6 ms·

The EFF can be a lot more constructive if it didn't spend its time, separating the reasons for censorship from the consequences of censorship, and acting as if

by Sven7 11y ago

The EFF can be a lot more constructive if it didn't spend its time, separating the reasons for censorship from the consequences of censorship, and acting as if the relationship between the two is non-existent. All the EFF ends up doing is sounding like a propaganda wing of the state department. There is a reason Obama has to meet with the Tech Industry to talk about the spread of ISIS and other forms of lunacy on the networks. There is a real need for control rods. And our tools are useless. That's the reality.

tim333 11y ago
I fear their point that if the Chinese are banning people from using WhatsApp that we should watch out for Cameron trying to do the same may be fair enough.
- rwmj 11y ago
  Considering what a car-crash WhatsApp security has been in the past, I'm pretty sure May wants you to use it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Security
ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
People should learn to think for themselves to avoid ISIS propaganda and things like that, instead of being controlled and "protected from bad information" by government. Treating citizens like little children and building parental control is not a solution.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  this would be the outcome of meaningful education. before acting on some impulse, people should learn to stop and think for a second
rms_returns 11y ago
> All the EFF ends up doing is sounding like a propaganda wing of the state department. However they end up sounding, the reality won't change that covert surveillance is not good for a country and its citizens. > There is a reason Obama has to meet with the Tech Industry to talk about the spread of ISIS and other forms of lunacy I'm tired of repeating this, but show me one incident, just one where government surveillance has helped stop a terrorist attack and I'll be all in for your surveillance. The reality is that the terrorists of Paris attacks used plain-text SMS to communicate, which shows how ineffective our intelligence systems are. All that is going to happen with covert surveillance is just more harassment of innocent citizens. What's the guarantee that the agent doing the surveillance is honest and sincere and won't take undue advantage of the data gathered from surveillance?
- fossuser 11y ago
  I think Mass Surveillance is a bad idea, extremely high risk and the potential for abuse is high. I also think that it consolidates too much power in one place which is dangerous for the future and the secrecy is a big problem. That said there is an obvious use for it in helping stop attacks and pretending there isn't is weird to me. > show me one incident, just one where government surveillance has helped stop a terrorist attack and I'll be all in for your surveillance Whether or not these exist they're likely to be classified, it's possible attacks have been stopped - the classification of information makes it hard to know. Though mass collection can help, if you have intel of suspicious people you could look through the entire history of their communication - see what they've been saying and to whom. When you newly learn that a person is a part of ISIS (for example) you can look through their entire communication stream retroactively. Since the attackers are not always that sophisticated (they used SMS in Paris like you said) you can potentially learn a lot of information by doing this (their network, maybe plans). They're posting videos of themselves on youtube showing off weapons and locations - I suspect there's a lot of information available in their communication that's useful for stopping attacks. It's a tool you would obviously want if you had to do the job. That said I think the secrecy is dangerous because it prevents the public from being able to determine what level we'd accept (and legal recourse against abuse). It also is more likely to encourage abuse and since James Clapper lied to congress about it we can't trust the organizations that have tasked themselves to do it.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    > When you newly learn that a person is a part of ISIS (for example) you can look through their entire communication stream retroactively. The problem is the same can be applied to {{political_opinion}} such as $has_been_to_rally(tea_party) or $is_member(nra) or $has_donated_to(aclu). Then, tptb can glean through all the past records of anyone who is starting to gain momentum (and trust me we all have broken laws one way or another if we look finely enough). My argument against a surveillance state is not based on whether it can stop acts of violence but rather my question is "at what cost?"
    - 11y ago
pjc50 11y ago
The reason we fight this is that giving the government "control rods" against the latest threat du jour will immediately result in them being used against domestic political opponents like Occupy, Black Lives Matter, environmentalists etc. Hoover's FBI sending death threats to MLK is not so long ago.
dannyobrien 11y ago
I understand your point -- though if you read the article, the conclusion is as much about the similarities between China's domestic surveillance policy and the new backdoor proposals of the US and UK, a point that really does not fit into the State department's model of the world. My point is that it doesn't matter what the reasons are for censorship or surveillance, if you actually want to implement your repressive solution successfully, you will end up walking down an increasingly authoritarian path. Every country has some clear reason for introducing their own "control rods", whether it's Islamic separatists in Xinjiang or immigrants or the communist menace or economic instability. The reasons are always different, but the consequences are often the same.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  Surveillance is not a solution. I would say surveillance isn't needed if the root cause of that problem is actually solved. Take for example, country A goes to war with country B or destabilizes it. Now people in country B will want to take revenge. Individuals will want to take matters into their own hands for the injustice done to them(making them so called terrorists -there is also religious terrorism which I believe is all for silly reasons). And because people in country B are also humans, many many fellow humans in country A will also sympathize with their sufferings and would want to correct their own country. Some of them may turn to become "terrorists". Now the root cause for creating terrorism was country A itself. There is also the problem with media. Giving religious terrorists the attention they crave is the last thing we should do. That only gives them a sense of satisfaction.

