16 ms·

Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers

318 points by humantiy 7y ago

Elpomm 7y ago
Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  Conservatism has never been about any of the things its supposed to be about. See: federal debt.
  - ISL 7y ago
    One can argue that those representatives who claim to be fiscally conservative but vote for unfunded liabilities are not, in fact, fiscally conservative.
    - arkades 7y ago
      It's a political party. If people that identify X vote for you, who identifies X and votes in a block with other people that identify X for matters that attract Identity X voters to said party... then you don't get to pull the No True Scotsman. You are the party of X, whether or not some arbitrary philosophy party X is supposed to uphold is consistent with the party's actions.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - monocasa 7y ago
        The party is Republican. Fiscal conservatism is absolutely a specific policy which someone can be said to be following or not.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      One can argue that's a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
      - monocasa 7y ago
        You can't say "you're not a scotsman because I don't like your actions or opinions". You can say "you're not a scotsman because you're neither from scotland, nor have any particular tie to it." Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition, and it's totally vaild to say "you don't adhere to the definition", as long as you're not applying spurious constraints.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        > Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition... A vague one, making it easy to play the Scotsman game with.
- detcader 7y ago
  The most profitable central principle for a party of corporations is deregluation of _industry_. Scaling up of the military and authoritarianism is a profitable choice as well. Those are two main incentives of many conservative parties and groups. The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest. The strongest, toughest country, business, and individual has the right to survive. Helping and trying to understand other countries, situations, people? Irrational, weak.
  - 481092 7y ago
    >The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest This isn't just a principle of a party but a natural law. This is displayed in liberal politics also. Life is a fight using powers as a utility, hard and soft powers. Liberals tend to bank on using the powers of certain ideologies, many as vague as conservative ideologies, in order for those ideologies to survive. Some use the soft power of love which may prove sometimes to be fittest when that power gathers enough political support, some use the hard powers of war and competition which may seem fittest in some occasions. And of course, love and warfare is seen and used in both/all parties even when they don't seem to realize it, sometimes hypocritically on the surface but often when you look deep enough, you see the forces of natural law shining through and it's not just love and war against each other, it's just organisms which may be ideological, biological, etc competing in what some would view as a thermodynamic machine racing towards entropic neutrality. But to say only conservatives employ 'survival of the fittest' is such a vast simplification.
    - detcader 7y ago
      If everyday human life must echo the eons-long process of evolution, can we say the same for other natural laws? Gravity is a natural law; so people inevitably bow to their superiors? People bowing to each other is gravity shining through! But capillary action is another natural law, so it means people inevitably rise up to best their superiors... When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight' law falls to pieces. Beings are capable of generosity without a gaining idea, and most of us have encountered this as part of our lives. I have found that lovingkindness and compassion are boundless in every sentient being's heart. I think self-identified 'liberals' generally don't have any concrete principles about power itself. As long as it is illegal to not treat all people equally, liberals seem to think government power should increase to the extent that it can relieve suffering and foster generosity. Parts of the left, with its civil libertarians and Proudhon anarchists, think about power in a deeper and more heterodox way...
- andrekandre 7y ago
  is trump conservative or is he right wing? even if they are usually conflated or found together, aren’t they pretty much different things?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Trump is a fascist, which is a little different. The high school political spectrum thing breaks down out of the context of the 20th century.
    - ajxs 7y ago
      How is Trump in any way a 'fascist'? What do you think actually characterises fascism?
      - pimmen 7y ago
        I would not say Trump's a fascist, but there are some really bad elements of fascism Trump does embrace. He does not believe in the checks and balances of government, preferring the executive branch to not have to answer to directives from other branches. This is at least the message he sends out to his base when he tweets that he'll ignore a Supreme Court ruling or a House subpoena. He does not believe that the justice system should be independent of the executive branch, admitting that the Russia investigation was a factor in firing an FBI director and having instructed members of his staff to try to interfer in investigations, if the Mueller report is to be believed. He places a very strong emphasis on national unity and uses language which excludes people from this national identity. Now, there are plenty of things he does though that is incompatible with the strict definition of fascism. He clearly does not favor a mixed economy and instead prefers not to regulate it (but he does favor national self sufficiency, which was a big part of early 20th century fascism, but not even close to degree of "if the nation needs something we don't have, let's expand"), he has not tried to use the education system to strengthen the national identity (in contrast to Russia or Turkey for example), has not engaged in "moral hygiene" preachings and ... I could go on, he does not embrace all the core tenets of fascism but he does incorporate several troubling elements of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
