2 ms·

So you trust the foia process? How many years do you have? How much money? Do you know the right questions to ask? How are those FOIA requests for stingray usa

So you trust the foia process? How many years do you have? How much money? Do you know the right questions to ask? How are those FOIA requests for stingray usage and tracking information going? Still blocked, last I checked. Like I keep saying: these arguments only work if you assume that the usg is all sunshine and rainbows, which is a naive assumption to make. If you're willing to call NetPAC bad, which you do, you've got to agree that it's only bad if the people taking money do so and support the $badthings you claim google does, by not outlawing them. But if they're corrupt enough to do that, why aren't they corrupt enough to torpedo a few FOIA requests? To put it another way if google is so bad, and you can't even get the USG to police google, how can you expect them to police themselves?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The government doesn't "police themselves", the system of checks and balances ensures one branch polices another. For instance: The courts have routinely shut down law enforcement agencies' attempts to misuse camera recordings. This was a recent story I read: https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling-demonstrates-evolving-fourth-amendment-rights/ https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling... Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists, and then the US Congress that inevitably forced Google to shut it down. Thankfully, despite NetPAC, it looks like enforcement for Google is finally coming. The hand of justice moves slow, unfortunately, but it eventually gets there.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists No. It was pressure from employees, employees who had ethical concerns. Employees who, I'll note, you consistently badmouth for continuing to work at Google. It's not like a journalist just magically inferred that Dragonfly was a thing one day and wrote an article one day. And Congress had almost nothing to do with it, lmao. > The government doesn't "police themselves", the system of checks and balances ensures one branch polices another That's true for things that aren't FOIA. But you mentioned FOIA. Which exists as a way for the executive to police themselves. The courts do exist as a check on the executive, (and local governments). So again, how are those stingray FOIA requests going? Note also that "law enforcement" is an FOIA exemption. > This was a recent story I read: https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.. https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.... This was a targeted piece of tracking that requires a warrant. Dragnet monitoring often does not require a warrant. In other words, setting up a single camera to monitor a single house needs a warrant. Setting up a hundred cameras to monitor the public doesn't, although getting data from them to target a specific person might, at least if it was being used to imprison them. When was the last time Google imprisoned anyone again? It's also really, really amusing to see you claim that Google is subject to no public accountability. There are absolutely ways you could try to hold Google accountable, if you actually think that they've done something wrong. You just need to be able to convince a Judge. Same as for the executive branch of the government.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    It is true some Googlers leaked the data that started this. But everyone who organized the Walkout has already left, many others have left for ethical reasons regarding Maven or the like, and the number of events of unethical actions Google has undertaken is significant. At this point, it would be very suspect to me the suggestion that anyone truly ethical would remain at this juncture, unless they were actively attempting to sabotage and undermine the functional capabilities of the company. But apart from that leak, it was Congress, not employees, that shut down Dragonfly. Google is happy to dismiss employee concerns, as they've done over and over again. But after Sundar was dragged into Congress and repeatedly questioned about helping China, shockingly, Dragonfly disappeared. It's very revisionist to suggest Google shut it down to placate their own employees, rather than avoid action from Congress. Remember that after some 20% of Google's employees walked out with a list of demands, Google dismissed 6/7ths of those demands without any further comment on the matter... and the employees didn't do anything further to retaliate. Google is well aware that ignoring employee complaints works, but ignoring Congress does not.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The government doesn't "police themselves", the system of checks and balances ensures one branch polices another. For instance: The courts have routinely shut down law enforcement agencies' attempts to misuse camera recordings. This was a recent story I read: https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling-demonstrates-evolving-fourth-amendment-rights/ https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling... Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists, and then the US Congress that inevitably forced Google to shut it down. Thankfully, despite NetPAC, it looks like enforcement for Google is finally coming. The hand of justice moves slow, unfortunately, but it eventually gets there.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> Meanwhile, Google hid Dragonfly from the internal team that was supposed to review it's projects for ethics issues. And it was pressure from journalists No. It was pressure from employees, employees who had ethical concerns. Employees who, I'll note, you consistently badmouth for continuing to work at Google. It's not like a journalist just magically inferred that Dragonfly was a thing one day and wrote an article one day. And Congress had almost nothing to do with it, lmao. > The government doesn't "police themselves", the system of checks and balances ensures one branch polices another That's true for things that aren't FOIA. But you mentioned FOIA. Which exists as a way for the executive to police themselves. The courts do exist as a check on the executive, (and local governments). So again, how are those stingray FOIA requests going? Note also that "law enforcement" is an FOIA exemption. > This was a recent story I read: https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.. https://cdt.org/blog/digital-is-different-pole-camera-ruling.... This was a targeted piece of tracking that requires a warrant. Dragnet monitoring often does not require a warrant. In other words, setting up a single camera to monitor a single house needs a warrant. Setting up a hundred cameras to monitor the public doesn't, although getting data from them to target a specific person might, at least if it was being used to imprison them. When was the last time Google imprisoned anyone again? It's also really, really amusing to see you claim that Google is subject to no public accountability. There are absolutely ways you could try to hold Google accountable, if you actually think that they've done something wrong. You just need to be able to convince a Judge. Same as for the executive branch of the government.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  It is true some Googlers leaked the data that started this. But everyone who organized the Walkout has already left, many others have left for ethical reasons regarding Maven or the like, and the number of events of unethical actions Google has undertaken is significant. At this point, it would be very suspect to me the suggestion that anyone truly ethical would remain at this juncture, unless they were actively attempting to sabotage and undermine the functional capabilities of the company. But apart from that leak, it was Congress, not employees, that shut down Dragonfly. Google is happy to dismiss employee concerns, as they've done over and over again. But after Sundar was dragged into Congress and repeatedly questioned about helping China, shockingly, Dragonfly disappeared. It's very revisionist to suggest Google shut it down to placate their own employees, rather than avoid action from Congress. Remember that after some 20% of Google's employees walked out with a list of demands, Google dismissed 6/7ths of those demands without any further comment on the matter... and the employees didn't do anything further to retaliate. Google is well aware that ignoring employee complaints works, but ignoring Congress does not.