasure, not the other way around.
          • jonnybgood 11y ago
            > they serve at our pleasure No it actually doesn't and shouldn't. It would create a tyranny of the majority.
            • Nadya 11y ago
              Would you rather have tyranny left to the hands of a few?
            • ironsides 11y ago
              That my friend is called Democracy. When a majority rules..
              • jMyles 11y ago
                And that's why the United States was designed precisely to avoid becoming a democracy and instead be a republic.
                • ionised 11y ago
                  And look how that's turned out. It took less than 200 years for it to devolve into a full-blown plutocracy.
        • thephyber 11y ago
          "The government" is not a person and has no feelings. Additionally, the government has massive resources and one individual has humble resources (even the very wealthy ones). This is an asymmetrical comparison.
        • sosborn 11y ago
          Just because it isn't happening now does not mean it won't happen in the future.
    • mikexstudios 11y ago
      That was the argument before Snowden, but we now know that the government passively records and stores as much information as possible on anyone. So they can build a secret file on anyone should they feel like it. And they'll use every piece of information at their disposal (private family life, shopping and travel habits, what websites you browse, what media you consume, etc.) to profile you. Ever download a copyrighted file or view pornography? That will be used against you.
      • jonnybgood 11y ago
        > we now know that the government passively records and stores as much information as possible on anyone That's highly impratical. NSA's budget isn't infinite and they have many other operations that would also require funding.
        • macns 11y ago
          Snowden demonstrates the way NSA and the British equivalent operate on demand* at the documentary film 'Snowden'. You should really skim through it at least, you will be surprised to what their finite budget can do. * they collect bulk data, then develop the tools to sort them out
    • nosuchthing 11y ago
      The government isn't a monolithic machine, it's people, and some of those people may abuse their access to the dossiers and databases. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
    • ionised 11y ago
      You haven't been paying attention to the news over the last two years.
  • jokoon 11y ago
    Yes, but can your government really turn up to be your enemy ? I mean if you're a wealthy businessman, and if you can step on some political subject, I'd agree, but this article doesn't aim to explain it to everybody. If the government was so repressive, people would know about it. It's america, not Russia. There are many things in place which makes it difficult for the government to literally take advantage of all this data.
• hobs 11y ago
  Literally everyone. The power of the government getting into your personal life to blackmail you into submission (for a multitude of purposes) is something everyone needs to worry about. The fact that they are the defacto spy agency means they can simply lie about you, and claim their spy powers tell them so, and therefore you are guilty. (Just make sure to claim national security privileges on the information gathered so they cant argue against their accuser.) I might be wrong, but I feel like I must have misunderstood entirely the thrust of your comment due to how oppositely I interpret this question.
• thephyber 11y ago
  * There's no such thing as "the bad guys". Everybody is a potential "bad guy" depending on who the authorities are. J Edgar Hoover investigated Dr Martin Luther King Jr as a subversive and used the FBI to try to pressure him to suicide himself. Nixon is on tape ordering J Edgar to investigate his political opponents. Perhaps the US political system fails and whatever government replaces it finds a trove of NSA data and uses it to find+convict political dissenters. Just because the 1st Amendment exists and protects open political discussion now doesn't meant it will always exist in its current form. * Hackers/crackers/phishers and organized crime. The NSA data troves _must_ be a juicy target. If any malicious intruder gets access to the data (I know, highly unlikely), what could they use it for? Surveillance, tracking, blackmail, extortion, political affiliations, personal beliefs, etc. What if they don't target you, but rather political leaders in the US. That would make the holders of that information _way_ more powerful than any political campaign donor. * Have a US security clearance? You are subject to very high standards of conduct. Anything that could impair your judgement or lead to possible blackmail of you or your family is potentially grounds for taking away your security clearance (which likely means you can no longer do your job). Alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, sexual relationships, history of crime, immoral behaviors, etc. Gen David Patreus (Director of the CIA, IIRC) was in an extra-marital affair and tried to his this fact from "the company" and from politicians. In this scenario, he is a "bad guy". * You are assuming the NSA only uses records for official purposes. We have already heard that some NSA employees have been reprimanded for snooping on their spouses and neighbors using work tools. * It's not as if the NSA has a perfect record. Snowden wasn't even close to being the first whistleblower and it looks like there may be another post-Snowden disclosure. The NSA doesn't have control of its own people (or contractors) so I assume it doesn't have perfect security procedures either. That means it is open to threats against its data and procedures from both inside and out. * The NSA is suspected to have tipped off the DEA/DHS and FBI for cases that don't involve terrorism or national security. NSA techniques are suspected to have been adopted by much of DHS. This means the threshold to be considered a "bad guy" is now a lot lower than the NSA used to be tasked with watching. Apply the slippery slope argument. What if the NSA quietly helps out with civil cases (such as MegaUpload) and not just criminal? What if it goes even further? * The NSA isn't the only organization trying to gain access to sensitive internet communications. If anyone else finds out how to take advantage of some of the same tricks the NSA uses, they could potentially have access to the same data and communications. Think nation-states, organized crime, disorganized criminals, even marketing/tracking companies with questionable ethics. * If SSL / TLS is no longer beyond cracking in near-real-time, MITM is now possible. This could set back peoples' faith in the security underpinnings of the web even more than it has been eroded in recent years. Even worse if people don't find out about it.
