4 ms·

I like to have a thought exercise about the constitutional way to achieve the same result You Game?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mastazi 10y ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. One of the reasons why the Constitution exists is that, thanks to its very existence, some things become unconstitutional. If we were to conclude that there isn't a constitutional way to achieve legalised mass surveillance, then we would have to conclude that that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. I would be quite happy with that conclusion, if I may add.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  This case is about targeted, not mass, surveillance.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    What if the "target site" was Gmail? Would you still call it targeted surveillance? What's the limit under which we consider surveillance to be targeted? 100,000 users? One million? 10 millions?
    - nullc 10y ago
      Well... there probably is more child porn in gmail.
      - mastazi 10y ago
        Exactly. As the article explains, "the FBI received a tip from a foreign law enforcement agency that a Tor Hidden Service site called “Playpen” was hosting child pornography". What if the FBI received a tip that Gmail users are hosting child pornography? Would they be allowed to infect Gmail users' computers?
        ikeboy 10y ago
        The entire purpose of playpen was child pornography. The FBI knew that, I assume they could just go on the site and check. The tip was just telling them how to find the location of the site so they could do something about it. If the entire purpose of gmail was to facilitate illegal sharing of cp, then yes. (I gather that they also had discussion forums of some sort, but that the FBI only used the malware against people who visited the specific pages for child porn. So yes, it was targeted.)
        mastazi 10y ago
        > The entire purpose of playpen was child pornography. I understand your point and I accept your observation that "mass surveillance" may not be the right definition of what happened in the Playpen case. However, I invite you to consider the following: once (and if) there is a legal precedent where law enforcement agencies are allowed to hack the users of a given website, that legal precedent will be relevant in future cases, related to other websites that are not Playpen. Today it's Playpen, tomorrow it might be a community of activists. By then, I think you will agree with me, it will be much easier to consider that proper mass surveillance. And if you were one of those activists mentioned in my example above, good luck building your defence on the fact that "this provision can't be applied to me, because it was intended for child pornography websites". This type of process has already happened in recent history, e.g. with "security" laws that were passed after 9/11. Those laws, in several ways, limit everyone's liberties, not just those of terrorists[1][2]. Of course those provisions seemed like a damn good idea soon after 9/11. Now, not so much. Erosion of freedom, just like natural erosion, has a way of progressing very slowly but steadily. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/1301751 http://www.economist.com/node/1301751 [2] http://www.economist.com/node/9833041 http://www.economist.com/node/9833041
        ikeboy 10y ago
        They did get a warrant. The laws you reference allowed surveillance without a warrant.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Oh hey, I think you arent aware of the part where the judge has thrown out all the evidence collected by the fbi in this child porn operation because of the constitution and evidence collecting standards of the judiciary
  - mastazi 10y ago
    From the article: "Some courts have upheld the FBI’s actions in dangerous decisions that, if ultimately upheld, threaten to undermine individuals’ constitutional privacy protections in personal computers"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. One of the reasons why the Constitution exists is that, thanks to its very existence, some things become unconstitutional. If we were to conclude that there isn't a constitutional way to achieve legalised mass surveillance, then we would have to conclude that that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. I would be quite happy with that conclusion, if I may add.

ikeboy 10y ago
This case is about targeted, not mass, surveillance.
- mastazi 10y ago
  What if the "target site" was Gmail? Would you still call it targeted surveillance? What's the limit under which we consider surveillance to be targeted? 100,000 users? One million? 10 millions?
  - nullc 10y ago
    Well... there probably is more child porn in gmail.
    - mastazi 10y ago
      Exactly. As the article explains, "the FBI received a tip from a foreign law enforcement agency that a Tor Hidden Service site called “Playpen” was hosting child pornography". What if the FBI received a tip that Gmail users are hosting child pornography? Would they be allowed to infect Gmail users' computers?
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        The entire purpose of playpen was child pornography. The FBI knew that, I assume they could just go on the site and check. The tip was just telling them how to find the location of the site so they could do something about it. If the entire purpose of gmail was to facilitate illegal sharing of cp, then yes. (I gather that they also had discussion forums of some sort, but that the FBI only used the malware against people who visited the specific pages for child porn. So yes, it was targeted.)
        mastazi 10y ago
        > The entire purpose of playpen was child pornography. I understand your point and I accept your observation that "mass surveillance" may not be the right definition of what happened in the Playpen case. However, I invite you to consider the following: once (and if) there is a legal precedent where law enforcement agencies are allowed to hack the users of a given website, that legal precedent will be relevant in future cases, related to other websites that are not Playpen. Today it's Playpen, tomorrow it might be a community of activists. By then, I think you will agree with me, it will be much easier to consider that proper mass surveillance. And if you were one of those activists mentioned in my example above, good luck building your defence on the fact that "this provision can't be applied to me, because it was intended for child pornography websites". This type of process has already happened in recent history, e.g. with "security" laws that were passed after 9/11. Those laws, in several ways, limit everyone's liberties, not just those of terrorists[1][2]. Of course those provisions seemed like a damn good idea soon after 9/11. Now, not so much. Erosion of freedom, just like natural erosion, has a way of progressing very slowly but steadily. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/1301751 http://www.economist.com/node/1301751 [2] http://www.economist.com/node/9833041 http://www.economist.com/node/9833041
        ikeboy 10y ago
        They did get a warrant. The laws you reference allowed surveillance without a warrant.
cloudjacker 10y ago
Oh hey, I think you arent aware of the part where the judge has thrown out all the evidence collected by the fbi in this child porn operation because of the constitution and evidence collecting standards of the judiciary
- mastazi 10y ago
  From the article: "Some courts have upheld the FBI’s actions in dangerous decisions that, if ultimately upheld, threaten to undermine individuals’ constitutional privacy protections in personal computers"