sarcasmatwork 7y ago
Obama started, Trump continued. Not good for anyone.
- cronix 7y ago
  Bush started after 9/11.
  - Arubis 7y ago
    Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.
    - Dirlewanger 7y ago
      Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.
      - Arubis 7y ago
        It's pretty likely that your and my (dis)taste for particular politicians and parties overlaps, but keep in mind that only one single senator voted against the passage of the Patriot Act as originally presented. My strong suspicion is that the association of W. with the modern surveillance state, while accurate, has far more to do with timing than with party.
        elliekelly 7y ago
        My Constitutional Law professor was big on not just exploring the legal analysis of cases but on making sure we understood the social/historical context at the time decisions were made. He used to tell us fear is the biggest threat to freedom because nothing erodes the constitution as quickly as a public panic. At the time I honestly thought he was being a little dramatic but seeing all of the things we allow the government to do in the name of "fighting terrorism" I realize he had a pretty good point.
komali2 7y ago
> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States There are two versions of the United States. 1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked. 2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's another example of enemies of #2 but not #1). As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2" above.
- Arubis 7y ago
  This is an excellent breakdown of something that feels obvious but was hard to express. Thank you.
- Clubber 7y ago
  >This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
apo 7y ago
> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case. The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10... I suspect that at the time many Obama supporters simply didn't care. Their guy was in charge and that was that. Short-sighted to be sure. Far too few considered the possibility that the opposition was watching and learning what new things might be possible.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. from http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://change.gov/agenda/ethic... yet: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/assange-snowden-seeking-asylum-ecuador-and-elsewhere-whereabouts-unreleased http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/assange-snowden-seek... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-... https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/ https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his... https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/salon-jane-mayer-obama-war-whistleblowers/ https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/salon-jane-mayer-o... And so on, and so forth. Let's not pretend this didn't happen and rewrite history just to engage in partisan scapegoating. Let's not normalize revisionism, too. (edit: I say that because your comment was greyed out when I started writing my reply, which is just intended to elaborate on what you said)
carapace 7y ago
I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear. If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it. Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's like outlawing books with more than 10 pages. Humans as we cherish them today -- ones with agency and spontaneity -- cannot exist in such conditions, meaningful social progress will stop.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we cannot (I believe) do without the surveillance, can we remove the chilling effect? For example, in Star Trek the computer always knew where everyone was (unless the script called for a mysterious disappearance) and no one felt stifled, eh?
    - dmix 7y ago
      We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions. I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge. Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the whole purpose.
auslander 7y ago
There is a contradiction: "Although Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, doesn’t have access to the content of those backed-up messages, Google and Apple do." and " 'iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,' the guidelines state." I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google can access the content of messages, Apple can not.
- SanchoPanda 7y ago
  They may be referring to messages which were sent as end to end encrypted, but were later backed up in Google drive or Dropbox etc. in plaintext. This is something I have done in the past.
caf 7y ago
As I read through I didn't think there was too much to this - if we're going to have big classified databases then strong auditing is absolutely essential and I'm glad it's happening (people selling the data in them to corporations and governments is absolutely a valid concern). I'm happy I kept reading though, because I thought this bit down near the bottom was insightful: Authentication, which often involves sharing information about the contents of a forthcoming story with the government, is a common journalistic practice that allows the government to weigh in on any risks involved in publishing the material of which the journalist may not be aware. By turning that process into a trap for journalists and sources, the government is sacrificing an opportunity to safeguard its legitimate interests and tell its side of the story.

