4 ms·

Well, you're probably right that the goal isn't simply to obstruct intelligence agencies. I am guessing that the idea is more than likely to tell them to quit b

by ihsw 10y ago

Well, you're probably right that the goal isn't simply to obstruct intelligence agencies. I am guessing that the idea is more than likely to tell them to quit being too demanding and start acting like just another client. Plus, being involved with the government usually involves all kinds of regulatory nonsense and (sometimes) having their personnel on premises for whatever reason. In summary it's probably a cost cutting measure to keep legal and engineering teams from getting preoccupied with government nonsense requests, but hey they can spin it as giving a big middle finger to the government so why not.

jomamaxx 10y ago
" to quit being too demanding and start acting like just another client." Uhm, intelligence agencies are 'not just another client'. Do any of you have any concept of duty, service, community? You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? You do realize that Twitter is a primary propaganda and recruitment tool for some very, very nefarious people? Of course the debate regarding the level of privacy we ought to have, and what amounts to government overreach must be had, and likely will never cease, but at the same time, this is a serious business. Lives are literally at stake. "Plus, being involved with the government usually involves all kinds of regulatory nonsense and (sometimes) having their personnel on premises for whatever reason." God forbid that other people have a responsibilities much greater than themselves, which doesn't involve making money? I'm not so naive to suggest that government requests may be burdensome, and on occasion due to ill motives, but I suggest that the premise of your statement lacks perspective. In this particular case, it would seem that the government should at the very least have access to public Tweets, this would be arguably one of the least intrusive measures they could make, after all, a Tweet by you, I, or an ISIS member is definitely 'public domain' in every sense of the term. I wish there were more details.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? I really want to believe that. I think it would be a better world if I could believe that. But we've seen pretty conclusively that the goals of intelligence agencies don't always line up with the best interests of the citizens they purportedly serve. So there's a line that has to be walked. How can we give them enough power to defend us, but not enough power to hurt us? We can't; we can only make trade-offs and hope they're the right ones. This would be so much easier if the people tasked to defend us could be trusted. But they've shown, conclusively, that they can't.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  > In this particular case, it would seem that the government should at the very least have access to public Tweets... They still do. From the article: "In a statement, Twitter said its “data is largely public and the U.S. government may review public accounts on its own, like any user could.”"
- ryan_j_naughton 10y ago
  >You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? Terrorism is not a serious or legitimate threat to the vast majority of Americans. Instead, the threat of our government abusing its power under the guise of fighting some imaginary adversary is far worse and has more impact on our lives. As a comparison, the war on drugs (which a Nixon aid recently revealed was intentionally designed to target his adversaries -- progressives and minorities) has been used as a justification for increased government and police power for years. Now the DEA, FBI, and local police are using parallel construction and keeping their search methodologies out of the purview of the courts. Even if there is some 'greater good' that our government ideally aims for, the reality of its motivations and actual actuals is far different. Thus, we need not enable further surveillance. If the government wants this data, it is already publicly available and they can build that capacity themselves. That being said, I agree with most people here that this is mostly for show as they will purchase access through some other means. The grey area between corporation data collection and government surveillance is interesting though. It puts groups like the ACLU in odd positions -- take drone policy for instance. They believe that "a drone should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act." But they do not want regulations limiting individual/private use of drones. It does seem strange to allow a private surveillance fleet but be against a government one. Why does google (or my neighbor, for that matter) have the right to fly drones with surveillance equipment but the government does not?
  - effie 10y ago
    > Why does google (or my neighbor, for that matter) have the right to fly drones with surveillance equipment but the government does not? This may be inaccurate, but I remember somebody explained to me that only people have rights, governments only have power that is to be restricted. Some groups like ACLU may see their purpose in strengthening people with more rights, rather than strengthening of governments with less restrictions.
    - ryan_j_naughton 10y ago
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Somebody is drinking the "Because Terrorism" milk. I simply don't believe the values that you bring up exist in Government anymore. We, the American people, have voted for our favorite party affiliation for so long now that the politicians have turned it into sport. It's not about getting people into office that are going to actually do anything (single digit congressional approval anyone?). It is a popularity contest. So, you get the least effective people in the most powerful positions and soon they will have to start cheating to do their job. Trampling on our Bill of Rights is them cheating.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Do any of you have any concept of duty, service, community? Yes. Duty is important. > You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I That's the problem. A lot of people in the intelligence community are serving a cause, but it's not the cause they promised to defend when they swore an oath of office. I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to save lives or defend a government. The are betraying their sworn allegiance when they subvert the plain meaning of the 4th Amendment and other constitutional protections. Snowden is one of the few that fulfilled his duty to the Constitution. Everyone else in the intelligence community that stayed silent instead of reporting rights violations and other crimes is a collaborator that placed personal interest above their duty.
  - effie 10y ago
    > They took an oath to defend the Constitution Wow, I didn't know that. Well it figures - when oaths or promises like this are demanded by an institution (university, army, government) for the advancement of career, it isn't hard to guess that most people will comply, despite their actual feelings and goals. The whole concept of public oath seems to be in place mainly to maintain the public belief in the institution, rather than actual procurement of allegiance.

