5 ms·

> Do their employees snoop of US citizens? Nope. I'm glad you're so certain. > Information is critical in the world we live in. It's troubling that any secret

> Do their employees snoop of US citizens? Nope. I'm glad you're so certain. > Information is critical in the world we live in. It's troubling that any secretive organizations would be able to have this much power over citizens, BUT the alternative is much scarier. That's just scare mongering. As a country we got by for over 200 years without government surveillance, and nothing has changed to make it necessary now.

rayiner 14y ago
> That's just scare mongering. As a country we got by for over 200 years without government surveillance, and nothing has changed to make it necessary now. I'd argue a lot has changed. The U.S. has always militarily dominated everything that could hurt it. Soon after our independence, we were intervening in Latin America because in the 1800's, set off from the Old World by two huge oceans, Latin America is what could have hurt us. As the world became smaller, we built a bigger Navy, and by World War I we had the largest in the world. Ever since World War I we have maintained military supremacy in any domain that mattered (naval, air, nuclear, space, etc). Arguably this is just a continuation of the trend onto the internet, now that the digital sphere matters.
- dm2 14y ago
  Yep, Information Dominance is a real concept and we have to allow our government to maintain it. There is a very delicate balancing act being preformed with peoples "rights" to privacy, but the US government is not going to stop monitoring because people want a false sense of privacy.
  - moens 14y ago
    ...and they especially won't stop just because people want a REAL sense of privacy!
- jlarocco 14y ago
  I disagree. By that logic the government should have been reading our mail and recording telegraphs, phone calls, and faxes. I'm also curious what "threat" this is supposed to protect us from. There are enough communication mediums to choose from that it's pointless to monitor any of them. It's trivial to find or create one that isn't being monitored. It's not stopping criminals, it's just taking freedom from normal citizens.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    China can't attack us via telegraph and phone the way it can via the internet. I don't think the government needs to be reading our text messages. I do think it's silly to pretend nothing has changed in 200 years. Electronic warfare is going to be a thing, and I want to live in a world where the U.S. has the upper hand in it, not China. We're going to have to figure out a way that accommodates U.S. dominance over electronic networks while reasonably protecting everyone's' privacy. We're not going to do that by burying our heads in the sand and pretending nothing has changed in 200 years.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      Nothing that matters has changed. Principles are principles, not something that are subject to the changing whims of the government, or even some fleeting public zeitgeist.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Principles are principles, but they are interpreted in context. It's not about "fleeting public zeitgeist" but about recognizing that American principles have always been about balancing security with liberty. A lot of people would have us read the word "reasonable" out of the 4th amendment, but it's there and it is what implements that balancing. The question is how to find that balance in a world where China can attack important economic assets digitally instead of having to cross an ocean physically. I should note that I'm not arguing that the government should read text messages. I tend to think that if you're sending something in clear text so some flunkie at AT&T can read it, its no problem if the government can too. My point is that you can't just ignore the real security concerns. The U.S. has never been about liberty at the cost of security.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- newman314 14y ago
  By that logic, I suppose you agree with NYC's "stop and frisk" policy. Because, just in case. It's like saying "There are lots of black people in prison, hence it's a good idea to stop and frisk them, just in case, because you know the track record". That sort of circular logic is why I feel my blood pressure go up every time I think about it.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The fact that you could get your blood pressure to go up over a civil liberties issue that isn't even the topic of the thread is as good an illustration as I can think of for why we shouldn't have HN threads talking about political and social justice issues like this.
dm2 14y ago
I meant malicious snooping, like a husband reading texts from his cheating wife. It's partial fear mongering, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. "Nothing has changed to make it necessary now." That's pretty naive. If you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity, then the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil. Yes, some laws were created against the best interests of American citizens, but transparency will only help get those corrected.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  > the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil These people who don't respect the rule of law.. why do you think they're not in government?
- moens 14y ago
  Wow, that's just unbelievable... You are saying: "...some [US] laws were created against the best interests of [all] American citizens..." because "...you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity..." defined as "...citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil..." Reconstructed: US government has a system of laws that are against the best interests of all US citizens because some of those citizens don't like the laws the US government uses. Really? That's deep.
  - dm2 14y ago
    I was implying that the majority of laws are reasonable and should be followed by all citizens. Monitoring unencrypted communications for dumb criminals who discuss acts that hurt society MIGHT be acceptable. But, there are some laws that might be outdated or against the best interest of society. I'm not sure how those situations should be handled when it comes to monitoring. I actually had drug and tax laws in mind and was hinting at the issue of politicians being paid and influenced by corporations against the best interests of humanity. Though tax laws obviously don't matter in the context of text message snooping, it's just an example to help reinforce the point that the legal system isn't perfect and neither are those who enforce it.
saraid216 14y ago
> As a country we got by for over 200 years without government surveillance, and nothing has changed to make it necessary now. I'm glad you're so certain we had no government surveillance.