318 points by humantiy 7y ago

Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.

rjkennedy98 7y ago
Conservatism has never been about any of the things its supposed to be about. See: federal debt.
- ISL 7y ago
  One can argue that those representatives who claim to be fiscally conservative but vote for unfunded liabilities are not, in fact, fiscally conservative.
  - arkades 7y ago
    It's a political party. If people that identify X vote for you, who identifies X and votes in a block with other people that identify X for matters that attract Identity X voters to said party... then you don't get to pull the No True Scotsman. You are the party of X, whether or not some arbitrary philosophy party X is supposed to uphold is consistent with the party's actions.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The party is Republican. Fiscal conservatism is absolutely a specific policy which someone can be said to be following or not.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    One can argue that's a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - monocasa 7y ago
      You can't say "you're not a scotsman because I don't like your actions or opinions". You can say "you're not a scotsman because you're neither from scotland, nor have any particular tie to it." Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition, and it's totally vaild to say "you don't adhere to the definition", as long as you're not applying spurious constraints.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition... A vague one, making it easy to play the Scotsman game with.
detcader 7y ago
The most profitable central principle for a party of corporations is deregluation of _industry_. Scaling up of the military and authoritarianism is a profitable choice as well. Those are two main incentives of many conservative parties and groups. The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest. The strongest, toughest country, business, and individual has the right to survive. Helping and trying to understand other countries, situations, people? Irrational, weak.
- 481092 7y ago
  >The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest This isn't just a principle of a party but a natural law. This is displayed in liberal politics also. Life is a fight using powers as a utility, hard and soft powers. Liberals tend to bank on using the powers of certain ideologies, many as vague as conservative ideologies, in order for those ideologies to survive. Some use the soft power of love which may prove sometimes to be fittest when that power gathers enough political support, some use the hard powers of war and competition which may seem fittest in some occasions. And of course, love and warfare is seen and used in both/all parties even when they don't seem to realize it, sometimes hypocritically on the surface but often when you look deep enough, you see the forces of natural law shining through and it's not just love and war against each other, it's just organisms which may be ideological, biological, etc competing in what some would view as a thermodynamic machine racing towards entropic neutrality. But to say only conservatives employ 'survival of the fittest' is such a vast simplification.
  - detcader 7y ago
    If everyday human life must echo the eons-long process of evolution, can we say the same for other natural laws? Gravity is a natural law; so people inevitably bow to their superiors? People bowing to each other is gravity shining through! But capillary action is another natural law, so it means people inevitably rise up to best their superiors... When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight' law falls to pieces. Beings are capable of generosity without a gaining idea, and most of us have encountered this as part of our lives. I have found that lovingkindness and compassion are boundless in every sentient being's heart. I think self-identified 'liberals' generally don't have any concrete principles about power itself. As long as it is illegal to not treat all people equally, liberals seem to think government power should increase to the extent that it can relieve suffering and foster generosity. Parts of the left, with its civil libertarians and Proudhon anarchists, think about power in a deeper and more heterodox way...
andrekandre 7y ago
is trump conservative or is he right wing? even if they are usually conflated or found together, aren’t they pretty much different things?
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Trump is a fascist, which is a little different. The high school political spectrum thing breaks down out of the context of the 20th century.
  - ajxs 7y ago
    How is Trump in any way a 'fascist'? What do you think actually characterises fascism?
    - pimmen 7y ago
      I would not say Trump's a fascist, but there are some really bad elements of fascism Trump does embrace. He does not believe in the checks and balances of government, preferring the executive branch to not have to answer to directives from other branches. This is at least the message he sends out to his base when he tweets that he'll ignore a Supreme Court ruling or a House subpoena. He does not believe that the justice system should be independent of the executive branch, admitting that the Russia investigation was a factor in firing an FBI director and having instructed members of his staff to try to interfer in investigations, if the Mueller report is to be believed. He places a very strong emphasis on national unity and uses language which excludes people from this national identity. Now, there are plenty of things he does though that is incompatible with the strict definition of fascism. He clearly does not favor a mixed economy and instead prefers not to regulate it (but he does favor national self sufficiency, which was a big part of early 20th century fascism, but not even close to degree of "if the nation needs something we don't have, let's expand"), he has not tried to use the education system to strengthen the national identity (in contrast to Russia or Turkey for example), has not engaged in "moral hygiene" preachings and ... I could go on, he does not embrace all the core tenets of fascism but he does incorporate several troubling elements of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

sarcasmatwork 7y ago

Obama started, Trump continued. Not good for anyone.

