10 ms·

Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people hav

by Darthy 10y ago

Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people have no recourse against this practice.

willstrafach 10y ago
I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. This is part of the job of an intelligence agency. Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.
- rbg246 10y ago
  No i don't think it is the job of an intelligence agency to spy on the rest of the world's citizens and i think its a terrible idea to normalise this behaviour as such or to somehow make it sound ethical. The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage. It's an inevitable outcome of the technology being available. We have great weather satellites now partly because knowing the weather and observing agriculture in other countries makes us economically competitive. If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    I am curious how you would define "spying" though. - Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues? - Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring? - Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors? - Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield? - Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry? - Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities) - Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally? - I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested. The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.
      - willstrafach 10y ago
        I do not understand. The question was: > Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        And I'm responding specifically to that response.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Let's start with an easy step. Only intercept the communications of identified targets, not the masses. There, 7 billion people get the ability to speak freely. A solid start. That's without needing to stop any of the first 6 things you listed. The seventh one is a bit vague, detect via what method? Don't do it by tapping all the ISPs.
  - datatan 10y ago
    If you don't think intelligence agency's should be doing this then what exactly do you think they should be doing? I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.
- krushing 10y ago
  Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? This is analogous to what the government is doing with privacy rights. The US can't say we're a nation rooted in innate human rights but then dismiss those rights when dealing with the rest of the world. To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    > Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? I have trouble understanding how this analogy relates, do you have a different one which can illustrate your point? (It may be a good point so I would like to understand it) > To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom. How would we go about doing this? Would we trust other nations if they said that they do not conduct any of intelligence gathering operations, or would we use a more covert manner of discovering and verifying that they indeed are not engaged in such activities? Additionally, how would we be able to continue to ensure the safety of our allies if we removed all sensors responsible for detecting an incoming attack from an enemy?
  - datatan 10y ago
    > Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? Interesting as that is exactly what China and Saudi Arabia are doing in the US.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. Because it's a massive human rights violation. Just because the agencies job is to gather intelligence doesn't mean it can trod all over the rights of non-US citizens.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    Can you be more specific? This is often repeated, and I like to be open minded, but I have never seen it articulated as to how exactly intelligence gathering is a violation of human rights.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      Article 12 of the UDHR for a start: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...". Similar protections exist in the ECHR. It could be also argued that it's a violation of our right to freedom of expression. Personally I have started to self-censor anything I post online. The CJEU also recently ruled against mass data collection that the UK was doing and I believe that sharing data with agencies outside Europe was also ruled illegal. I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. It's specific to bulk collection.
      - willstrafach 10y ago
        Thank you for the specific references. I can understand the argument of specifically bulk SIGINT collection being problematic. > I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks. It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?
- bo1024 10y ago
  I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    > I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can. I do not understand what you mean by this. I am assuming you do not believe there is an analyst looking at every bit of data that flows through the internet backbone, so could you elaborate here? Are you referring to intelligence collection?
    - bo1024 10y ago
      I'm not being specific about what the word "spy" means here, but just trying to make a general comment about what would appropriate for agencies like the CIA, NSA, FBI. The parent comment seemed to imply that the goal/job of an intelligence agency ought to be to spy as much as possible on as many people as possible. I expressed doubt.
      - willstrafach 10y ago
        I was responding to the point that the initial commenter was making regarding spying as a whole. I agree with you that if we actually did literally spy on 7,000,000,000+ people it would be an incredibly massive waste of time and resources.
        bo1024 10y ago
        But I am also saying, more importantly, that it would be ethically wrong to try.
oculusthrift 10y ago
sounds like a problem for them and their governments
thrillgore 10y ago
They could declare war on the US.

by Darthy 10y ago

Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people have no recourse against this practice.

willstrafach 10y ago

I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. This is part of the job of an intelligence agency. Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.

rbg246 10y ago
No i don't think it is the job of an intelligence agency to spy on the rest of the world's citizens and i think its a terrible idea to normalise this behaviour as such or to somehow make it sound ethical. The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage. It's an inevitable outcome of the technology being available. We have great weather satellites now partly because knowing the weather and observing agriculture in other countries makes us economically competitive. If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  I am curious how you would define "spying" though. - Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues? - Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring? - Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors? - Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield? - Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry? - Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities) - Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally? - I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested. The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      I do not understand. The question was: > Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        And I'm responding specifically to that response.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Let's start with an easy step. Only intercept the communications of identified targets, not the masses. There, 7 billion people get the ability to speak freely. A solid start. That's without needing to stop any of the first 6 things you listed. The seventh one is a bit vague, detect via what method? Don't do it by tapping all the ISPs.
- datatan 10y ago
  If you don't think intelligence agency's should be doing this then what exactly do you think they should be doing? I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.
krushing 10y ago
Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? This is analogous to what the government is doing with privacy rights. The US can't say we're a nation rooted in innate human rights but then dismiss those rights when dealing with the rest of the world. To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  > Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? I have trouble understanding how this analogy relates, do you have a different one which can illustrate your point? (It may be a good point so I would like to understand it) > To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom. How would we go about doing this? Would we trust other nations if they said that they do not conduct any of intelligence gathering operations, or would we use a more covert manner of discovering and verifying that they indeed are not engaged in such activities? Additionally, how would we be able to continue to ensure the safety of our allies if we removed all sensors responsible for detecting an incoming attack from an enemy?
- datatan 10y ago
  > Imagine if the US just bought all the foreign media companies it could and then controlled the news to protect national security. Would that be ethical or legal? Interesting as that is exactly what China and Saudi Arabia are doing in the US.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. Because it's a massive human rights violation. Just because the agencies job is to gather intelligence doesn't mean it can trod all over the rights of non-US citizens.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  Can you be more specific? This is often repeated, and I like to be open minded, but I have never seen it articulated as to how exactly intelligence gathering is a violation of human rights.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    Article 12 of the UDHR for a start: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...". Similar protections exist in the ECHR. It could be also argued that it's a violation of our right to freedom of expression. Personally I have started to self-censor anything I post online. The CJEU also recently ruled against mass data collection that the UK was doing and I believe that sharing data with agencies outside Europe was also ruled illegal. I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. It's specific to bulk collection.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      Thank you for the specific references. I can understand the argument of specifically bulk SIGINT collection being problematic. > I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks. It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?
bo1024 10y ago
I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  > I don't think it's a given that the right and proper thing for an intelligence agency to do is spy on every person it possibly can as much as it possibly can. I do not understand what you mean by this. I am assuming you do not believe there is an analyst looking at every bit of data that flows through the internet backbone, so could you elaborate here? Are you referring to intelligence collection?
  - bo1024 10y ago
    I'm not being specific about what the word "spy" means here, but just trying to make a general comment about what would appropriate for agencies like the CIA, NSA, FBI. The parent comment seemed to imply that the goal/job of an intelligence agency ought to be to spy as much as possible on as many people as possible. I expressed doubt.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      I was responding to the point that the initial commenter was making regarding spying as a whole. I agree with you that if we actually did literally spy on 7,000,000,000+ people it would be an incredibly massive waste of time and resources.
      - bo1024 10y ago
        But I am also saying, more importantly, that it would be ethically wrong to try.

oculusthrift 10y ago

sounds like a problem for them and their governments

thrillgore 10y ago

They could declare war on the US.