3 ms·

After Assange and h Snowden is pretty clear nobody is paranoid the documents are out there the NSA has a system where they monitor people inside and outside the

After Assange and h Snowden is pretty clear nobody is paranoid the documents are out there the NSA has a system where they monitor people inside and outside the United States the real question is what do you do when they are after everyone

Craighead 6y ago
And yet why don't you worry about SORM in Russia or the CCP's monitoring capabilities? I'd take wikileaks slightly more seriously if there intent wasn't solely anti-American sentiment forming.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Statistically speaking, they are after hardly anyone. But they have an obvious vested interest in having sufficient data to track the motions of anyone, because they can't know a-priori who is involved in an activity harmful to the interests of the United States of America until they have evidence an activity has happened or will happen and need to begin connecting the dots to identify the pattern. You can't connect dots you don't have. Most of the NSA's behavior can be understood as maximizing their dots.
- 13415 6y ago
  Talking about "connecting the dots" is a bit naive in this context, though. The NSA has been pursuing what they called a "total information awareness" program since the late 90s / early 2000s. The goal is to collect all digital data about all of the world citizens, so it can be used later in case that's deemed "necessary" for "national security." Basically like Facebook+Google, plus geolocation and mobile phone data and information from national police registers, credit card companies, and travel agencies. All of this integrated and searchable in real-time. It's a realistically attainable goal for an agency like the NSA. However, the Snowden revelations put it into jeopardy because their prior policy was that merely storing data about Americans is constitutional if it is not queried in an unconstitutional way. It is not. But they are allowed to store anything about anyone else, and they probably still do that. I mean, advertising companies do this at a city block level in many countries already.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I don't think it's naive; I think you have correctly interpreted their goals and the ends those goals are structured to achieve. Total information awareness, to be used in circumstances where it's necessary for national security. Pull the scare quotes off and it's directly in line with the NSA's mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      There is absolutely no reason why the use should be limited, now or in the future. In practice, the information will be fed to automated systems effectively putting everyone into surveillance, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of manual pulls is in the 100 000 people per year range.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        It's up to us to make sure the government doesn't abuse that privilege. There is no reason why the use of the military on our own citizens should be limited either, yet we still have a military.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is no way for you to make sure the government doesn't abuse that privilege when they can classify their abuses top-secret and prevent anyone from leaking them. The use of the military on citizens is very severely limited in essentially all democracies. Hell, even in the PRC it is limited.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        When you can control the legislature and presidency, there is a pretty clear path to policing what is labeled top secret. The problem is to function as a military power you can't just spill the beans on everything. What's your solution here? Magic? > The use of the military on citizens is very severely limited in essentially all democracies. Hell, even in the PRC it is limited. It's limited because the people limit it. That's my point - if the people want to limit surveillance they can - whether they choose to or not is up to them.

Craighead 6y ago

And yet why don't you worry about SORM in Russia or the CCP's monitoring capabilities? I'd take wikileaks slightly more seriously if there intent wasn't solely anti-American sentiment forming.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Statistically speaking, they are after hardly anyone. But they have an obvious vested interest in having sufficient data to track the motions of anyone, because they can't know a-priori who is involved in an activity harmful to the interests of the United States of America until they have evidence an activity has happened or will happen and need to begin connecting the dots to identify the pattern. You can't connect dots you don't have. Most of the NSA's behavior can be understood as maximizing their dots.

13415 6y ago
Talking about "connecting the dots" is a bit naive in this context, though. The NSA has been pursuing what they called a "total information awareness" program since the late 90s / early 2000s. The goal is to collect all digital data about all of the world citizens, so it can be used later in case that's deemed "necessary" for "national security." Basically like Facebook+Google, plus geolocation and mobile phone data and information from national police registers, credit card companies, and travel agencies. All of this integrated and searchable in real-time. It's a realistically attainable goal for an agency like the NSA. However, the Snowden revelations put it into jeopardy because their prior policy was that merely storing data about Americans is constitutional if it is not queried in an unconstitutional way. It is not. But they are allowed to store anything about anyone else, and they probably still do that. I mean, advertising companies do this at a city block level in many countries already.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I don't think it's naive; I think you have correctly interpreted their goals and the ends those goals are structured to achieve. Total information awareness, to be used in circumstances where it's necessary for national security. Pull the scare quotes off and it's directly in line with the NSA's mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    There is absolutely no reason why the use should be limited, now or in the future. In practice, the information will be fed to automated systems effectively putting everyone into surveillance, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of manual pulls is in the 100 000 people per year range.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      It's up to us to make sure the government doesn't abuse that privilege. There is no reason why the use of the military on our own citizens should be limited either, yet we still have a military.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is no way for you to make sure the government doesn't abuse that privilege when they can classify their abuses top-secret and prevent anyone from leaking them. The use of the military on citizens is very severely limited in essentially all democracies. Hell, even in the PRC it is limited.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        When you can control the legislature and presidency, there is a pretty clear path to policing what is labeled top secret. The problem is to function as a military power you can't just spill the beans on everything. What's your solution here? Magic? > The use of the military on citizens is very severely limited in essentially all democracies. Hell, even in the PRC it is limited. It's limited because the people limit it. That's my point - if the people want to limit surveillance they can - whether they choose to or not is up to them.