5 ms·

What we have learned thanks to Snowden is this: You can never trust your government. Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this da

What we have learned thanks to Snowden is this: You can never trust your government. Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this day. Does anyone really think some "law" will change this?

iamben 9y ago
I agree. But that doesn't mean we should make it legal, and, as per the snooper's charter, relax who has access to it. I'm glad we still have people fighting for us.
- benevol 9y ago
  > I'm glad we still have people fighting for us. Absolutely. We should just not forget that it is not a law or any other promise from government officials that will protect us from mass surveillance.
gnocchi 9y ago
Good point, but if we can't rely on the law to help us what will be left? I wonder if one can make a request for information (Freedom of Information Act) about data personally held from the government?
- Beltiras 9y ago
  There were cases in the States where a defendant tried to subpoena records from the meta-data collection saying it would exonerate him from the accusation. I can't find how the motion was ruled on with some light Googling. Anyone remember?
- krapp 9y ago
  > Good point, but if we can't rely on the law to help us what will be left? The only options remaining, when you can't trust the laws or the systems that create the laws, are attrition (pervasive encryption and decentralizing of networks to deny governments access to information coupled with aggressive leaking and whistleblowing to limit their effectiveness), violence (which serves the interests of authoritarians and extremists) or acceptance of the status quo.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
I think yes, such laws change things a lot. I have two heuristics that are related to this topic: 1. If something is physically possible and can be done economically, then it is already happening. 2. If a nation state wants you - or your people - gone, then you're done, period. This is a function of state's coordination power in general, and not of any technology or program they may or may not have. (Heuristic 1. is, incidentally, why I was not in any way surprised by Snowden's revelations. It was obvious that this is happening. Heuristic 2. is why I don't buy the general argument saying "census is bad because the Nazis used census data to target Jews".) Heuristic 2. tells me that if the state turns fascist, it's game over, and it has little to do with present surveillance and efforts to oppose it. Heuristic 1. tells me that no matter what the law says, militaries and intelligence agencies will keep snooping on everyone. So given all that, what's the change? The change will be visible when you forget about doom&gloom scenarios (1) and NSA (2). It's about regular abuses of citizens in a stable state, under the rule of law. If the state sets the rules of the game and then breaks them, you have recourse. There are courts. There are media. Careers of politicians and public servants are on the line. Officials will be reluctant to break the rules out of simple fear for their own reputations and career prospects. So this is not a perfect win. But there will never be a perfect win, there will be no end of electronic surveillance, as long as we are a technological civilization (see heuristic 1). But it's something to go on, it's a change in the direction of actually achievable balance.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
We already knew that though - anything Snowden published was just proof of what pretty much everyone already suspected was happening and/or possible.
- collyw 9y ago
  On the contrary, plenty of people talked about the sort of thing that Snowden revealed, but were dismissed as tin foil hat wearers.
topbanana 9y ago
"Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this day. Does anyone really think some "law" will change this?" What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence. Although that is obviously an improvement, it is of limited benefit if mere suspicion of criminal behaviour (including "terrorism", the current root password to the legal system) is still enough to impose serious extra-judicial restrictions on someone's life, and there are many laws and government mechanisms that provide for that.
shaki-dora 9y ago
If this cynical point-of-view were true, why would they even bother with laws such as the one discussed here?
Sean1708 9y ago
> Does anyone really think some "law" will change this? Having a law which stops it probably won't make a difference, but have a law which allows it definitely will.
mtgx 9y ago
Laws can change things. That's why many countries were in a hurry to legalize what Snowden revealed afterwards.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Yes. Slush funds are not unlimited. Government agencies who want to do illegal things must do them with some level of restraint because reducing volume makes abuse and/or public knowledge of their actions less likely. Illegal action is more costly at every step (you have to hide it and its paper trail). Less abuse and smaller (illegal) programs means less opportunity for politicians to look good to the public by holding your agency accountable for violating the law. Making stuff we don't want the gov to do illegal for the gov to do helps very much because it provides negative incentives for them to do those things so they are less likely to do those things in large volume. Making something illegal for the gov to do is no different than writing a law that fines private companies for doing something bad. Sure they'll still do it when they think the rewards make it worth it but they'll do it a hell of a lot less overall.

iamben 9y ago

I agree. But that doesn't mean we should make it legal, and, as per the snooper's charter, relax who has access to it. I'm glad we still have people fighting for us.

benevol 9y ago
> I'm glad we still have people fighting for us. Absolutely. We should just not forget that it is not a law or any other promise from government officials that will protect us from mass surveillance.

gnocchi 9y ago

Good point, but if we can't rely on the law to help us what will be left? I wonder if one can make a request for information (Freedom of Information Act) about data personally held from the government?

