10 ms·
> This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to pu
by sgift 3y ago
> This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to push through the confirmation.
So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. At least it shines a bit light on the whole charade. Not that it makes much of a difference for me, since I'm not an US citizen, but imho the easiest and best solution would be to stop private companies from gobbling up and selling private data. But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we?
- jerpint 3y agoThis is very likely common practice by many other governments
- master-lincoln 3y agowhat makes you think so?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThe United States is this limited government, with strict limits on what it's allowed to do. Yeah, I know. It hasn't worked out that way. But do you think other governments, starting with fewer restraints, are doing less than the US? Or more? I could see saying that the US is doing it in higher volume, because it's got more money to spend on government excess.
- suoduandao2 3y agoIncentives are a factor too though. The us needs to hold a mostly voluntary empire together, that requires a lot more intrigue than the average country.
- bannedbybros 3y ago>voluntary empire lmao ycomb.
- suoduandao2 3y agoI mean relative to other empires in history. Maybe the Persian one comes close, maybe. I don’t like living in a client state but I’m under no illusions things would be better under the British or Spanish
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 3y agoThat makes me think of something I saw on HN yesterday [0] where the author was saying that a private right of action to sue in the courts was an important part of offloading power away from the US government proper. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38480187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38480187
- chiefalchemist 3y agoIn this case, I don't believe the NSA actually broke the law. They purchased data that was on the open market. You don't need a court order to collect data when it's *that* convenient. The buried lede here is: why is it legal to resell that data in the first place. (Hint: because it makes Intelligence Community's job 100x easier). This ultimatum for answers is simply theatre.
- roamerz 3y ago>Yeah, I know. It hasn’t worked out that way. This is where the writers of the Constitution missed the boat a little. With all of their smarts they probably could have written something in there to hold accountable those who would have any part in enacting a rule or law the violates the Constitution. Not a simple task at all but a worthwhile addition IMHO.
- saagarjha 3y agoDoesn't mean we need to accept it here.
- ixwt 3y ago> So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. Tell that to all of the high ranking military positions that Senator Tuberville is still holding up months later.
- dingusdew 3y ago[dead]
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- tssva 3y agoThe reason Tuberville has been able to hold up the military confirmations is the large number and frequency of them. If there isn't unanimous consent the process of approving each individually would leave the Senate with no time to do anything else. If they want to move forward a single appointment through the process that can be done in a few weeks. The Democrats may even try to use this to gain more support for the temporary rule change needed for mass approval of the military confirmations. They can say it isn't a partisan effort because they will use the rule change to override the hold of a Democrat.
- api 3y ago> But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we? Exactly. Surveillance capitalism is orders of magnitude more invasive than the NSA and does not answer to anyone. Regulations don’t even really work because they can just offshore anything shady or do it through fly by night data brokers.
- master-lincoln 3y agoBut private companies do not have the legal option to invade your home or use physical force on you.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoYou just made me wonder if those smart TVs have the ability to packet sniff what’s going on on the Wi-Fi networks in the homes in which they’re installed.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoSome IOT devices definitely do scan your network automatically to look for other compatible members of the ecosystem.
- oyashirochama 3y agoA reason why VLANing is important.
- rolph 3y agofrom wikipedia "HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel Introduced in HDMI 1.4, HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel (HEAC) adds a high-speed bidirectional data communication link (HEC) and the ability to send audio data upstream to the source device (ARC). HEAC utilizes two lines from the connector: the previously unused Reserved pin (called HEAC+) and the Hot Plug Detect pin (called HEAC−).[51]: §HEAC-2.1 If only ARC transmission is required, a single mode signal using the HEAC+ line can be used, otherwise, HEC is transmitted as a differential signal over the pair of lines, and ARC as a common mode component of the pair." HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC) HDMI Ethernet Channel technology consolidates video, audio, and data streams into a single HDMI cable, and the HEC feature enables IP-based applications over HDMI and provides a bidirectional Ethernet communication at 100 Mbit/s.[43] The physical layer of the Ethernet implementation uses a hybrid to simultaneously send and receive attenuated 100BASE-TX-type signals through a single twisted pair." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI -------------------------------------------------- This gives me the impression that packet sniffs, and many other operations have been in play since HDMI 1.4, possibly a subscription based desktop as a service, or game console as a service, could distribute this way, and leech off local LAN gateway, for heavy loads.
- pyuser583 3y ago> Not that it makes much of a difference for me, since I'm not an US citizen The NSA exists to spy on non-citizens, so it affects you more.
- nehal3m 3y agoI'm not sure that's the case. The first line of the article reads: Is the NSA buying up Americans' location and browsing data? That's what's blocking instatement of a new director, so no, it won't have any effect on the data collected on foreigners.
- Dalewyn 3y agoAmericans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on. The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.
- phpisthebest 3y agoWhile what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain. It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US. When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose. Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity
- slicktux 3y agoActually it would mean to go against the people…since corporations are people…and I mean that in a jurisprudence way. Being that is the case how could we limit a corporation, as non sentient entity, while still preserving individual liberty??
- joe_the_user 3y agoI'm entire unfond of the NSA. The existence of secret agencies, especially on a large scale, make a mockery of democracy. At the same, government by congressional hobbling and sabotage also makes a mockery of democracy through agencies not ceasing bad behavior but rather a continuous war between congress and agencies being normalized in a way that makes agencies actually more autonomous from congress. The "Washington Monument Syndrome" is just one piece of the problematic situation [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoIn a world where democracies have enemies, how do you not have govt secrets?
- eurebus 3y agoSecurity through obscurity is inferior to security through transparency. Imagine if every interaction with the government; every contract, negotiation, communication was a matter of easily searchable public record. Try sneaking a little graft in there and get laughed at in public. It'd be great.
- nvy 3y agoThe reason the NSA conducts its activities in secret have little to do with "a little graft" and everything to do with the fact you don't show somebody you've broken their ciphers unless you have to.
- candiddevmike 3y agoIf the NSA has broken them, they probably aren't the only ones. By keeping that a secret they're actually endangering national security.
- oyashirochama 3y ago
- cyanydeez 3y agoyeah, this is a sideshow compared to just enforcing better privacy controls.
- sandworm101 3y agoOr we could all try to stop giving them our data. Cookie hygiene, vpns, randomizing metadata, ad blockers, not using Facebook, using a secure OSs, Tor ... there are things we can do to make their life harder. And to anyone who thinks this futile: that's what they want you to think.
- barrysteve 3y agoAlienating yourself into a 'security' bubble while GCHQ is capturing ALL internet data and holding it for up to a year, is like trying to catch the bolted horse. It's over, privacy is dead and so is a private bedroom. We need physical answers to surveillance, electronics are totally ruined. Sooner or later we need off this planet, surveillance has trapped everybody.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]