cronix 7y ago
Bush started after 9/11.
- Arubis 7y ago
  Or, you know, Truman. Or Hoover. Generally speaking, people capable of getting themselves elected President have authoritarian tendencies.
  - Dirlewanger 7y ago
    Bush ushered in the modern surveillance state. Since him, the differences of the 2 parties has blurred insomuch while the government may vary from administration from administration as to what services the federal government as a whole provides, but one thing is for sure: it will always be watching you no matter what. The alphabet agencies will never relinquish their newfound surveillance powers.
    - Arubis 7y ago
      It's pretty likely that your and my (dis)taste for particular politicians and parties overlaps, but keep in mind that only one single senator voted against the passage of the Patriot Act as originally presented. My strong suspicion is that the association of W. with the modern surveillance state, while accurate, has far more to do with timing than with party.
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        My Constitutional Law professor was big on not just exploring the legal analysis of cases but on making sure we understood the social/historical context at the time decisions were made. He used to tell us fear is the biggest threat to freedom because nothing erodes the constitution as quickly as a public panic. At the time I honestly thought he was being a little dramatic but seeing all of the things we allow the government to do in the name of "fighting terrorism" I realize he had a pretty good point.

komali2 7y ago

> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States There are two versions of the United States. 1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked. 2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's another example of enemies of #2 but not #1). As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2" above.

Arubis 7y ago
This is an excellent breakdown of something that feels obvious but was hard to express. Thank you.
Clubber 7y ago
>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

apo 7y ago

> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later, Trump’s Justice Department revived the case. The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that really turned up the heat on whistleblowers: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10... I suspect that at the time many Obama supporters simply didn't care. Their guy was in charge and that was that. Short-sighted to be sure. Far too few considered the possibility that the opposition was watching and learning what new things might be possible.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. from http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://change.gov/agenda/ethic... yet: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/assange-snowden-seeking-asylum-ecuador-and-elsewhere-whereabouts-unreleased http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/assange-snowden-seek... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-... https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/ https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-his... https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/salon-jane-mayer-obama-war-whistleblowers/ https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/salon-jane-mayer-o... And so on, and so forth. Let's not pretend this didn't happen and rewrite history just to engage in partisan scapegoating. Let's not normalize revisionism, too. (edit: I say that because your comment was greyed out when I started writing my reply, which is just intended to elaborate on what you said)

carapace 7y ago

I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear. If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it. Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's like outlawing books with more than 10 pages. Humans as we cherish them today -- ones with agency and spontaneity -- cannot exist in such conditions, meaningful social progress will stop.
- carapace 7y ago
  Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins." At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular. So, since we cannot (I believe) do without the surveillance, can we remove the chilling effect? For example, in Star Trek the computer always knew where everyone was (unless the script called for a mysterious disappearance) and no one felt stifled, eh?
  - dmix 7y ago
    We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions. I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge. Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the whole purpose.

auslander 7y ago

There is a contradiction: "Although Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, doesn’t have access to the content of those backed-up messages, Google and Apple do." and " 'iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,' the guidelines state." I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google can access the content of messages, Apple can not.

SanchoPanda 7y ago
They may be referring to messages which were sent as end to end encrypted, but were later backed up in Google drive or Dropbox etc. in plaintext. This is something I have done in the past.

caf 7y ago

As I read through I didn't think there was too much to this - if we're going to have big classified databases then strong auditing is absolutely essential and I'm glad it's happening (people selling the data in them to corporations and governments is absolutely a valid concern). I'm happy I kept reading though, because I thought this bit down near the bottom was insightful: Authentication, which often involves sharing information about the contents of a forthcoming story with the government, is a common journalistic practice that allows the government to weigh in on any risks involved in publishing the material of which the journalist may not be aware. By turning that process into a trap for journalists and sources, the government is sacrificing an opportunity to safeguard its legitimate interests and tell its side of the story.