by ihsw 10y ago

jomamaxx 10y ago

" to quit being too demanding and start acting like just another client." Uhm, intelligence agencies are 'not just another client'. Do any of you have any concept of duty, service, community? You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? You do realize that Twitter is a primary propaganda and recruitment tool for some very, very nefarious people? Of course the debate regarding the level of privacy we ought to have, and what amounts to government overreach must be had, and likely will never cease, but at the same time, this is a serious business. Lives are literally at stake. "Plus, being involved with the government usually involves all kinds of regulatory nonsense and (sometimes) having their personnel on premises for whatever reason." God forbid that other people have a responsibilities much greater than themselves, which doesn't involve making money? I'm not so naive to suggest that government requests may be burdensome, and on occasion due to ill motives, but I suggest that the premise of your statement lacks perspective. In this particular case, it would seem that the government should at the very least have access to public Tweets, this would be arguably one of the least intrusive measures they could make, after all, a Tweet by you, I, or an ISIS member is definitely 'public domain' in every sense of the term. I wish there were more details.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? I really want to believe that. I think it would be a better world if I could believe that. But we've seen pretty conclusively that the goals of intelligence agencies don't always line up with the best interests of the citizens they purportedly serve. So there's a line that has to be walked. How can we give them enough power to defend us, but not enough power to hurt us? We can't; we can only make trade-offs and hope they're the right ones. This would be so much easier if the people tasked to defend us could be trusted. But they've shown, conclusively, that they can't.
SyneRyder 10y ago
> In this particular case, it would seem that the government should at the very least have access to public Tweets... They still do. From the article: "In a statement, Twitter said its “data is largely public and the U.S. government may review public accounts on its own, like any user could.”"
ryan_j_naughton 10y ago
>You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I, and certainly Twitter, for that matter? Terrorism is not a serious or legitimate threat to the vast majority of Americans. Instead, the threat of our government abusing its power under the guise of fighting some imaginary adversary is far worse and has more impact on our lives. As a comparison, the war on drugs (which a Nixon aid recently revealed was intentionally designed to target his adversaries -- progressives and minorities) has been used as a justification for increased government and police power for years. Now the DEA, FBI, and local police are using parallel construction and keeping their search methodologies out of the purview of the courts. Even if there is some 'greater good' that our government ideally aims for, the reality of its motivations and actual actuals is far different. Thus, we need not enable further surveillance. If the government wants this data, it is already publicly available and they can build that capacity themselves. That being said, I agree with most people here that this is mostly for show as they will purchase access through some other means. The grey area between corporation data collection and government surveillance is interesting though. It puts groups like the ACLU in odd positions -- take drone policy for instance. They believe that "a drone should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act." But they do not want regulations limiting individual/private use of drones. It does seem strange to allow a private surveillance fleet but be against a government one. Why does google (or my neighbor, for that matter) have the right to fly drones with surveillance equipment but the government does not?
- effie 10y ago
  > Why does google (or my neighbor, for that matter) have the right to fly drones with surveillance equipment but the government does not? This may be inaccurate, but I remember somebody explained to me that only people have rights, governments only have power that is to be restricted. Some groups like ACLU may see their purpose in strengthening people with more rights, rather than strengthening of governments with less restrictions.
  - ryan_j_naughton 10y ago
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Somebody is drinking the "Because Terrorism" milk. I simply don't believe the values that you bring up exist in Government anymore. We, the American people, have voted for our favorite party affiliation for so long now that the politicians have turned it into sport. It's not about getting people into office that are going to actually do anything (single digit congressional approval anyone?). It is a popularity contest. So, you get the least effective people in the most powerful positions and soon they will have to start cheating to do their job. Trampling on our Bill of Rights is them cheating.
pdkl95 10y ago
> Do any of you have any concept of duty, service, community? Yes. Duty is important. > You do realize that they are serving a cause much greater than you or I That's the problem. A lot of people in the intelligence community are serving a cause, but it's not the cause they promised to defend when they swore an oath of office. I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to save lives or defend a government. The are betraying their sworn allegiance when they subvert the plain meaning of the 4th Amendment and other constitutional protections. Snowden is one of the few that fulfilled his duty to the Constitution. Everyone else in the intelligence community that stayed silent instead of reporting rights violations and other crimes is a collaborator that placed personal interest above their duty.
- effie 10y ago
  > They took an oath to defend the Constitution Wow, I didn't know that. Well it figures - when oaths or promises like this are demanded by an institution (university, army, government) for the advancement of career, it isn't hard to guess that most people will comply, despite their actual feelings and goals. The whole concept of public oath seems to be in place mainly to maintain the public belief in the institution, rather than actual procurement of allegiance.