3 ms·

Most of the time such laws are passed on Christmas or New Year's eve (Obama literally allowed the NSA to share Upstream surveillance data with all the other 16

by mtgx 8y ago

Most of the time such laws are passed on Christmas or New Year's eve (Obama literally allowed the NSA to share Upstream surveillance data with all the other 16 agencies like 3-4 days before his presidency ended - how exactly would anyone have stopped Obama then?!), or people "allow" them to pass through inaction, which I think is not quite the same as actively supporting something. Governments of the world simply take advantage of people's inaction or their lack of attention to certain issues. This is a problem with how most democracies work (the democratic processes are not democratic enough, but we've failed to improve upon them due to complacency). And 10 years later when people wake up to it they come out and say "but we've been using this for a decade and it's been so helpful in our investigations!". And even if that was true, often they don't provide real proof, and also the government is almost never interested in doing a cost-benefit analysis for such things. Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too?

dogma1138 8y ago
That still doesn't answer my question, the legal precedence for all of these was set up decades if not centuries ago. We agreed that a government should be able to tap a phone, in fact it's illegal to be a communication provider in the US and in the majority of the rest of the world essentially every country where there is a rule of law has the same laws without complying with the legal intercept requirements from the government. Every piece of telecommunications equipment already has these backdoors built-in, in fact part of the FCC certification is to ensure compliance with LEI when applicable. What Obama did with the NSA is also a doesn't have any bearing on this issue, if the NSA surveillance is warrantless it's another issue as far as sharing the contents of the in interception with other agencies well it's again a different issue. But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US the question is and always was what makes WhatsApp any different than a phone call? Your mobile provider by law must provide LEI of data, voice and text, now no one uses voice anymore, most people don't even text not without using alternative apps like WhatsApp or iMessage. So what is so special about these apps that the laws don't apply to them? and if we are using encryption as a way to back out of the rights we as a society already granted our government then by all means let's do it publicly because there is no reason why the government should be able to tap the phone of a 90 year old grandmother but not yours just because you know how to use WhatsApp. >Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too? Practically none, every telecommunication equipment in the US and the west in large has LEI backdoors built-in these aren't used for exploitation, just like the fact that most mobile phones can be easily tapped by anyone with a $100 worth of SDR equipment. While these are technically a risk in practice they aren't really a risk because they still have a high barrier for entry, high risk, and essentially very low reward due to the lack of scalability.
- 3x 8y ago
  The difference is that these agencies never even bother with a warrant to store all of our data, and claim to not "collect" anything all while using algorithms to conduct mass surveillance at a scale far beyond the KGB's wildest dreams. And when they do want to spy on an individual more directly, it's done through gag orders and secret courts with no accountability to the public. Digital data is actually afforded even fewer protections than your example of letters in the mail.
- srslack 8y ago
  >But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US This has everything to do with the US, and the NSA, because the legislation in question is part of a broader campaign orchestrated by the Five Eyes.[1] [1] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-country-ministerial-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-...
- Faark 8y ago
  The difference is how we use this "communication". It isn't just communication between peers anymore, but part of our digital... self (i'm blanking on a better word). The equivalent of you accessing your google drive wouldn't have been governed by these laws a few centuries back. You'll have a hard time demonstrating WhatsApp or iMessage are used for nothing more than phone calls usually were. Yes, all changes are tiny/gradual and the huge effect they have in combination with all others can often only be seen in retrospect. That's what makes your "this barely changes anything, it was always this way" argument usually so hard to argue against. But in this case it is obvious how our lives are becoming more and more digital...

by mtgx 8y ago

dogma1138 8y ago

That still doesn't answer my question, the legal precedence for all of these was set up decades if not centuries ago. We agreed that a government should be able to tap a phone, in fact it's illegal to be a communication provider in the US and in the majority of the rest of the world essentially every country where there is a rule of law has the same laws without complying with the legal intercept requirements from the government. Every piece of telecommunications equipment already has these backdoors built-in, in fact part of the FCC certification is to ensure compliance with LEI when applicable. What Obama did with the NSA is also a doesn't have any bearing on this issue, if the NSA surveillance is warrantless it's another issue as far as sharing the contents of the in interception with other agencies well it's again a different issue. But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US the question is and always was what makes WhatsApp any different than a phone call? Your mobile provider by law must provide LEI of data, voice and text, now no one uses voice anymore, most people don't even text not without using alternative apps like WhatsApp or iMessage. So what is so special about these apps that the laws don't apply to them? and if we are using encryption as a way to back out of the rights we as a society already granted our government then by all means let's do it publicly because there is no reason why the government should be able to tap the phone of a 90 year old grandmother but not yours just because you know how to use WhatsApp. >Like it may have been "helpful", but how much damage did that lack of privacy and the existence of backdoors caused, too? Practically none, every telecommunication equipment in the US and the west in large has LEI backdoors built-in these aren't used for exploitation, just like the fact that most mobile phones can be easily tapped by anyone with a $100 worth of SDR equipment. While these are technically a risk in practice they aren't really a risk because they still have a high barrier for entry, high risk, and essentially very low reward due to the lack of scalability.

3x 8y ago
The difference is that these agencies never even bother with a warrant to store all of our data, and claim to not "collect" anything all while using algorithms to conduct mass surveillance at a scale far beyond the KGB's wildest dreams. And when they do want to spy on an individual more directly, it's done through gag orders and secret courts with no accountability to the public. Digital data is actually afforded even fewer protections than your example of letters in the mail.
srslack 8y ago
>But again this isn't about the NSA, this isn't even about the US This has everything to do with the US, and the NSA, because the legislation in question is part of a broader campaign orchestrated by the Five Eyes.[1] [1] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-country-ministerial-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-...
Faark 8y ago
The difference is how we use this "communication". It isn't just communication between peers anymore, but part of our digital... self (i'm blanking on a better word). The equivalent of you accessing your google drive wouldn't have been governed by these laws a few centuries back. You'll have a hard time demonstrating WhatsApp or iMessage are used for nothing more than phone calls usually were. Yes, all changes are tiny/gradual and the huge effect they have in combination with all others can often only be seen in retrospect. That's what makes your "this barely changes anything, it was always this way" argument usually so hard to argue against. But in this case it is obvious how our lives are becoming more and more digital...