6 ms·
Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- kensai 10y agoOh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?
- daheza 10y agoMaybe this is just false security, but I at least feel comfortable knowing apple and I are on the same side in this fight.
- r00fus 10y agoThose who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
- ProAm 10y ago> Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? Of course we did, we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president. However sometimes before you can rebuild you need to burn the existing structure to the ground first. We're tired of the status quo and want significant change in how we're represented. Sometimes you have to endure a little pain before things get better. EDIT: I think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.
- immobilenopass 10y ago>think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years. Oh? How do you see this happening? Both parties are still here, alas.
- ProAm 10y ago> Both parties are still here, alas. That is arguable. The RNC is in shambles, Trump came in and annihilated everyone in that party. Sure they are technically still here, but let's not say things are going according to plan. Same for the DNC, they cheated their own party to put Hillary at the front of the pack in what looked like a freebie election and lost. Roasting Bernie, getting debate questions fed to her ahead of time, and they still lost. It looks bad they cheated their own party, but looks worse they cheated and still lost.
- buckbova 10y ago> we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president. I heard the EXACT same thing said about President Obama. The results were debatable. > EDIT: I think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years. You're projecting. Plenty of Americans are very happy with the way the elections went and suspect more republicans taking power in the midterm elections. Historically republicans do better in midterm elections.
- ProAm 10y ago> Plenty of Americans are very happy with the way the elections went I wasnt talking about Americans, both political parties were embarrassed and horrified at how the elections went. It's those people who are going to try harder. The Republican party is in shambles, and the DNC is embarrassed they lost what looked like a gimmie election by putting their weakest candidate in front.
- adiabatty 10y agoI'm not surprised by this. I also wouldn't have been surprised if a Clinton appointee had said this, either. Remember that her husband was trying to mandate key escrow and she herself, on the campaign trail, said that she wanted to monitor everything possible to prevent terror attacks.
- lintiness 10y agoi voted for trump because hacker news told me the universe would unravel when he won. i'm still here, but apparently i'll be wearing a leash soon.
- matwood 10y agoI'm not sure what Trump has to do with this, since the government has been fighting/arguing against the populace having strong encryption for awhile.
- Miner49er 10y agoThe title of this post was changed, but the title originally pointed out that the author of this article is Trump's pick for director of the CIA.
- shawn-furyan 10y agoDown voted. I don't think this is a constructive question. Encryption wasn't even a minor policy stance of the 4 most major parties' nominees for president. It's not very reasonable to <strike>blame</strike> pointedly question voters for actions their candidate didn't take a stance on. [edit], thought better of using the word 'blame'. It's not an accurate characterization, but didn't want to erase the history of having initially chosen that word either.
- venomsnake 10y agoI suspected (disclaimer, didn't vote, because has no right to, but supported Trump since the first dilbert articles). But I thought that in the long run the identity politics and social justice gone berserk are the greater danger. And breaking the spine of Apple, while probably wrong would have given me great satisfaction.
- chrissnell 10y agoI'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI think that is a more accurate characterization. There are lots of things which can indicate you're trouble. One or even two of them is probably not an issue, once you get to three or four it starts to be harder to explain away.
- Miner49er 10y agoThis argument is similar to the "nothing to hide" argument. People shouldn't be flagged just for wanting privacy.
- chrissnell 10y agoNot really. I'm saying that it's one of many factors, some typically benign (like "gun owner"), and some not benign ("has a brother fighting for IS in Syria"). To do a better job at intelligence, our government needs to look at these holistically. My argument also extends to things like the TSA. We all like to complain about having to wait in line for security at the airport. Why can't they do better threat assessment? Well, it needs a holistic approach. Why should I, chrissnell, an officer in the Army Reserve, with no criminal record whatsoever, be subjected anything more than a magnetometer at the airport? If the TSA would look at my profile holistically, they would see that I am not a significant threat and that should mean that I would be able to go on my way without interference.
- maxerickson 10y agoWhy should anybody be subject to anything more than a magnetometer? Locked doors stop boxcutters.
- libeclipse 10y agoI feel that the gun debate and the encryption debate have a shared argument: in a world where X is outlawed, only the outlaws will have X.
- bborud 10y agoNo. Not really. And frankly, it scares me that this is even confusing to people.
- nine_k 10y agoCan you please elaborate?
- jameskilton 10y agoYou can't kill people with encryption. In fact, encrypted communications has saved many lives.
