6 ms·

What I don't get is: from US government, we got confirmations - half-ass confirmations, but still confirmations - that PRISM is real, we maybe have some inform

by runn1ng 13y ago

What I don't get is: from US government, we got confirmations - half-ass confirmations, but still confirmations - that PRISM is real, we maybe have some information wrong and we should stop asking and talking about it, but it's real. While the companies and its architects all oppose the claims in a way that's very convincing. I don't know what to believe anymore.

danso 13y ago
I can't tell you want to believe, but maybe a place to start is: the world is a confusing place, full of miscommunication and gray areas. Why should we expect the world to be as it is in the movies, in which bad guys are obviously bad and that there is an "ending" in which things are clear? For starters, I just re-skimmed the Washington Post report and noticed that it has since been amended: > It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. edit: Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence... I think I'm wrong that that was one of the actual changes since yesterday...either way, the Post is allowing for the possibility of a miscommunication/misinterpretation by its source. Business Insider also alleges of other hedging by the WaPo here: http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spyin... At this moment in time, we still do not know two things: who the leaker is, beyond a "career intelligence officer" and the contents of this 41-slide presentation other than the 3 or 4 slides that the Post and the Guardian have published. The identity or motives of the leaker isn't necessary to know, but it's kind of problematic when we are missing context to the so-far published slides that explain the PRISM program. For example, it kind of changes things if the first two slides say "PROPOSAL" or the last slide says "APRIL FOOLS"
- runn1ng 13y ago
  Well it's pretty clear now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843352 They don't have direct backdoor, but they have a system in place for a fast and effortless data sharing.
  - danso 13y ago
    Maybe they do, but I don't think you can assert that from what the NYT is reporting in that link. The article is talking about FISA requests: > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers. The data sharing is effortless. But the process to get it is still the bottleneck, because in the NYT article, the companies still assert that they conduct a lawyer review of the requests. And, moreover, FISA mandates that when the request involves an American citizen, that a court-approved is required. If you're arguing that FISA is wrong and that companies should be doing everything they can, including sending the requested data in dot-matrix printouts, to hinder the process -- no argument from me there. But the question at hand is whether they are part of PRISM, which, according to the reports so far, is a program that is different in implementation and legality than FISA. (And if you want to argue that sending any data upon a legal review is not at all different than direct, near-real-time access to a company's servers...I'm sure some infrastructure engineers would disagree with you, among other kinds of people required to make such a pipeline happen)
- nullc 13y ago
  Yeah, but you'd need a Dynamic Tasking Control Protocol. A big mirror makes a big beam.
saraid216 13y ago
Don't believe. Ever. Agnosticism is a philosophy that extends well beyond religion. Instead, focus on what you want to be true and figure out how to make that true. You probably don't want PRISM to exist, or more generally, you probably don't want an extensive surveillance program of PRISM's caliber or greater to exist. In America, or anywhere? Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that. Then start going about making it harder to exist. Learn about and teach ways to circumvent. Talk to people and convince them of your well-founded views. Turn the world into a place where PRISM won't exist. It's a project that can easily exceed your lifetime. But it's better than belief.
- md224 13y ago
  > Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that. Totally agree. > But it's better than belief. As someone dealing with what might be called a mild epistemological crisis, I can sympathize with the advice to apply agnosticism liberally, but I'm not sure belief can be avoided. If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias. So I'm just saying, action requires a leap of faith, sometimes just a microscopic leap, but a leap nonetheless. Belief is, alas, inescapable.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > I'm not sure belief can be avoided No, it can't. You will always believe something, positively (X exists; X is true) or negatively (X does not exist; X is false). The point is, however, is that your final resting point should never be "I don't know what to believe anymore." > If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias. This is precisely why it's useful to apply agnosticism liberally. What you've described here is agnosticism. You don't know. You never know. If you have the fortitude for it, it is usually reliable to say that you're always wrong in some respect. But you should still act. Paralysis is worse than misjudgment. Or to use the words of a now famous movie, "There is no certainty, only opportunity." The only reason he turned out to be right was movie magic, and nevertheless, in the movie, he admitted that he didn't know what the right action was after all.

