5 ms·

I think the bottom line is that the American people do not really mind the NSA doing this. I suspect this is because most people do not realize just how powerf

I think the bottom line is that the American people do not really mind the NSA doing this. I suspect this is because most people do not realize just how powerful and privacy-invading metadata surveillance is, or how the dataset does not need to be added to indefinitely to have tremendous value to law enforcement (for appropriate and inappropriate uses) once it exists at sufficient scale.

citilife 8y ago
I think the people that do realize, short of armed rebellion, can do very little. If the people who control 60% of the nations wealth want to do this, all the complaining in the world isn't going to do anything.
- coralreef 8y ago
  If the people who control 60% of the nations wealth want to do this, all the complaining in the world isn't going to do anything. Can you elaborate on this? Why are the wealthy interested in empowering the NSA?
  - outside2344 8y ago
    What he is saying, I think, is that because of Citizens United, money controls our politics at this point and it really doesn't really matter what Joe Smith thinks. We can prove that wrong in November, of course. EDIT: Its true that the democrats are just as bought, but I have faith that they would also appoint a supreme court that would rule the other way as well.
    - VeronicaJJ123 8y ago
      It is other way round I feel. Because of Citizens United a lot of groups are able to raise money and awareness about this.
    - mkempe 8y ago
      This argument is obviously flawed: Hillary Clinton received more money, spent vastly more money, and lost. [edit] Down-voting does not change the above facts.
      - scrumption 8y ago
        You've missed the point entirely, on purpose I imagine. The impact of Citizens United is primarily with regard to corporate lobbying, not campaign contributions. Super PACs, the biggest travesty to come out of Citizens United, explicitly CANNOT contribute to election campaigns or specific parties.
        mkempe 8y ago
        Citizens United is especially relevant to presidential elections -- it arose directly out of the 2004 and 2008 campaigns. "The conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act..." [1] In other words, you are wrong about Citizens United, and unpleasant about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
        dang 8y ago
        This is another comment that crossed into incivility. If you want to keep posting to HN, we need you to follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > We can prove that wrong in November, of course. The Democrats are no better when it comes to these issues, look at their voting record.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        This is true. The secret federal court that makes all of this possible was established during the Carter administration.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        No. FISA and the two federal courts (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review) created under it in the 1970s do not make this surveillance possible, as it was possible before FISA; instead, they are part of the regime established to restrict it after a number of notorious abuses (the FISA restrictions have been weakened in the post-9/11 era, but are still more than existed prior to FISA.)
    - adventured 8y ago
      Citizens United changed nothing. Money has controlled politics in the US since the very beginning and without exception. In fact, money controlled politics in the distant US past to a far greater degree than it does today. In Rockefeller's time or before, you could do almost anything when it came to buying political favor, there were few limits on buying politicians. The Chinese foreign funding scandals that followed the Clintons in both Bill and Hillary's campaigns - what was China buying? That was part of the deal that saw Bill spend vast amounts of time & effort lobbying to get China into the WTO during his Presidency, even going aggressively against his own party and voter interests. "May 24, 2000, Bill Clinton clinched what many believed would be the last great legislative victory of his presidency. That afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to award China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing Beijing’s long-in-the-making bid to join the World Trade Organization. The historic deal had been Clinton’s top priority in the waning days of his last term—a move he hoped would improve relations with the world’s most populous nation, while cementing his own legacy of using free trade to advance America’s foreign policy interests. It had been opposed by labor unions wary of competition from poorly paid foreign workers and championed by corporations salivating over 1.3 billion potential Chinese customers (the business lobby had spent millions on TV ads supporting the pact). In the end, after much wrangling, 73 Democrats joined 164 Republicans to pass the agreement, which was expected to glide through the Senate." http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_next_20/2016/09/when_china_joined_the_wto_it_kick_started_the_chinese_economy_and_roused.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_next_20/2016/09/w...