- jrs235 10y agoThe same can be argued pertaining to guns. Guns have saved many lives. Guns and encryption are amoral. How and what they are used for determines if they are "good" or "bad". EDIT: Encryption may have been used by bad people to secretly carry out bad things with the end result of people dying (because the "good people" couldn't decrypt their communications). We all want only the "good" people to have guns and encryption. Who gets to define "good"?
- ergothus 10y agoI don't want "only the 'good' people to have guns and encryption". I feel they are different: Guns are used for two reasons: target practice (sport), and shooting to kill (hunt/attack/defend). Encryption is used to keep communications secret. We can have lengthy debates on the various uses of guns, but staying on topic, I find nothing wrong with people keeping communication secret. Sure, it'd be EASIER if the bad guys had to communication openly, but the "bad" isn't the communication, it's the bad things they DO. I find nothing morally wrong with all people, including bad guys, being able to communicate in secret. (The obvious retort is that there's nothing wrong with having guns, because it's the SHOOTING that might be bad, not the possession. Communication, however, exists for many reason, while guns exist for few, so I don't see the comparison as terribly valuable).
- yup123 10y agoJust keep in mind that governments that take powers never give it back.
- 1024core 10y agoFrom the horse's mouth: http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398776 http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=...
- fixermark 10y agoAnd it will continue to be a red flag until and unless it becomes common among individuals to communicate that way. Really, more individual education is the only practical way to de-stigmatize strong encryption in the eyes of authority; it can't be wrong if everyone's doing it, but if everyone isn't, it looks suspicious.
- dzdt 10y agoJust like keeping the curtains drawn on your house is a red flag...
- estebank 10y agoFunnily enough in The Netherlands there's an aversion to curtains, to the point where people decorate the interior of their houses next to the window as some sort of diorama. (Just so people don't think I'm just making this up: https://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-curtains/ https://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-... )
- lb1lf 10y agoIn Norway (and probably a few other places!) there's a sect called the Læstadians after the founder, Something-or-the-other Læstadius (19th-century Swedish preacher) Anyway, for some reason they have an aversion to curtains, too - it is commonly said to stem from one of the significant preachers who, during a sermon, exclaimed 'One does not need curtains to go to heaven!' The point he was trying to make was that one didn't need to be well heeled (19th century northern Norway not being anybody's idea of a well-off community!) to make it past the pearly gates; however, this has since been taken to mean that 'Curtains will not get you to heaven!' - and, hence, being useless. This is probably apocryphical; however, it is an anecdote lots of Norwegians have heard, and sadly, I do not know any Læstadians I can ask to verify it...
- samsolomon 10y agoFor anyone confused about the date of this article, it was co-authored by the incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo at the beginning of this year.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoYes, I attempted to provide this context in the original title, "Incoming CIA Director: Strong encryption in personal communications is a red flag," but it's been changed to the title of the editorial. The main reason this seemed to be of interest to the HN community is the following: "Forcing terrorists into encrypted channels, however, impedes their operational effectiveness by constraining the amount of data they can send and complicating transmission protocols, a phenomenon known in military parlance as virtual attrition. Moreover, the use of strong encryption in personal communications may itself be a red flag."
- er0l 10y agogood luck putting a red flag on the 1 billion WhatsApp users
- maxerickson 10y agoDear WhatsApp- Per [whatever law they pass], please stop providing server capacity for any versions of your software that are not compatible with [unintentionally ironic name for surveillance system]. Thanks.
- vonklaus 10y agoTrump wins largely due to poorly secured communications of his opponent. I think HRC getting hacked actually pushed this issue forward. If it can happen to someone this powerful, and it is now so easy to secure email & texts, most Americans probably are. That means; hopefully, it doesnt matter if it is flagged as security is hopefully on a mainstream trajectory
- _qbxp 10y agoThis, along with Sessions who sided with the FBI in the San Bernadino case, makes me very worried about the future of online privacy and communications encryption. Can somebody please allay my fears. Besides the EFF, where can I donate to have most impact in terms of preventing the requirement of government backdoors in consumer hardware or software?
- davidw 10y agoThe ACLU is a pretty good place to donate to as well.
- renlo 10y ago>> "America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat." >> "Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcase their zealotry online." This type of rhetoric really concerns me. Especially because the author tries to distance himself from beliefs that he clearly espouses by structuring his opinions into factual statements ("America is in a long war..."). He says straight out that a) Social Media is a great tool for spying on people, b) that basically we should have 'thought police' ("people undergoing radicalization" ought to be spied (with the implication that they should be sanctioned)).