by runn1ng 13y ago

danso 13y ago

I can't tell you want to believe, but maybe a place to start is: the world is a confusing place, full of miscommunication and gray areas. Why should we expect the world to be as it is in the movies, in which bad guys are obviously bad and that there is an "ending" in which things are clear? For starters, I just re-skimmed the Washington Post report and noticed that it has since been amended: > It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. edit: Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence... I think I'm wrong that that was one of the actual changes since yesterday...either way, the Post is allowing for the possibility of a miscommunication/misinterpretation by its source. Business Insider also alleges of other hedging by the WaPo here: http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spyin... At this moment in time, we still do not know two things: who the leaker is, beyond a "career intelligence officer" and the contents of this 41-slide presentation other than the 3 or 4 slides that the Post and the Guardian have published. The identity or motives of the leaker isn't necessary to know, but it's kind of problematic when we are missing context to the so-far published slides that explain the PRISM program. For example, it kind of changes things if the first two slides say "PROPOSAL" or the last slide says "APRIL FOOLS"

runn1ng 13y ago
Well it's pretty clear now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843352 They don't have direct backdoor, but they have a system in place for a fast and effortless data sharing.
- danso 13y ago
  Maybe they do, but I don't think you can assert that from what the NYT is reporting in that link. The article is talking about FISA requests: > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers. The data sharing is effortless. But the process to get it is still the bottleneck, because in the NYT article, the companies still assert that they conduct a lawyer review of the requests. And, moreover, FISA mandates that when the request involves an American citizen, that a court-approved is required. If you're arguing that FISA is wrong and that companies should be doing everything they can, including sending the requested data in dot-matrix printouts, to hinder the process -- no argument from me there. But the question at hand is whether they are part of PRISM, which, according to the reports so far, is a program that is different in implementation and legality than FISA. (And if you want to argue that sending any data upon a legal review is not at all different than direct, near-real-time access to a company's servers...I'm sure some infrastructure engineers would disagree with you, among other kinds of people required to make such a pipeline happen)
nullc 13y ago
Yeah, but you'd need a Dynamic Tasking Control Protocol. A big mirror makes a big beam.

saraid216 13y ago

Don't believe. Ever. Agnosticism is a philosophy that extends well beyond religion. Instead, focus on what you want to be true and figure out how to make that true. You probably don't want PRISM to exist, or more generally, you probably don't want an extensive surveillance program of PRISM's caliber or greater to exist. In America, or anywhere? Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that. Then start going about making it harder to exist. Learn about and teach ways to circumvent. Talk to people and convince them of your well-founded views. Turn the world into a place where PRISM won't exist. It's a project that can easily exceed your lifetime. But it's better than belief.

md224 13y ago
> Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that. Totally agree. > But it's better than belief. As someone dealing with what might be called a mild epistemological crisis, I can sympathize with the advice to apply agnosticism liberally, but I'm not sure belief can be avoided. If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias. So I'm just saying, action requires a leap of faith, sometimes just a microscopic leap, but a leap nonetheless. Belief is, alas, inescapable.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > I'm not sure belief can be avoided No, it can't. You will always believe something, positively (X exists; X is true) or negatively (X does not exist; X is false). The point is, however, is that your final resting point should never be "I don't know what to believe anymore." > If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias. This is precisely why it's useful to apply agnosticism liberally. What you've described here is agnosticism. You don't know. You never know. If you have the fortitude for it, it is usually reliable to say that you're always wrong in some respect. But you should still act. Paralysis is worse than misjudgment. Or to use the words of a now famous movie, "There is no certainty, only opportunity." The only reason he turned out to be right was movie magic, and nevertheless, in the movie, he admitted that he didn't know what the right action was after all.