3 ms·

In reading the article over lunch, I realized something else changed as well: the government now has the capability to data mine without human intervention on a

by ethbro 11y ago

In reading the article over lunch, I realized something else changed as well: the government now has the capability to data mine without human intervention on a massive scale. (Which I strongly suspect they didn't in the early 90s) That substantially changes the key escrow argument. What the NSA et al want is not the ability to decrypt communications, but the ability to search all communications to generate intelligence. Naturally, this only works if the stored take is searchable, which encrypted content is not. (For practical and flexible purposes) So the very existence of key escrow coupled with the desires of the NSA would almost mandate that any escrow keys available to the government be used continuously and automatically to decrypt content into a searchable data warehouse. Which is why if we allow this then in 5 years or less we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion. Or to quote Strangelove, "Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know."

schoen 11y ago
> we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion There are signs in the Snowden documents that this view is already pervasive in the government.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Not only is it already pervasive in government, this type of dissembling has also been policy at Google for a long time. LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney. All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records, read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?” And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.” I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t. Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything. Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?” And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.” (from PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets", part 2)

by ethbro 11y ago

schoen 11y ago

> we're going to be having the Person of Interest "It's not a violation of your privacy if only an algorithm is looking at your data" discussion There are signs in the Snowden documents that this view is already pervasive in the government.

pdkl95 11y ago
Not only is it already pervasive in government, this type of dissembling has also been policy at Google for a long time. LIZ FIGUEROA, (D) State Senator, CA, 1998-06: We walk into this room, and it’s myself and two of my staff— my chief of staff and one of my attorneys. And across from us was Larry, Sergey, and their attorney. All of a sudden, Sergey started talking to me. He said, “Senator, how would you feel if a robot went into your home and read your diary and read your financial records, read your love letters, read everything, but before leaving the house, it imploded?” And he said, “That’s not violating privacy.” I immediately said, “Of course it is. Yes, it is.” And he said, “No, it isn’t. Nothing’s kept. Nobody knows about it.” I said, “That robot has read everything. Does that robot know if I’m sad or if I’m feeling fear, or what’s happening?” And he looked at me and he said, “Oh, no. That robot knows a lot more than that.” (from PBS Frontline's "United States Of Secrets", part 2)