4 ms·

I think as a starting point maybe a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. Iirc this all started around 9/11 and ther

I think as a starting point maybe a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. Iirc this all started around 9/11 and there was this shroud of secrecy mentality that revealing anything, even whether the operation had even caught a single terrorist, was somehow going to empower terrorists. I think in hindsight that doesn't hold up to scrutinty. I think some good metrics to be made public before a renewal is considered should be: what crimes were being investigated (e.g. was this drugs, pornography, domestic election tampering, international spying, exfiltration of government secrets, money laundering?). And how many total cases? And what % of cases lead to a conviction? And also a way for everyday citizens to request an FOIA on whether they had their data looked at. There are world where I could see this hypothetically being put to good use, and if people know what they use this for becomes visible to the public I think it forces us closer to such a world.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are beyond correct. 1) Decades of taxpayers funding the hoarding of ~100% of threat data, away from qualified netsec experts, so that it could be reserved to protecting US Gov interests (noting that NatSec typically includes US Gov, Gov partners, major campaign donors and that's about it). 2) One agency head after another sounding klaxons w/o evidence (eg:Digital Pearl Harbor), to influence policy in a way that would ratchet up agency power.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
They could definitely do a better job of communicating what they're doing, why they need to do it, risks, and their successes or failures. With that said they do communicate with Congress who are all directly elected by us. I think that we should also agree that secrecy is sometimes necessary.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  if i recall correctly, a three-letter agency was spying on the congress comitee that oversees them. When was the last time a senior official of a 3-letter agency was fired/jailed for exceeding his authority? Did it ever happen?
  - daniel-cussen 3y ago
    [dead]
drewcoo 3y ago
> Iirc this all started around 9/11 Added in 2008. https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/1237-fisa-section-702 https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/...

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats. I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are beyond correct. 1) Decades of taxpayers funding the hoarding of ~100% of threat data, away from qualified netsec experts, so that it could be reserved to protecting US Gov interests (noting that NatSec typically includes US Gov, Gov partners, major campaign donors and that's about it). 2) One agency head after another sounding klaxons w/o evidence (eg:Digital Pearl Harbor), to influence policy in a way that would ratchet up agency power.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

They could definitely do a better job of communicating what they're doing, why they need to do it, risks, and their successes or failures. With that said they do communicate with Congress who are all directly elected by us. I think that we should also agree that secrecy is sometimes necessary.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
if i recall correctly, a three-letter agency was spying on the congress comitee that oversees them. When was the last time a senior official of a 3-letter agency was fired/jailed for exceeding his authority? Did it ever happen?
- daniel-cussen 3y ago
  [dead]

drewcoo 3y ago

> Iirc this all started around 9/11 Added in 2008. https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/1237-fisa-section-702 https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/...