Beltiras 9y ago
There were cases in the States where a defendant tried to subpoena records from the meta-data collection saying it would exonerate him from the accusation. I can't find how the motion was ruled on with some light Googling. Anyone remember?
krapp 9y ago
> Good point, but if we can't rely on the law to help us what will be left? The only options remaining, when you can't trust the laws or the systems that create the laws, are attrition (pervasive encryption and decentralizing of networks to deny governments access to information coupled with aggressive leaking and whistleblowing to limit their effectiveness), violence (which serves the interests of authoritarians and extremists) or acceptance of the status quo.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I think yes, such laws change things a lot. I have two heuristics that are related to this topic: 1. If something is physically possible and can be done economically, then it is already happening. 2. If a nation state wants you - or your people - gone, then you're done, period. This is a function of state's coordination power in general, and not of any technology or program they may or may not have. (Heuristic 1. is, incidentally, why I was not in any way surprised by Snowden's revelations. It was obvious that this is happening. Heuristic 2. is why I don't buy the general argument saying "census is bad because the Nazis used census data to target Jews".) Heuristic 2. tells me that if the state turns fascist, it's game over, and it has little to do with present surveillance and efforts to oppose it. Heuristic 1. tells me that no matter what the law says, militaries and intelligence agencies will keep snooping on everyone. So given all that, what's the change? The change will be visible when you forget about doom&gloom scenarios (1) and NSA (2). It's about regular abuses of citizens in a stable state, under the rule of law. If the state sets the rules of the game and then breaks them, you have recourse. There are courts. There are media. Careers of politicians and public servants are on the line. Officials will be reluctant to break the rules out of simple fear for their own reputations and career prospects. So this is not a perfect win. But there will never be a perfect win, there will be no end of electronic surveillance, as long as we are a technological civilization (see heuristic 1). But it's something to go on, it's a change in the direction of actually achievable balance.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

We already knew that though - anything Snowden published was just proof of what pretty much everyone already suspected was happening and/or possible.

collyw 9y ago
On the contrary, plenty of people talked about the sort of thing that Snowden revealed, but were dismissed as tin foil hat wearers.

topbanana 9y ago

"Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this day. Does anyone really think some "law" will change this?" What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence.

Silhouette 9y ago
What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence. Although that is obviously an improvement, it is of limited benefit if mere suspicion of criminal behaviour (including "terrorism", the current root password to the legal system) is still enough to impose serious extra-judicial restrictions on someone's life, and there are many laws and government mechanisms that provide for that.

shaki-dora 9y ago

If this cynical point-of-view were true, why would they even bother with laws such as the one discussed here?

Sean1708 9y ago

> Does anyone really think some "law" will change this? Having a law which stops it probably won't make a difference, but have a law which allows it definitely will.

mtgx 9y ago

Laws can change things. That's why many countries were in a hurry to legalize what Snowden revealed afterwards.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

Yes. Slush funds are not unlimited. Government agencies who want to do illegal things must do them with some level of restraint because reducing volume makes abuse and/or public knowledge of their actions less likely. Illegal action is more costly at every step (you have to hide it and its paper trail). Less abuse and smaller (illegal) programs means less opportunity for politicians to look good to the public by holding your agency accountable for violating the law. Making stuff we don't want the gov to do illegal for the gov to do helps very much because it provides negative incentives for them to do those things so they are less likely to do those things in large volume. Making something illegal for the gov to do is no different than writing a law that fines private companies for doing something bad. Sure they'll still do it when they think the rewards make it worth it but they'll do it a hell of a lot less overall.