3 ms·

I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. "Pen register" surveillance has been a thing that applies to actual mail, email, telephone netwo

I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. "Pen register" surveillance has been a thing that applies to actual mail, email, telephone networks, IP networks, and any other thing with a real or metaphorical envelope.

rightbyte 3y ago
Automatization has made it possible to do all these stuff at such a scale that Google can spy on everyone all the time. Stasi was limited by that the whole of DDR can't work at Stasi. Instead of the government joining in on the fun, maybe it would be good to e.g. close down Google (split up the spy and search parts, which essentially is closing down Google since they have relatively nothing without the spying).
- jeffbee 3y ago
  You obviously do not have a realistic appreciation for the scale or centralization of the post office or AT&T, nor any understanding of American 4th Amendment jurisprudence. If the only thing you bring to the discussion is an equivalation of Google and Apple with the Stasi, that's nothing more than fulfilling a variant of Godwin's Law.
  - feedforward 3y ago
    He said Stasi was limited so it is not equivalation. The US government and its infrastructure oligopolies monitor citizens far more than the Stasi ever did. We are pleading to a reduction down to a Stasi-like intelligence service. Tangentially, J. Edgar Hoover was politically opposed to feminism, and COINTELPRO had a massive secret police action against feminists and feminist groups in the 1970s. Some of us want these issues hashed out at the ballot box, not by some giant secret political police force.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      In what way is COINTELPRO related to a court-ordered pen register?
      - dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
        …in the way governments want the data to extend control… SMH
      - feedforward 3y ago
        The answer can be found in the first word of the statement.
staplers 3y ago
Benevolent surveillance is a waiting period before malevolent manipulation. Study history.
jtbayly 3y ago
Really?! The US Gov kept a record of all the metadata of every letter sent through the USPS?
- jeffbee 3y ago
  No, and they don't keep a record of all APNS traffic, either. They get a court to order the push operator to log the envelope metadata of messages to and from enumerated parties who are the subject of the warrant.
- paulmd 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover > Since 2001, the Postal Service has been effectively conducting mail covers on all American postal mail as part of the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_Tracking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_T...
karaterobot 3y ago
> I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. It's surprising because the government doesn't exactly talk about it a lot. Thus, most people who don't follow security issues don't hear about it very often. It's not like the government advertises these activities with billboards and TV spots. The reason they don't is because this broad interpretation of their responsibilities makes them look pretty bad without having a long discussion with a lot of context. As it is, people might just ask them to stop reading their emails. So, if the people doing it don't talk about it, why would you be surprised that other people don't know it's happening? It sounds like you're saying "I'm surprised that not everybody pays careful attention to the specific domains I pay attention to", but remember that it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. Maryland). Having a warrant makes the activities described in the article completely legitimate. It is the definition of "due process".
  - nulbyte 3y ago
    It may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population. Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      That isn't the discussion that HN seems to be having though. The idea that a court cannot order a search is an extreme, fringe position.
  - 3y ago

rightbyte 3y ago

Automatization has made it possible to do all these stuff at such a scale that Google can spy on everyone all the time. Stasi was limited by that the whole of DDR can't work at Stasi. Instead of the government joining in on the fun, maybe it would be good to e.g. close down Google (split up the spy and search parts, which essentially is closing down Google since they have relatively nothing without the spying).

jeffbee 3y ago
You obviously do not have a realistic appreciation for the scale or centralization of the post office or AT&T, nor any understanding of American 4th Amendment jurisprudence. If the only thing you bring to the discussion is an equivalation of Google and Apple with the Stasi, that's nothing more than fulfilling a variant of Godwin's Law.
- feedforward 3y ago
  He said Stasi was limited so it is not equivalation. The US government and its infrastructure oligopolies monitor citizens far more than the Stasi ever did. We are pleading to a reduction down to a Stasi-like intelligence service. Tangentially, J. Edgar Hoover was politically opposed to feminism, and COINTELPRO had a massive secret police action against feminists and feminist groups in the 1970s. Some of us want these issues hashed out at the ballot box, not by some giant secret political police force.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    In what way is COINTELPRO related to a court-ordered pen register?
    - dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
      …in the way governments want the data to extend control… SMH
    - feedforward 3y ago
      The answer can be found in the first word of the statement.

staplers 3y ago

Benevolent surveillance is a waiting period before malevolent manipulation. Study history.

jtbayly 3y ago

Really?! The US Gov kept a record of all the metadata of every letter sent through the USPS?

jeffbee 3y ago
No, and they don't keep a record of all APNS traffic, either. They get a court to order the push operator to log the envelope metadata of messages to and from enumerated parties who are the subject of the warrant.
paulmd 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover > Since 2001, the Postal Service has been effectively conducting mail covers on all American postal mail as part of the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_Tracking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_T...

karaterobot 3y ago

> I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. It's surprising because the government doesn't exactly talk about it a lot. Thus, most people who don't follow security issues don't hear about it very often. It's not like the government advertises these activities with billboards and TV spots. The reason they don't is because this broad interpretation of their responsibilities makes them look pretty bad without having a long discussion with a lot of context. As it is, people might just ask them to stop reading their emails. So, if the people doing it don't talk about it, why would you be surprised that other people don't know it's happening? It sounds like you're saying "I'm surprised that not everybody pays careful attention to the specific domains I pay attention to", but remember that it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

jeffbee 3y ago
This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. Maryland). Having a warrant makes the activities described in the article completely legitimate. It is the definition of "due process".
- nulbyte 3y ago
  It may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population. Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    That isn't the discussion that HN seems to be having though. The idea that a court cannot order a search is an extreme, fringe position.
- 3y ago