8 ms·

Does the EFF really expect the NSA to publicly detail every time they've used an exploit offensively?

by onewaystreet 11y ago

facetube 11y ago
Against Americans? Yes. The rule of law demands it.
- hguant 11y ago
  I think you're misrepresenting what the rule of law means. The rule of law just means we follow codified rules, not the arbitrary whims of an individual. The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law.
  - EthanHeilman 11y ago
    I agree with the definition of 'the rule of law' you have given, however the point the above user was making is that government secrecy fundamentally undermines the rule of law since if no one knows what you are doing no one can determine if you are breaking the law. Its like trying to referee a football game while locked in a windowless basement 1000 miles away. The only information you get is that at half time a note is slipped under the door reading "No one has broken the rules".
  - acdha 11y ago
    We have repeated proof of the opposite – Congress had to rush to retroactively legalize the mass surveillance programs, and much of what's been disclosed since is clearly unconstitutional. What they are extremely good at is using security claims to avoid ever having to see a real court. Most of the cases have been thrown out for lack of standing because it's hard to prove that you've been spied on when all of the details are classified.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      Clearly unconstitutional according to whom? It is valid to criticize the state secrets defense which keeps the NSA out of court – it's not valid to unilaterally decide what is and is not clearly unconstitutional.
      - jqm 11y ago
        If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. If it were all up to judges the constitution wouldn't be on display and would be written in Latin or somesuch. But the constitution is public, readable and fairly plain. Now maybe the constitution is outdated. Maybe it should be changed. I don't know that. But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these measures are manifestly unconstitutional, and it doesn't take a mosque full of Koranic scholars to ascertain that.
        eropple 11y ago
        > If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. This is false, given that there is no settled jurisprudence until interpretation happens. If the Constitution said "there may be no dog-walking on Thursday", the constitutionality of dog-walking on Thursday would rest entirely upon the decisions of the judiciary with regards to its constitutionality (and this is important, as the court can functionally ignore provisions of the constitution under accepted judicial doctrine; being lashed to two-hundred-year-old thinking is not an inherent good and so plenty of escape hatches have been created over time). > But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these measures are manifestly unconstitutional You speak imprecisely. You think (and maybe I do, too) that those measures are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled unconstitutional by a court (and the decision upheld on appeal, ruled on by the Supreme Court, etc. etc.), the most you can realistically say is that something might be unconstitutional. That's how checks and balances work--only the judiciary can say one way or the other, and that's by design.
        gdwatson 11y ago
        What you have described is the sort of government we have, but it's not one characterized by the rule of law -- or at least not characterized so thoroughly as you imply. If law can be retconned, then we are not ruled by law at all; we are ruled by the ones doing the retconning.
  - nemo 11y ago
    "The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law." Your certainty is definitely misplaced (unless that was sarcasm). One of many, many examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-b...
- tertius 11y ago
  That's great! Do you mean the law demands a reason to do it? (I.e. reasoning for a warrant?) I'm guessing here.
- acdha 11y ago
  That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too. It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get exploited as well — and given all the reports about how e.g. bin Laden preferred to send messages using trusted couriers, that trade off doesn't seem very good.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? I was under the impression that the NSA publishes security advisories all the time?
    - gkop 11y ago
      At least one issue is perception of the NSA by the talented people that the NSA needs to recruit. At the time I graduated CS undergrad in 2010, the NSA was still seen as "Sketchy, but good (and reliable) on the balance." Post-Snowden, views have changed. If the NSA can't do a better job of public relations, nobody is going to want to work for them, and then this defensive work won't be done as well.
      - Mtinie 11y ago
        Conscription neatly solves that problem... Given the proper motivation (neé, "a carrot-shaped stick"), a potential prospect will be inclined to accept the offer of employment.
        ionised 11y ago
        Forcing people to work for you is a surefire way to ensure they do a terrible or half-arsed job. Worse, they may even actively do a bad job in the hope of doing damage. Plus, the whole idea of conscription is absurd.
- linkregister 11y ago
  Can you provide some links to docs discussing NSA 0days against Americans? I can't seem to find 'em.
- heroh 11y ago
  How about NSA director lying to congress? America doesn't care
- wahsd 11y ago
  Ha. I think we have established that such a silly distinction is clearly not relevant. What about the illegals in the country? Are they subject to being targeted? How about their illegal children born in the commission of a crime? Those aren't Americans, so they can be targeted? Remember, we wisely suspended the Posse Comitatus

