4 ms·

In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny.

In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny. The people at the NSA who decided to build dragnet surveillance didn't sit down one day and said "hey, I'm feeling evil today, let's violate some laws for lulz", they said "omg terrorists, this is a case where we have to weigh both sides". When cops do illegal searches, they're convinced they're weighing both sides in the interests of getting a criminal of the street. At the very least, you lose any credibility to criticise the government when they bend the law to catch some bad guys, if you're OK with them bending the law to catch other bad guys. There are some things that are more important than catching some asshole tax cheats. Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing.

hvidgaard 10y ago
There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.
- hueving 10y ago
  They're more comparable than you think. This purchase has just legitimized a market for stolen information. The message is to hack and offer up for sale anything you think would be of interest to the government.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    Good. The dragnets and illegal spying is not going away, period, so right now at least we might have some counter-balance to that (Find black money from state-level corruption, illegal or untaxed profits from international behemoths, etc)
    - mseebach 10y ago
      Yes, because two wrongs make a right. You just need to spread the proceeds from crimes wide enough, then everyone's happy. What could possibly go wrong?
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    > They're more comparable than you think. Enlighten me. Please. Because they're vastly different from my perspective. * One is a limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling. The action breaks a law created by the parliament, and that can be changed by a simple vote in the parliament. * The other is a mass surveillance without a limited scope, not targeting any specific crime and no evidence what so ever about its effectiveness. It is a breach of The Consitution of Denmark §72.
    - hueving 10y ago
      The comparison is a country performing unethical things vs. paying another actor to do unethical things. It sounds like you are making an "ends justify the means" argument, but I don't think that absolves them of supporting black hat activities.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      It's not "limited scope". This information was obtained as part of a very broadly scoped illegal action. Also, this cut of data does not "target[] any specific crime" -- it will contain information on Danish citizen who are not in any way breaching danish law (either because they are using these shell companies for legitimate purposes, or because they aren't resident and thus not liable for tax, in Denmark). That initial action doesn't become "limited" just because the criminals filtered it down. This is exactly the same as NSA dragneting and then only passing on information when they thing they find something bad. But even with that, "limited scope" and "targeting specific crimes" aren't magic get-out-of-jail-free cards. If I design (from a secure location that won't prosecute or extradite me for doing so) a worm to infect peoples computers, and once there, quietly scan these computers for evidence of pirated movies (very targeted, very limited scope) and only when it finds evidence of such does it phone home (and only with the evidence, nothing more is ever collected or shared). I then sell this information to an aggressive anti-piracy-litigator. Is this now OK, because it's "limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling"? (Also, on laws: If the law can be changed willy-nilly to suit whatever the government wants to do, you don't have the rule of law. This is bad. It is doubly bad when you go and change the law, not because you have a principled belief that it's bad, but because it prevents you from doing a specific thing. In practise, this is the same as the law not applying to the government. The Danish constitution is tragically toothless, as most of the relevant articles contain the phrase "except where an special exemption is created in law" - for an example for the inviolability of the home, more than 200 such exemptions exists.)
lagadu 10y ago
> Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing. Indeed it is but would you care to point out which of the laws skat is violating?
- mseebach 10y ago
  The one they have to change in order to not be breaking is a good start. Also, "the law" != "the rule of law" (in Danish, retssikkerhed).
ionised 10y ago
I'm not convinced that all of those responsible for dragnet surveillance did so because of terrorists. I'm convinced some of them, most likely those who gave it the green light in the first place, did so because they recognised what an incredible effective implement of population control it is. It's less about the terrorism and more about a safety net for the entrenched and privileged in a future of massive civil unrest.
- spoonie 10y ago
  I think you're inferring malicious intent when a simpler explanation is money. Maybe those who green lighted this saw an opportunity to poor endless funds into their defense contractor friends' businesses.

hvidgaard 10y ago

There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.

hueving 10y ago
They're more comparable than you think. This purchase has just legitimized a market for stolen information. The message is to hack and offer up for sale anything you think would be of interest to the government.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  Good. The dragnets and illegal spying is not going away, period, so right now at least we might have some counter-balance to that (Find black money from state-level corruption, illegal or untaxed profits from international behemoths, etc)
  - mseebach 10y ago
    Yes, because two wrongs make a right. You just need to spread the proceeds from crimes wide enough, then everyone's happy. What could possibly go wrong?
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  > They're more comparable than you think. Enlighten me. Please. Because they're vastly different from my perspective. * One is a limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling. The action breaks a law created by the parliament, and that can be changed by a simple vote in the parliament. * The other is a mass surveillance without a limited scope, not targeting any specific crime and no evidence what so ever about its effectiveness. It is a breach of The Consitution of Denmark §72.
  - hueving 10y ago
    The comparison is a country performing unethical things vs. paying another actor to do unethical things. It sounds like you are making an "ends justify the means" argument, but I don't think that absolves them of supporting black hat activities.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    It's not "limited scope". This information was obtained as part of a very broadly scoped illegal action. Also, this cut of data does not "target[] any specific crime" -- it will contain information on Danish citizen who are not in any way breaching danish law (either because they are using these shell companies for legitimate purposes, or because they aren't resident and thus not liable for tax, in Denmark). That initial action doesn't become "limited" just because the criminals filtered it down. This is exactly the same as NSA dragneting and then only passing on information when they thing they find something bad. But even with that, "limited scope" and "targeting specific crimes" aren't magic get-out-of-jail-free cards. If I design (from a secure location that won't prosecute or extradite me for doing so) a worm to infect peoples computers, and once there, quietly scan these computers for evidence of pirated movies (very targeted, very limited scope) and only when it finds evidence of such does it phone home (and only with the evidence, nothing more is ever collected or shared). I then sell this information to an aggressive anti-piracy-litigator. Is this now OK, because it's "limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling"? (Also, on laws: If the law can be changed willy-nilly to suit whatever the government wants to do, you don't have the rule of law. This is bad. It is doubly bad when you go and change the law, not because you have a principled belief that it's bad, but because it prevents you from doing a specific thing. In practise, this is the same as the law not applying to the government. The Danish constitution is tragically toothless, as most of the relevant articles contain the phrase "except where an special exemption is created in law" - for an example for the inviolability of the home, more than 200 such exemptions exists.)

lagadu 10y ago

> Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing. Indeed it is but would you care to point out which of the laws skat is violating?

mseebach 10y ago
The one they have to change in order to not be breaking is a good start. Also, "the law" != "the rule of law" (in Danish, retssikkerhed).

ionised 10y ago

I'm not convinced that all of those responsible for dragnet surveillance did so because of terrorists. I'm convinced some of them, most likely those who gave it the green light in the first place, did so because they recognised what an incredible effective implement of population control it is. It's less about the terrorism and more about a safety net for the entrenched and privileged in a future of massive civil unrest.

spoonie 10y ago
I think you're inferring malicious intent when a simpler explanation is money. Maybe those who green lighted this saw an opportunity to poor endless funds into their defense contractor friends' businesses.