by Sven7 11y ago

tim333 11y ago

I fear their point that if the Chinese are banning people from using WhatsApp that we should watch out for Cameron trying to do the same may be fair enough.

rwmj 11y ago
Considering what a car-crash WhatsApp security has been in the past, I'm pretty sure May wants you to use it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Security

ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago

People should learn to think for themselves to avoid ISIS propaganda and things like that, instead of being controlled and "protected from bad information" by government. Treating citizens like little children and building parental control is not a solution.

rubberstamp 11y ago
this would be the outcome of meaningful education. before acting on some impulse, people should learn to stop and think for a second

rms_returns 11y ago

> All the EFF ends up doing is sounding like a propaganda wing of the state department. However they end up sounding, the reality won't change that covert surveillance is not good for a country and its citizens. > There is a reason Obama has to meet with the Tech Industry to talk about the spread of ISIS and other forms of lunacy I'm tired of repeating this, but show me one incident, just one where government surveillance has helped stop a terrorist attack and I'll be all in for your surveillance. The reality is that the terrorists of Paris attacks used plain-text SMS to communicate, which shows how ineffective our intelligence systems are. All that is going to happen with covert surveillance is just more harassment of innocent citizens. What's the guarantee that the agent doing the surveillance is honest and sincere and won't take undue advantage of the data gathered from surveillance?

fossuser 11y ago
I think Mass Surveillance is a bad idea, extremely high risk and the potential for abuse is high. I also think that it consolidates too much power in one place which is dangerous for the future and the secrecy is a big problem. That said there is an obvious use for it in helping stop attacks and pretending there isn't is weird to me. > show me one incident, just one where government surveillance has helped stop a terrorist attack and I'll be all in for your surveillance Whether or not these exist they're likely to be classified, it's possible attacks have been stopped - the classification of information makes it hard to know. Though mass collection can help, if you have intel of suspicious people you could look through the entire history of their communication - see what they've been saying and to whom. When you newly learn that a person is a part of ISIS (for example) you can look through their entire communication stream retroactively. Since the attackers are not always that sophisticated (they used SMS in Paris like you said) you can potentially learn a lot of information by doing this (their network, maybe plans). They're posting videos of themselves on youtube showing off weapons and locations - I suspect there's a lot of information available in their communication that's useful for stopping attacks. It's a tool you would obviously want if you had to do the job. That said I think the secrecy is dangerous because it prevents the public from being able to determine what level we'd accept (and legal recourse against abuse). It also is more likely to encourage abuse and since James Clapper lied to congress about it we can't trust the organizations that have tasked themselves to do it.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > When you newly learn that a person is a part of ISIS (for example) you can look through their entire communication stream retroactively. The problem is the same can be applied to {{political_opinion}} such as $has_been_to_rally(tea_party) or $is_member(nra) or $has_donated_to(aclu). Then, tptb can glean through all the past records of anyone who is starting to gain momentum (and trust me we all have broken laws one way or another if we look finely enough). My argument against a surveillance state is not based on whether it can stop acts of violence but rather my question is "at what cost?"
  - 11y ago

pjc50 11y ago

The reason we fight this is that giving the government "control rods" against the latest threat du jour will immediately result in them being used against domestic political opponents like Occupy, Black Lives Matter, environmentalists etc. Hoover's FBI sending death threats to MLK is not so long ago.

dannyobrien 11y ago

I understand your point -- though if you read the article, the conclusion is as much about the similarities between China's domestic surveillance policy and the new backdoor proposals of the US and UK, a point that really does not fit into the State department's model of the world. My point is that it doesn't matter what the reasons are for censorship or surveillance, if you actually want to implement your repressive solution successfully, you will end up walking down an increasingly authoritarian path. Every country has some clear reason for introducing their own "control rods", whether it's Islamic separatists in Xinjiang or immigrants or the communist menace or economic instability. The reasons are always different, but the consequences are often the same.

rubberstamp 11y ago
Surveillance is not a solution. I would say surveillance isn't needed if the root cause of that problem is actually solved. Take for example, country A goes to war with country B or destabilizes it. Now people in country B will want to take revenge. Individuals will want to take matters into their own hands for the injustice done to them(making them so called terrorists -there is also religious terrorism which I believe is all for silly reasons). And because people in country B are also humans, many many fellow humans in country A will also sympathize with their sufferings and would want to correct their own country. Some of them may turn to become "terrorists". Now the root cause for creating terrorism was country A itself. There is also the problem with media. Giving religious terrorists the attention they crave is the last thing we should do. That only gives them a sense of satisfaction.