    - ams6110 8y ago
      "The money" certainly didn't want Donald Trump elected. So your claim seems disproven by events.
  - samstave 8y ago
    The wealthy dont care what the NSA does so long as they can remaim wealthy. The 1% can pay whatever is required to protect their wealth - and its why the panama papers is the biggest scandal of all time. So long as the 1% can live without consequence, they dont care how anything the government does affects the masses.
    - Thriptic 8y ago
      It's more complicated than that. You can bet many wealthy people DO care about these things (in fact, I know some who do); however, if they stand up against them then they riak preferential targetting far more than the average citizen precisely because they have influence and need to be shut down.
  - wmeredith 8y ago
    Mostly because the NSA will enforce the status quo which has made them powerful and the oligarchs rich (and powerful). It's a self-feeding mechanism. Read more about this phenomenon–the beige dictatorship– here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes-and-th.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/politica...
- samstave 8y ago
  The nation needs a “tax sit-in” - everyone ridicules this, but wtf do people think the boston tea party was about. If you want governments to listen without armed rebellion, the only thing one can do is refuse taxes. They know that this is the inly othe tool you have - and thats why taxes are woven into the fabric of the economy such that its automatically taken without you having any control over them. Its also why you can never truly own land. Dont pay taxes on land, and they will take it. You can only pay for the privilege to rent land. Forever.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    The problem is w2 employees (i.e. most of the workforce) get their taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. It would be nearly impossible to withhold those taxes from the government. Interestingly, the more independent contractors in a population, the easier it would be to stage a tax sit-in.
    - samstave 8y ago
      That is my point about it being woven into the economy such that you have no control over it.
    - eric_h 8y ago
      > The problem is w2 employees (i.e. most of the workforce) get their taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically That's not a requirement, though. You can opt to have no taxes withheld and just pay what you owe in April. Of course, if you then don't pay your taxes, the IRS will find you.
  - mcone 8y ago
    "Government: If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law." - Edward Abbey
    - 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
knaik94 8y ago
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the consumers aren't the ones who have control over the dataset. The NSA pressures the Telecoms.
rhizome 8y ago
Not to be glib, but I think I saw this comment a couple weeks ago, substituting "Facebook" for "the NSA."
- java-man 8y ago
  the message does not change. we, as a society, seem to be ok with trading privacy for free fb or illusion of safety.
- toufique 8y ago
  Major difference though is that we as individuals gave Facebook permission, and most of us would still knowingly make a "limited tracking in exchange for tangible personal utility" trade. We as individuals never gave the NSA permission to track us, and most of us would never knowingly make the "unlimited tracking in exchange for nebulous collective utility" trade.
jahvo 8y ago
Or maybe they think this is acceptable, in the interest of security. I personally find this kind of stuff acceptable.
drb91 8y ago
Part of the problem is that privacy invasion is only visible when it results in arrests, leaking, or some other use of the power to effect change. Most people will never experience someone obviously exploiting their trust here. Of course, the complacency of us individuals reduces the security and privacy of us all. Realistically the NSA hasn’t been successful in reducing terrorist threats; in fact, the correlation is negative.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  >Realistically the NSA hasn’t been successful in reducing terrorist threats; in fact, the correlation is negative. What are you basing this on?
  - scrumption 8y ago
    Mass shootings have tripled since 2011.
    - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
      This entire thread is proof that people will vehemently spout opinions on topics that they don't even have the slightest understanding of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency Try reading literally just the first paragraph.
      - scrumption 8y ago
        Thanks for that reputable source -- but I'm still missing your implication. Do you mean to say that the NSA is primarily concerned with foreign intelligence rather than combating domestic terrorism? Then why so much domestic spying, the entire point of this conversation thread? Furthermore, are you trying to tell me you think they've done a good job in their counterintelligence work? Honestly, given what we have observed in the Middle East for decades and what happened in 2016?
        8y ago

