5 ms·
My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things: 1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a form
by baddash 5mo ago
My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things:
1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this.
2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest of it has nothing to do with them.
3. It's concerning that the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) can potentially cause this network to be used to label protestors as "far-left domestic terrorists", however, that is more of an issue with the NSPM than this network. Understanding the NSPM and the effects of it is probably worthwhile.
4. The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Is it typical to have oversight for a program like this, or necessary? What would the program be like?
Overall, the article feels sort of sensationalized. It frames Seattle Shield as suspicious and questionable due to its secrecy and the fact that it performs surveillance. However, there aren't any strong facts or evidence of this program being abused in some Big Brother-type way. Terry Albury framing it in this manner might be the most credible point against it, but I would have to look into that to determine how credible it is.
- dakolli 5mo agoI don't want any secretive surveillance, I don't care if you can prove whether its malicious or not.
- baddash 5mo ago[flagged]
- whatshisface 5mo agoIf not knowing who somebody is weighs into your consensual model of interactions with them, just wait until you hear about surveillance! :-)
- john_strinlai 5mo agook. explain why we should care about your thoughts as "someone who doesnt know much about these types of things", then? its a message board. people post their opinions. its how they function.
- baddash 5mo agoYou don't have to care, and I'm not really sure why you thought I think that. And yeah, people post their opinions on message boards. He posted his opinion, and I posted what I thought about it. What's the issue exactly? I'm not saying he shouldn't have posted it or something..
- austinthetaco 5mo agoThis isn't reddit man, no need for this kind of reply. They were speaking in-context of the article in this post.
- lstodd 5mo agoIt's like you never heard of Snowden. You don't need to try to force yourself to believe it not being that bad because it has been worse for like 20 years already.
- BeetleB 5mo agoYour comment doesn't address any of the issues in the comment, and isn't adding to the conversation.
- fsflover 5mo agoThe Snowden revelations explain very well why we need the oversight and much more. They are relevant here.
- pocksuppet 5mo agoA significant chunk of today's HN readership were less than 10 years old when Snowden leaked.
- lstodd 5mo agoThat's not an excuse. I also heard of Socrates despite being born a few thousand years late.
- josh2600 5mo agoThe thing is... under the laws as they're written today, if US Gov wants to take a peek at your stuff on FB and friends servers, FB can be barred from informing you that such a request has come in under the National Security Letter (NSL) guidelines. It's a very complicated thing :/.
- jqmccleary 5mo agoUnfortunate but true, I feel we could rise up and stop things like this but most people these days are either unaware or are too busy struggling to do so
- baddash 5mo agoI don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..
- ClarityJones 5mo agoIf the target were being investigated for terrorism, then the govt could inform the company of that and - if the company tipped the terrorist off - prosecute the company for being an accessory / aid to the terrorist. However, if the govt claimed that the person was a terrorist and the company knew for 100% fact that the person was innocent and the investigation was in bad faith... they could tip off the victim. The NSLs only really help in the latter scenario. As long as the govt has a plausible story, there will be a 50% chance that the target is a criminal and the company will not risk notifying the target. With NSLs they can prosecute the company even though there was no legitimate basis for the investigation and everyone knew it.
- idle_zealot 5mo ago> govt claimed that the person was a terrorist and the company knew for 100% fact that the person was innocent and the investigation was in bad faith... This is the thing tearing at the seams of our justice system in general. Our rules are based around an ostensible checks-and-balances arrangement, but this relies on the assumption of good faith from the parties involved. Implicit in this is the idea that if any body isn't acting in good faith, it will be so repugnant to voters that the state of affairs will quickly come to an end. This assumption is false. Now we're talking about granting Facebook the right to assume bad faith on the part of the FBI!? Like granting the power to ignore the government to private companies will solve this, or help at all? That bandaid solution is almost certainly worse than the disease. That's not to say that I agree with secret spying provisions. They clearly violate the Constitution and undermine trust in democracy. I just don't think "if you're a big enough company you get to ignore orders and drag things out in court" is a solution to government overreach. It's individual rights that need protecting, not corporate ones.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- pyrale 5mo ago> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.
- remarkEon 5mo agoThe rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.
- watwut 5mo agoWhat is supposed to be the point of this comment? Poor cops have terrible violence unleashed them by having civilian oversight? Or that we should ditch rule of law and structures and instead go with what the most violent local warlord wants?
- stuaxo 5mo agoI can't work out whether the grandfather post is more American Libertarian or a modern feudalal stan or something else.
- pyrale 5mo agoI sometimes struggle to establish a difference between your two propositions.
- pocksuppet 5mo agoI think they're trying to say infinite force is needed to defend the city from the subhuman immigrants overrunning it. That's how I understood the comment.
- pyrale 5mo ago> The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. There is no such thing as a monopoly of violence. Weber's work, which you reference, talks about states claiming a monopoly of legitimate violence. However, legitimacy and law are two different things: while every state claims they are the only ones allowed to use violence legitimately, not every state codifies their functioning in laws ; and fewer structure themselves in such a way that these laws are sovereign. My point is that merely codifying the state's actions in laws isn't enough to get functioning rule of law. You also need functioning government oversight (and a few other things, but that's not the current topic). When government's action is not overseen, respect of the law happens at the whim of government agents.
- zombot 5mo ago> Secret + surveillance + no oversight : Is that a problem? You've gotta be shitting me.