3 ms·

I'm torn on this one and would really like to see a "Here's what we know story" because the coverage seems to overstate what is happening. My thoughts, below.

by jaynos 13y ago

I'm torn on this one and would really like to see a "Here's what we know story" because the coverage seems to overstate what is happening. My thoughts, below. Please comment. 1. I assumed (and, honestly, thought it was public knowledge) that this was happening already. 2. The bulk of coverage (and reaction) seems to believe that NSA is listening to your conversations. In fact (if I am dissecting the news correctly) they are recording the key details (length of call, location, to whom) and the actual message or conversation (not sure about this one), but only using this information after a second warrant. Basically, they find a suspected terrorist by other means, get a warrant to access the records of his/her calls, and see who the suspected terrorist is in contact with. 3. If the system works as described above, I'm a bit squeamish, but don't see a huge issue. I mean, I'm okay with Facebook, Verizon, Amazon, Visa, etc all having loads of info on me in order to sell me stuff, but once the government (who is not out to make a profit) does it, I object? I'm not a fan of sacrificing freedom for security, but this logic doesn't really make sense. I probably have some other thoughts floating around, but these are the ones I've been mulling over.

ewbuoi 13y ago
I think this started when the NSA requested records on every American from Verizon, which then got leaked to a journalist named Greenwald. Greenwald then followed it up with an article on PRISM, the NSA's spying operation. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-survei...
BrianEatWorld 13y ago
On your third point, I have few perspectives to offer. The first is that because the companies you listed are out to make a profit, it is easier to understand how your data will be used. The very fact that the government has less clear motives is what makes their collection of data more unsettling. Second, when a company is driven by profit and loss, they have incentives to secure data because the inability to trust a company with your data will lead to fewer customers. Sure, your data may get out in an attack, but over time, to the extent its valued by the consumer, more secure companies will stick around longer than those that are insecure. If the government loses your data, some people may be fired, but agencies as a whole will stick around and keep conducting business as usual. Third, along these same lines, a government data store means multiple sources of data collected into one target. To those with malicious intent, it seems logical that attempts to take that data will be more frequent. Finally, those, familiar with the school of public choice, will recognize that government actors are out to "make a profit" just not in the traditional sense. As a former gov employee, I can tell you that while there are policies in place, the fact that many gov employees transition to private sector and vice-versa, data collected will in some way be used for profit and likely by someone you did not give permission to, as is the case with Amazon or Verizon.

by jaynos 13y ago

ewbuoi 13y ago

I think this started when the NSA requested records on every American from Verizon, which then got leaked to a journalist named Greenwald. Greenwald then followed it up with an article on PRISM, the NSA's spying operation. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/business/media/anti-survei...

BrianEatWorld 13y ago

On your third point, I have few perspectives to offer. The first is that because the companies you listed are out to make a profit, it is easier to understand how your data will be used. The very fact that the government has less clear motives is what makes their collection of data more unsettling. Second, when a company is driven by profit and loss, they have incentives to secure data because the inability to trust a company with your data will lead to fewer customers. Sure, your data may get out in an attack, but over time, to the extent its valued by the consumer, more secure companies will stick around longer than those that are insecure. If the government loses your data, some people may be fired, but agencies as a whole will stick around and keep conducting business as usual. Third, along these same lines, a government data store means multiple sources of data collected into one target. To those with malicious intent, it seems logical that attempts to take that data will be more frequent. Finally, those, familiar with the school of public choice, will recognize that government actors are out to "make a profit" just not in the traditional sense. As a former gov employee, I can tell you that while there are policies in place, the fact that many gov employees transition to private sector and vice-versa, data collected will in some way be used for profit and likely by someone you did not give permission to, as is the case with Amazon or Verizon.