• vox_mollis 11y ago
  But who exactly would really want to protect themselves from the NSA? Anybody who is afraid of parallel construction. And if you're not, you should be.
  • jokoon 11y ago
    > parallel construction I've read the wikipedia article, and I don't see how I should be afraid of it. Or maybe I don't understand it properly. Anyway, this article would be targeting people who are the target of the NSA, like political dissidents or journalists.
    • ionised 11y ago
      > people who are the target of the NSA, like political dissidents or journalists. That in itself should worry you.
• MichaelGG 11y ago
  If the NSA has invested money in attacking these constructs, it's also likely other attackers may have, as well. So even if you want the NSA to be able to break into your stuff, you might not want other folks to.
• devit 11y ago
  Well, if every time you sent a message or visited a web site, your computer asked you "Do you want to send a copy of this message or URL to the NSA? [Yes] [No]", what would you click?
• leepowers 11y ago
  Protecting yourself against the NSA is a good proxy for protecting yourself against other bad actors. The NSA has thousands of employees, a multi-billion dollar budget, and works 24 hours to crack, hack or otherwise gain unauthorized access to computer systems. So, if I can defend myself against the NSA, I've probably inoculated myself against other attackers using similar attack vectors.
  • jokoon 11y ago
    I highly doubt that, and I don't think it's a good logic. You cannot compare the power, tools and jurisdiction the NSA has and compare that to other bad actors. The NSA literally has the right to spy on you, but it will get very difficult for somebody else to do something comparable if they don't have the same resources AND the same intentions.
    • pdkl95 11y ago
      > The NSA literally has the right to spy on you Wow. Seriously, why would you think they had that right? If the link in their HN profile is to be believed, the person you are replying to is almost certainly a US citizen. The NSA is not authorized for domestic surveillance, as General Alexander admitted when he perjured himself in front of Congress[1]. It's in their charter, it's in the 4th Amendment and a couple hundred years of legal precedent. We even addressed these limitations in the Church Committee. So I really don't understand why you would believe they had the right to spy on domestic targets. Besides, the game played by the FVEY members is letting GCHQ do the spying on US targets, not the NSA. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUY_MBzc42o#t=882 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUY_MBzc42o#t=882
• kentt 11y ago
  Anyone who values privacy should care.
  • jokoon 11y ago
    Everyone does, but I don't think a lot of people will actually use those advices.
• Survey_Sez 11y ago
  People who know they are being watched change their thoughts and behavior either consciously or subconsciously. If the government had cameras inside your house set to record 24x7 would you act any differently than you do today? Are you breaking any laws inside your home, if not, what are you trying to protect yourself from by refusing access? Have you ever avoided visiting a website, searching for information on certain subjects, or held back writing something online that you felt strongly about because you were afraid of possible repercussions in the future? If yes, then that is an example of the government eroding our rights which are protected by the first and fourth amendments. The right to privacy online is just as important as the privacy you enjoy (take for granted?) within your own home.