citilife 8y ago

I think the people that do realize, short of armed rebellion, can do very little. If the people who control 60% of the nations wealth want to do this, all the complaining in the world isn't going to do anything.

coralreef 8y ago
If the people who control 60% of the nations wealth want to do this, all the complaining in the world isn't going to do anything. Can you elaborate on this? Why are the wealthy interested in empowering the NSA?
- outside2344 8y ago
  What he is saying, I think, is that because of Citizens United, money controls our politics at this point and it really doesn't really matter what Joe Smith thinks. We can prove that wrong in November, of course. EDIT: Its true that the democrats are just as bought, but I have faith that they would also appoint a supreme court that would rule the other way as well.
  - VeronicaJJ123 8y ago
    It is other way round I feel. Because of Citizens United a lot of groups are able to raise money and awareness about this.
  - mkempe 8y ago
    This argument is obviously flawed: Hillary Clinton received more money, spent vastly more money, and lost. [edit] Down-voting does not change the above facts.
    - scrumption 8y ago
      You've missed the point entirely, on purpose I imagine. The impact of Citizens United is primarily with regard to corporate lobbying, not campaign contributions. Super PACs, the biggest travesty to come out of Citizens United, explicitly CANNOT contribute to election campaigns or specific parties.
      - mkempe 8y ago
        Citizens United is especially relevant to presidential elections -- it arose directly out of the 2004 and 2008 campaigns. "The conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act..." [1] In other words, you are wrong about Citizens United, and unpleasant about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
      - dang 8y ago
        This is another comment that crossed into incivility. If you want to keep posting to HN, we need you to follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > We can prove that wrong in November, of course. The Democrats are no better when it comes to these issues, look at their voting record.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      This is true. The secret federal court that makes all of this possible was established during the Carter administration.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        No. FISA and the two federal courts (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review) created under it in the 1970s do not make this surveillance possible, as it was possible before FISA; instead, they are part of the regime established to restrict it after a number of notorious abuses (the FISA restrictions have been weakened in the post-9/11 era, but are still more than existed prior to FISA.)
  - adventured 8y ago
    Citizens United changed nothing. Money has controlled politics in the US since the very beginning and without exception. In fact, money controlled politics in the distant US past to a far greater degree than it does today. In Rockefeller's time or before, you could do almost anything when it came to buying political favor, there were few limits on buying politicians. The Chinese foreign funding scandals that followed the Clintons in both Bill and Hillary's campaigns - what was China buying? That was part of the deal that saw Bill spend vast amounts of time & effort lobbying to get China into the WTO during his Presidency, even going aggressively against his own party and voter interests. "May 24, 2000, Bill Clinton clinched what many believed would be the last great legislative victory of his presidency. That afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to award China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing Beijing’s long-in-the-making bid to join the World Trade Organization. The historic deal had been Clinton’s top priority in the waning days of his last term—a move he hoped would improve relations with the world’s most populous nation, while cementing his own legacy of using free trade to advance America’s foreign policy interests. It had been opposed by labor unions wary of competition from poorly paid foreign workers and championed by corporations salivating over 1.3 billion potential Chinese customers (the business lobby had spent millions on TV ads supporting the pact). In the end, after much wrangling, 73 Democrats joined 164 Republicans to pass the agreement, which was expected to glide through the Senate." http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_next_20/2016/09/when_china_joined_the_wto_it_kick_started_the_chinese_economy_and_roused.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_next_20/2016/09/w...
  - ams6110 8y ago
    "The money" certainly didn't want Donald Trump elected. So your claim seems disproven by events.
- samstave 8y ago
  The wealthy dont care what the NSA does so long as they can remaim wealthy. The 1% can pay whatever is required to protect their wealth - and its why the panama papers is the biggest scandal of all time. So long as the 1% can live without consequence, they dont care how anything the government does affects the masses.
  - Thriptic 8y ago
    It's more complicated than that. You can bet many wealthy people DO care about these things (in fact, I know some who do); however, if they stand up against them then they riak preferential targetting far more than the average citizen precisely because they have influence and need to be shut down.
- wmeredith 8y ago
  Mostly because the NSA will enforce the status quo which has made them powerful and the oligarchs rich (and powerful). It's a self-feeding mechanism. Read more about this phenomenon–the beige dictatorship– here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes-and-th.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/politica...
samstave 8y ago
The nation needs a “tax sit-in” - everyone ridicules this, but wtf do people think the boston tea party was about. If you want governments to listen without armed rebellion, the only thing one can do is refuse taxes. They know that this is the inly othe tool you have - and thats why taxes are woven into the fabric of the economy such that its automatically taken without you having any control over them. Its also why you can never truly own land. Dont pay taxes on land, and they will take it. You can only pay for the privilege to rent land. Forever.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  The problem is w2 employees (i.e. most of the workforce) get their taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. It would be nearly impossible to withhold those taxes from the government. Interestingly, the more independent contractors in a population, the easier it would be to stage a tax sit-in.
  - samstave 8y ago
    That is my point about it being woven into the economy such that you have no control over it.
  - eric_h 8y ago
    > The problem is w2 employees (i.e. most of the workforce) get their taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically That's not a requirement, though. You can opt to have no taxes withheld and just pay what you owe in April. Of course, if you then don't pay your taxes, the IRS will find you.
- mcone 8y ago
  "Government: If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law." - Edward Abbey
  - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

knaik94 8y ago

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the consumers aren't the ones who have control over the dataset. The NSA pressures the Telecoms.

rhizome 8y ago

Not to be glib, but I think I saw this comment a couple weeks ago, substituting "Facebook" for "the NSA."

java-man 8y ago
the message does not change. we, as a society, seem to be ok with trading privacy for free fb or illusion of safety.
toufique 8y ago
Major difference though is that we as individuals gave Facebook permission, and most of us would still knowingly make a "limited tracking in exchange for tangible personal utility" trade. We as individuals never gave the NSA permission to track us, and most of us would never knowingly make the "unlimited tracking in exchange for nebulous collective utility" trade.

jahvo 8y ago

Or maybe they think this is acceptable, in the interest of security. I personally find this kind of stuff acceptable.

drb91 8y ago

Part of the problem is that privacy invasion is only visible when it results in arrests, leaking, or some other use of the power to effect change. Most people will never experience someone obviously exploiting their trust here. Of course, the complacency of us individuals reduces the security and privacy of us all. Realistically the NSA hasn’t been successful in reducing terrorist threats; in fact, the correlation is negative.

BookmarkSaver 8y ago
>Realistically the NSA hasn’t been successful in reducing terrorist threats; in fact, the correlation is negative. What are you basing this on?
- scrumption 8y ago
  Mass shootings have tripled since 2011.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    This entire thread is proof that people will vehemently spout opinions on topics that they don't even have the slightest understanding of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency Try reading literally just the first paragraph.
    - scrumption 8y ago
      Thanks for that reputable source -- but I'm still missing your implication. Do you mean to say that the NSA is primarily concerned with foreign intelligence rather than combating domestic terrorism? Then why so much domestic spying, the entire point of this conversation thread? Furthermore, are you trying to tell me you think they've done a good job in their counterintelligence work? Honestly, given what we have observed in the Middle East for decades and what happened in 2016?
      - 8y ago