3 ms·

> 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 surv

> 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?"
  - fossuser 11y ago
    I agree with you and I think that's a better argument. The 'it's not effective anyway' argument always struck me as wrong.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  Mass surveillance is extremely bad idea. Period. I also have a problem with invoking national security thing, gag orders and its classified response to block any further digging, which is abuse of power. Democracy is supposed to be a form of government where the government is accountable to people. But I don't see a way to hold it accountable or to correct its ways for some things I really want changed. Take for instance those responsible for mass surveillance lying under oath to congress. Where the hell is accountability? Could the system be improved? Yes. Is it going to be improved in near future? Not really. In the far future then, may be? May be. By that time I can't imagine what state of affairs we will find ourselves in.
Sven7 11y ago
>> the reality won't change that covert surveillance is not good for a country and its citizens. I don't agree. Surveillance\Censorship is necessary and it has to get better over time. In the era of social networks and virality, bad stuff spreads at a speed and scale no one has seen before. If the Twitter CEO is saying "We suck at dealing with abuse" it isn't a stretch to believe the Intelligence agencies and defense establishment sucks at preventing worse stuff like the Boston Bombings or ISIS recruitment.

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?"
- fossuser 11y ago
  I agree with you and I think that's a better argument. The 'it's not effective anyway' argument always struck me as wrong.
rubberstamp 11y ago
Mass surveillance is extremely bad idea. Period. I also have a problem with invoking national security thing, gag orders and its classified response to block any further digging, which is abuse of power. Democracy is supposed to be a form of government where the government is accountable to people. But I don't see a way to hold it accountable or to correct its ways for some things I really want changed. Take for instance those responsible for mass surveillance lying under oath to congress. Where the hell is accountability? Could the system be improved? Yes. Is it going to be improved in near future? Not really. In the far future then, may be? May be. By that time I can't imagine what state of affairs we will find ourselves in.

Sven7 11y ago

>> the reality won't change that covert surveillance is not good for a country and its citizens. I don't agree. Surveillance\Censorship is necessary and it has to get better over time. In the era of social networks and virality, bad stuff spreads at a speed and scale no one has seen before. If the Twitter CEO is saying "We suck at dealing with abuse" it isn't a stretch to believe the Intelligence agencies and defense establishment sucks at preventing worse stuff like the Boston Bombings or ISIS recruitment.