6 ms·
what happens if you make facial recognition illegal but NSA or other government agencies still use it? How would you punish them? Change the director? Fire empl
by hawkoy 6y ago
what happens if you make facial recognition illegal but NSA or other government agencies still use it? How would you punish them? Change the director? Fire employees? Fine them or money cuts?
- bun_at_work 6y agoThere's a conflict there, but generally the intelligence agencies try to avoid doing illegal things. They do morally wrong things, for sure, but finding a legal argument is difficult, because they try to operate within the law.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y agohahahahaha no only if an officer looks at the data a warrant is required, as long as only automatons process it, the rules do not apply
- fsflover 6y agoLet's see if NSA stops the surveillance then: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal (reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24362047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24362047
- reaperducer 6y agoHe wrote "generally." Pointing out a single case does not negate his statement.
- jeromegv 6y agoSingle case that is basically the major and only role that the agency has been playing is not a « single case ».
- bun_at_work 6y ago> only role that the agency has been playing... wut Do you know what the NSA does? Maybe look it up...
- dylan604 6y agoIf that's the evidence we have, that's the conviction they receive. It's pretty damning evidence. If an agency is willing to go that far, why give them the benefit of the doubt that was only thing that "got away from them"? Something like that only comes along when a systemic level of rules flaunting is prevalent.
- thatguy0900 6y agoI mean, we have no idea what intelligence agencies "generally" do. What we do know is that the few things that have come out about their actions have been full of illegal things. So saying they generally don't do that isn't worth very much
- bun_at_work 6y agoWe do have an idea of what intelligence agencies do. They collect intelligence. The FBI investigates domestic federal crimes, mostly child porn, domestic terrorism, and white collar crimes, among a lot of other things. The NSA has a more foreign directive and focuses on national security. The DEA focuses on the war on drugs. A big problem I'm noticing everywhere is that, while we have access to all of this information on how the government works, no one exercises their access to that information before commenting on internet forums and spreading misinformation and doubt about our DEMOCRATIC institutions. Even if you don't elect the person who heads these agencies, you do elect the person who appoints those heads.
- thatguy0900 6y agohttps://apnews.com/article/33a88feb083ea35515de3c73e3d854ad https://apnews.com/article/33a88feb083ea35515de3c73e3d854ad congress isn't sure what the nsa is doing, you will have a very hard time convincing me that the average American can know. We have broad overviews of their job directive, yes. And is this democratic to you, when they lie to congress? I don't believe it's very democratic anyway considering our first past the post system mandates only two political parties, and neither party has any interest in curbing the surveillance state.
- ouid 6y agoI think perhaps describing the mass surveillance of the american public as a single case is a touch disingenuous.
- Dahoon 6y agoThere're articles (as in more than one) on Wikipedia with lists of all the known illegal things the US does as I'm sure you are aware. Like the overthrow of governments, mass surveillance, use of torture, etc. Some are illegal internationally and some are also illegal by US laws. It's very disingenuous trying to pretend NSA is the only entity in the US that breaks the law habitually.
- itronitron 6y agoOne could argue that NSA is not an intelligence agency, but rather a security agency.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y agoIndeed. One might even argue that the right solution is "Don't make it illegal."
- rjsw 6y agoJust copy the UK and pass a law allowing government agencies to do illegal things.
- francis_t_catte 6y agoAh yes, like anthrax bombing an island?
- ben_w 6y agoLike explicitly saying in the House of Commons that they propose to violate international law, because they have just realised there is a flaw with the international agreement that they themselves has signed only a few months earlier, after having won a general election specifically on the basis of signing that specific agreement, and angrily telling everyone that the agreement had been studied enough and was fine and that any attempt to delay was an act of treachery against the people rather than due diligence.
- rjsw 6y agoI was thinking more of this [1], than about Brexit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Human_Intelligence_Sources_(Criminal_Conduct)_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Human_Intelligence_Sour...
- ben_w 6y agoFair enough, I can see why; the list of entities they propose to give the authority to authorise unlawfulness is rather worrying.
- ggm 6y agoThe law that broke was...
- reaperducer 6y agowhat happens if you make facial recognition illegal but NSA or other government agencies still use it? It is very common in the United States for Congress to pass laws, but exempt themselves. Example 1: I have read that OSHA rules don't apply to Congress. Example 2: Political ads are exempted from the Do Not Call rules.
- dylan604 6y agoWhat's illegal for you and me is not necessarily illegal for Them, apparently. It is illegal to lie to Congress, yet there goes James Clapper with no repercussions. Yes, if someone in a trusted position of authority is caught doing something illegal they should be removed from that position and then charged with what ever crime it was they committed. Just like you and I would have done to us. Why is that even a question on your part?
- mssundaram 6y ago> Why is that even a question on your part? I think the parent isn't actually questioning that someone in authority should or should not have the same repercussions, but rather rhetorically calling out, as you explicitly did, they often are held to a lower standard.
- dylan604 6y agoI guess what I was getting at is why make it rhetorical. There is not room for that in this regard. Allowing any wiggle room is how we got to where we are.
- marcosdumay 6y agoIf it's a crime you persecute the people involved on the decision. If it's a civil matter, yes, you fire and fine people.