rayiner 14y ago

> That's just scare mongering. As a country we got by for over 200 years without government surveillance, and nothing has changed to make it necessary now. I'd argue a lot has changed. The U.S. has always militarily dominated everything that could hurt it. Soon after our independence, we were intervening in Latin America because in the 1800's, set off from the Old World by two huge oceans, Latin America is what could have hurt us. As the world became smaller, we built a bigger Navy, and by World War I we had the largest in the world. Ever since World War I we have maintained military supremacy in any domain that mattered (naval, air, nuclear, space, etc). Arguably this is just a continuation of the trend onto the internet, now that the digital sphere matters.

dm2 14y ago
Yep, Information Dominance is a real concept and we have to allow our government to maintain it. There is a very delicate balancing act being preformed with peoples "rights" to privacy, but the US government is not going to stop monitoring because people want a false sense of privacy.
- moens 14y ago
  ...and they especially won't stop just because people want a REAL sense of privacy!
jlarocco 14y ago
I disagree. By that logic the government should have been reading our mail and recording telegraphs, phone calls, and faxes. I'm also curious what "threat" this is supposed to protect us from. There are enough communication mediums to choose from that it's pointless to monitor any of them. It's trivial to find or create one that isn't being monitored. It's not stopping criminals, it's just taking freedom from normal citizens.
- rayiner 14y ago
  China can't attack us via telegraph and phone the way it can via the internet. I don't think the government needs to be reading our text messages. I do think it's silly to pretend nothing has changed in 200 years. Electronic warfare is going to be a thing, and I want to live in a world where the U.S. has the upper hand in it, not China. We're going to have to figure out a way that accommodates U.S. dominance over electronic networks while reasonably protecting everyone's' privacy. We're not going to do that by burying our heads in the sand and pretending nothing has changed in 200 years.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Nothing that matters has changed. Principles are principles, not something that are subject to the changing whims of the government, or even some fleeting public zeitgeist.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Principles are principles, but they are interpreted in context. It's not about "fleeting public zeitgeist" but about recognizing that American principles have always been about balancing security with liberty. A lot of people would have us read the word "reasonable" out of the 4th amendment, but it's there and it is what implements that balancing. The question is how to find that balance in a world where China can attack important economic assets digitally instead of having to cross an ocean physically. I should note that I'm not arguing that the government should read text messages. I tend to think that if you're sending something in clear text so some flunkie at AT&T can read it, its no problem if the government can too. My point is that you can't just ignore the real security concerns. The U.S. has never been about liberty at the cost of security.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
newman314 14y ago
By that logic, I suppose you agree with NYC's "stop and frisk" policy. Because, just in case. It's like saying "There are lots of black people in prison, hence it's a good idea to stop and frisk them, just in case, because you know the track record". That sort of circular logic is why I feel my blood pressure go up every time I think about it.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The fact that you could get your blood pressure to go up over a civil liberties issue that isn't even the topic of the thread is as good an illustration as I can think of for why we shouldn't have HN threads talking about political and social justice issues like this.

dm2 14y ago

I meant malicious snooping, like a husband reading texts from his cheating wife. It's partial fear mongering, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. "Nothing has changed to make it necessary now." That's pretty naive. If you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity, then the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil. Yes, some laws were created against the best interests of American citizens, but transparency will only help get those corrected.

smokeyj 14y ago
> the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil These people who don't respect the rule of law.. why do you think they're not in government?
moens 14y ago
Wow, that's just unbelievable... You are saying: "...some [US] laws were created against the best interests of [all] American citizens..." because "...you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity..." defined as "...citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil..." Reconstructed: US government has a system of laws that are against the best interests of all US citizens because some of those citizens don't like the laws the US government uses. Really? That's deep.
- dm2 14y ago
  I was implying that the majority of laws are reasonable and should be followed by all citizens. Monitoring unencrypted communications for dumb criminals who discuss acts that hurt society MIGHT be acceptable. But, there are some laws that might be outdated or against the best interest of society. I'm not sure how those situations should be handled when it comes to monitoring. I actually had drug and tax laws in mind and was hinting at the issue of politicians being paid and influenced by corporations against the best interests of humanity. Though tax laws obviously don't matter in the context of text message snooping, it's just an example to help reinforce the point that the legal system isn't perfect and neither are those who enforce it.

saraid216 14y ago

> As a country we got by for over 200 years without government surveillance, and nothing has changed to make it necessary now. I'm glad you're so certain we had no government surveillance.