3 ms·

There are authorities that the NSA has used for voice transcriptions, and in the event they can't get it that way the 12333 Executive Order is waiting in the wi

There are authorities that the NSA has used for voice transcriptions, and in the event they can't get it that way the 12333 Executive Order is waiting in the wings. As far as "Chinese style" surveillance, I always note that it's always western or western-friendly information sources giving us the information on it. It's always filtered according to someone's interests, so when I subtract that from the issue I'm left with an estimation that it's probably not appreciably different than what we have in the US.

computerex 7y ago
The bottom line is that these surveillance programs are lawful. We elected the officials that put these programs in place for the purposes of national security. If you think that the government is doing unlawful surveillance, you can take them to court. That's not a luxury you have in China.
- rjf72 7y ago
  You literally have NSA whistle-blowers stating, under oath, that these programs are not legal and the NSA is knowingly and purposefully violating the US constitution. [1] That testimony was part of Jewel v NSA [2] which emphasizes what happens when you take intelligence agencies to court. That case was filed more than a decade ago. The government has already managed to get numerous key parts dismissed under state secrets privilege. [3] The government was also directed to preserve key data related to what remained of the case. In 2018 they informed the court they'd accidentally deleted it. Oops. [4] Oh yeah, in the same statement they also acknowledged they lied under oath when previously stating that they had preserved all relevant data on magnetic tapes and stored them with counsel. Oops again! Penalties.. consequences? You can guess. And yes, you can also sue the government in China. Just don't expect to win. [1] - https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/ https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA [3] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen... [4] - https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-jewel-v-nsa-and-accidental-deletion-surveillance-data https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-jewel-v-nsa-and-accident...
  - computerex 7y ago
    The PRISM program was authorized by the congress and run under the supervision of the judiciary.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      PRISM is selector-based (email, ph#), where is there anything to say that Chinese surveillance is more than that? I might just be ignorant of well-known facts, but there's nothing obvious to me so far with which to do a comparative analysis.
jsgo 7y ago
well, they tend to lock down things moreso than the US does (such as great firewall) at least currently, but I agree: it is mostly speculative as to what is there. And China isn't going to downplay the speculation. Frankly, they want everyone to think they have the best, most thorough surveillance apparatus in the world. Even if it isn't stronger than what is done here, the perception is to their benefit.
- rhizome 7y ago
  And what do the Chinese hear about the world outside the GFW?

computerex 7y ago

The bottom line is that these surveillance programs are lawful. We elected the officials that put these programs in place for the purposes of national security. If you think that the government is doing unlawful surveillance, you can take them to court. That's not a luxury you have in China.

rjf72 7y ago
You literally have NSA whistle-blowers stating, under oath, that these programs are not legal and the NSA is knowingly and purposefully violating the US constitution. [1] That testimony was part of Jewel v NSA [2] which emphasizes what happens when you take intelligence agencies to court. That case was filed more than a decade ago. The government has already managed to get numerous key parts dismissed under state secrets privilege. [3] The government was also directed to preserve key data related to what remained of the case. In 2018 they informed the court they'd accidentally deleted it. Oops. [4] Oh yeah, in the same statement they also acknowledged they lied under oath when previously stating that they had preserved all relevant data on magnetic tapes and stored them with counsel. Oops again! Penalties.. consequences? You can guess. And yes, you can also sue the government in China. Just don't expect to win. [1] - https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/ https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA [3] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen... [4] - https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-jewel-v-nsa-and-accidental-deletion-surveillance-data https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-jewel-v-nsa-and-accident...
- computerex 7y ago
  The PRISM program was authorized by the congress and run under the supervision of the judiciary.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    PRISM is selector-based (email, ph#), where is there anything to say that Chinese surveillance is more than that? I might just be ignorant of well-known facts, but there's nothing obvious to me so far with which to do a comparative analysis.

jsgo 7y ago

well, they tend to lock down things moreso than the US does (such as great firewall) at least currently, but I agree: it is mostly speculative as to what is there. And China isn't going to downplay the speculation. Frankly, they want everyone to think they have the best, most thorough surveillance apparatus in the world. Even if it isn't stronger than what is done here, the perception is to their benefit.

rhizome 7y ago
And what do the Chinese hear about the world outside the GFW?