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y agoNo kidding. I expect gov to keep me reasonably safe, and not absolutely safe.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoI also expect to be kept safe from the government; overbearing surveillance isn't going to do that for me.
- brian-armstrong 10y agoDepends on the medium, I think. If you post it just to your friends in a protected way with a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it feels wrong for the government to do dragnet surveillance on that. On the other hand, if you start tweeting about your plans to commit an act of terror, how is that any different than going to the city center and shouting it?
- shuntress 10y agoSo what you are saying is, we need microphones on every street corner running natural language processing and speech recognition software to identify and record any threats someone may make?
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago>Time for a rigorous debate >paywall
- kag0 10y agoFull text not behind WSJ paywall, for convenience http://davidbrivkin.com/time-for-a-rigorous-national-debate-about-surveillance/ http://davidbrivkin.com/time-for-a-rigorous-national-debate-...
- quizotic 10y agoThis motivated me to sign up for ProtonMail. Now I want to send Mike Pompeo a congratulatory email! He seems like a decent guy. Does anyone know where to send an encrypted email to the incoming cia director?
- wakkaflokka 10y agoI love the idea of ProtonMail (and other encrypted email services). I keep getting the hankering to switch to one. But then I realize how convenient and integrated Gmail is. It's really weighing my privacy vs. convenience, but I am getting close to the point where I'm ready to move it all over.
- panarky 10y ago-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v2 jA0ECQMCX9WYuCpLunPh0p8B8UjjI5k5Eb409Ldvw7lYYR/vVDk6FBYhIqJRDdto NWnCEfK4EuPgx1d7+Peh4f042QsFJt3n2cHoOGJYy7Iw+5nnvaGms9kDp3xEZ8s1 4h7eJW0mRxZgtXnY4InnwMLVqER1kMcKGhk8xm+8kwYP4MpZBd1QfCwfiWxhChhX 2kuH2TezknR6/yVOjiDAjkGprotHbKCjGyKVBq0gO7k= =au89 -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- MichaelBurge 10y agoOne of the authors(Mike Pompeo) is going to be appointed as head of the CIA. I suppose it's natural for him to want to expand surveillance, since it helps him do his job. I hope Trump speaks with Snowden at some point, which seems somewhat more likely given how a whistleblowing organization helped his campaign. I don't really like these surveillance programs. The one good thing he said was he wants better congressional oversight. It helps him cover his ass, but I suppose it also lets concerned congressmen get more information. I don't know how much information the intelligence committee currently gets, or if the people on that committee are for or against increased surveillance. I don't mind this guy on the CIA; I'd be more concerned about who's going to head the NSA.
- jwtadvice 10y agoThe argument at the top of this article DEEPLY confuses the issue of mass surveillance, which I think is a very bad way to start an article titled “Time for a Rigorous National Debate about Surveillance”. The article begins by invoking the spectral boogyman of terrorism, and doubles down on the concept that the United States can somehow be at war with a tactic. The article refuses to admit that mass surveillance, as disclosed by the Snowden Documents, revealed that the capabilities of ubiquitous espionage were not developed and are not primarily used for a ‘war on a tactic’. What the disclosures and investigative journalism clarified is that mass surveillance is about power and control writ large, with surveillance capabilities having been build long before terrorism became relevant and used at that time for the same power and control purposes that it is used today. Specifically, the disclosures revealed that the intelligence is used to understand populations and how information moves through them - this helps with propaganda operations in various settings. They also revealed that the espionage was used to aide US diplomats by giving them negotiating leverage in international meetings, and was used to support domestic industries by stealing relevant market information from overseas competitors. This slight of hand - equivocating public safety with national security - is a common tactic. There is a very specific definition of national security, defined by National Security Presidential Directive-1 (http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm): "National security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe. National security also depends on America's opportunity to prosper in the world economy.” As the homeland is the safest place on Earth, the typical invocation of "national security" refers to the other components: a prospering economy, overseas access and interests, and protection of the current global political system for which America sits on top. Mass Surveillance helps America to maintain it’s edge as a leading world power. It is not about boogymen and terrorism, or about defeating certain kinds of tactics. The article is completely ingenuous.
- gorbachev 10y agoRigorous debate and the Trump Administration? Surely you jest WSJ.