Does the EFF really expect the NSA to publicly detail every time they've used an exploit offensively?

facetube 11y ago

Against Americans? Yes. The rule of law demands it.

hguant 11y ago
I think you're misrepresenting what the rule of law means. The rule of law just means we follow codified rules, not the arbitrary whims of an individual. The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law.
- EthanHeilman 11y ago
  I agree with the definition of 'the rule of law' you have given, however the point the above user was making is that government secrecy fundamentally undermines the rule of law since if no one knows what you are doing no one can determine if you are breaking the law. Its like trying to referee a football game while locked in a windowless basement 1000 miles away. The only information you get is that at half time a note is slipped under the door reading "No one has broken the rules".
- acdha 11y ago
  We have repeated proof of the opposite – Congress had to rush to retroactively legalize the mass surveillance programs, and much of what's been disclosed since is clearly unconstitutional. What they are extremely good at is using security claims to avoid ever having to see a real court. Most of the cases have been thrown out for lack of standing because it's hard to prove that you've been spied on when all of the details are classified.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    Clearly unconstitutional according to whom? It is valid to criticize the state secrets defense which keeps the NSA out of court – it's not valid to unilaterally decide what is and is not clearly unconstitutional.
    - jqm 11y ago
      If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. If it were all up to judges the constitution wouldn't be on display and would be written in Latin or somesuch. But the constitution is public, readable and fairly plain. Now maybe the constitution is outdated. Maybe it should be changed. I don't know that. But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these measures are manifestly unconstitutional, and it doesn't take a mosque full of Koranic scholars to ascertain that.
      - eropple 11y ago
        > If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. This is false, given that there is no settled jurisprudence until interpretation happens. If the Constitution said "there may be no dog-walking on Thursday", the constitutionality of dog-walking on Thursday would rest entirely upon the decisions of the judiciary with regards to its constitutionality (and this is important, as the court can functionally ignore provisions of the constitution under accepted judicial doctrine; being lashed to two-hundred-year-old thinking is not an inherent good and so plenty of escape hatches have been created over time). > But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these measures are manifestly unconstitutional You speak imprecisely. You think (and maybe I do, too) that those measures are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled unconstitutional by a court (and the decision upheld on appeal, ruled on by the Supreme Court, etc. etc.), the most you can realistically say is that something might be unconstitutional. That's how checks and balances work--only the judiciary can say one way or the other, and that's by design.
        gdwatson 11y ago
        What you have described is the sort of government we have, but it's not one characterized by the rule of law -- or at least not characterized so thoroughly as you imply. If law can be retconned, then we are not ruled by law at all; we are ruled by the ones doing the retconning.
- nemo 11y ago
  "The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law." Your certainty is definitely misplaced (unless that was sarcasm). One of many, many examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-b...
tertius 11y ago
That's great! Do you mean the law demands a reason to do it? (I.e. reasoning for a warrant?) I'm guessing here.
acdha 11y ago
That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too. It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get exploited as well — and given all the reports about how e.g. bin Laden preferred to send messages using trusted couriers, that trade off doesn't seem very good.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? I was under the impression that the NSA publishes security advisories all the time?
  - gkop 11y ago
    At least one issue is perception of the NSA by the talented people that the NSA needs to recruit. At the time I graduated CS undergrad in 2010, the NSA was still seen as "Sketchy, but good (and reliable) on the balance." Post-Snowden, views have changed. If the NSA can't do a better job of public relations, nobody is going to want to work for them, and then this defensive work won't be done as well.
    - Mtinie 11y ago
      Conscription neatly solves that problem... Given the proper motivation (neé, "a carrot-shaped stick"), a potential prospect will be inclined to accept the offer of employment.
      - ionised 11y ago
        Forcing people to work for you is a surefire way to ensure they do a terrible or half-arsed job. Worse, they may even actively do a bad job in the hope of doing damage. Plus, the whole idea of conscription is absurd.
linkregister 11y ago
Can you provide some links to docs discussing NSA 0days against Americans? I can't seem to find 'em.
heroh 11y ago
How about NSA director lying to congress? America doesn't care
wahsd 11y ago
Ha. I think we have established that such a silly distinction is clearly not relevant. What about the illegals in the country? Are they subject to being targeted? How about their illegal children born in the commission of a crime? Those aren't Americans, so they can be targeted? Remember, we wisely suspended the Posse Comitatus