6 ms·

That's because a majority of Americans don't believe they have anything to hide, or that the stuff they do want to hide is probably so mundane to the average go

That's because a majority of Americans don't believe they have anything to hide, or that the stuff they do want to hide is probably so mundane to the average government official that they assume they wouldn't care. I'm guessing the way the survey question is posed has a lot to do with the outcome. Take out the word "terrorism" and I'm sure support would drop. Add the phrase "personal information" and I'm sure it would drop even further. Or perhaps ask "Would you be comfortable with the government tracking your activity on Facebook, Gmail, and Skype?" I'm guessing support for that would be close to 0%.

tptacek 13y ago
I get the sense that this doesn't surprise you. My question is: why would it surprise anyone? It's not just that most Americans don't believe they have anything to hide from NSA. It's that they don't have anything to hide from NSA. I'm not invoking the fallacious "nothing to hide" argument; I have stuff I need to keep hidden. But most people really don't, and especially not from NSA.
- craigyk 13y ago
  Yeah. You'll get me too pull out my pitchfork if there is ever evidence this is being used for anything other than national security, I haven't seen that. IMO, the first shady use of this would most likely be the war on drugs, if we see that happen than I'll start getting worried.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Hey: my pitchfork is already within arm's reach. My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement, especially with things like "OMG Palantir is even named after the all-seeing eye in Lord of the Rings, they must be in on it". It's not OK if NSA is hoovering all communications in the US and sifting for national security issues, and that does appear to be what happened with Verizon/ATT/Sprint (though it does not appear to be true of Google and Facebook).
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement Right there with you. I've started digging in my heels at breaking stories simply for the speed at which people start jumping to conclusions.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    If you're really interested in civil liberties, the battle ground is the drug war. Everything becomes less scary once sending people to prison for drug use and possession is taken off the table.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Drug war far and away #1. Gambling and tax evasion might be #2. Child porn is probably morally abhorrent enough (and genuinely rare; if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit) to not be an issue. Maybe terrorism, if "terrorism" is badly interpreted enough to mean any contacts with terrorists, or advocacy of extreme political viewpoints.
      - clicks 13y ago
        > if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit Er, you should be wary in nuking only people who've done the crimes, not just those who 'want' to (even if it's something like child porn). That aside, I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if X causes Y, and Y is something really bad, don't treat Y, do something with X. So, if you have a pattern of priests abusing kids, maybe we should focus on more underlying problems: coerce the church to nullify the moronic rules that prohibit priests from marrying women... and let them live as normal humans live with normal human urges. I know pedophilia strikes a certain chord for people... but everyone deserves justice and dignity, even criminals. The first focus shouldn't be on punishment for the sake of punishment, it should be an action intended to curb future occurrences by studying what causes the bad behavior and indeed tending to those underlying causes.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I think it's pitchfork-worthy when this evidence is used to justify the killing of innocent people on the other side of the world even if it's done in the name of "national security."
    - tptacek 13y ago
      If you believe the entire enterprise of violently suppressing foreign terrorist groups is counterfeit or immoral, you of course aren't going to be convinced by any reasoning mustered by the USG or its supporters. But what about counterproliferation? The USG has the world's largest and most capable nuclear arsenal. In terrorist cases, reasonable people can disagree about how the USG's interests line up; maybe those cases have just as much to do with energy security or corporate profits as they do with safeguarding innocent citizens. But the same isn't true of proliferation: it really is in the USG's interests to suppress nuclear proliferation. Not coincidentally, nonproliferation is the other objective to which FISA surveillance has recently been put to use.
      - baddox 13y ago
        There's really two issues here. Firstly, I meant "killing innocent people" to refer to people who are innocent of anything that anyone routinely refers to as "terrorism," like children. Secondly, I have purposefully tried to leave out my own personal views on what constitutes "terrorism" and what constitutes a good response to it, because like you predicted, I'm probably not going to be convinced. But the first point still stands.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I'm deliberately not challenging any perspective you might have on the "global war on terror" and instead trying to sidestep it for the sake of discussion with an isomorphic but distinct alternative issue.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  But most people really don't, and especially not from NSA. How can we say that though, when we don't really know what the NSA is collecting, what they are doing with it, who they are sharing it with, etc.? The actual data collection per-se aside, one of the biggest problems with this whole setup is that we have allowed the development of a "shadow government" (not in the conspiracy theory sense, mind you) that lacks effective oversight (Congress is not sufficient oversight in my book), and is barely - if at all - accountable to the American people. Between the NSA, the CIA, the FISA courts, and FSM knows what other agencies - as well as "National Security Letters" and "gag orders" - we have a monster on our hands that we barely know anything about.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Well, stick me at the place on the Venn diagram of Americans who: * Have a problem with the NSA getting wholesale access to telephonic metadata for all domestic phone calls. * Generally do not believe NSA is using that metadata for purposes other than nonproliferation and counterterrorism, where "counterterrorism" means "pursuit of groups with active plans to kill American citizens". * Agree that the shortcut NSA appears to be taking around existing due process is going to be a problem in the future if it isn't addressed and restricted. Also, I find the number of acronyms we're tossing around --- NSA, FISA, FAA, &c --- comforting, not alarming. There's a lot of process here. Some of it is really bad and needs to be fixed. But in the 1950s, we had no process; the USG just listened to everything.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      Fair enough. I also doubt that the NSA - as an agency in general - are using their snoop data for "purposes other than nonproliferation and counterterrorism"... yet. And while it's admittedly hypothetical, it's that "yet" that concerns me. But fear of how government collection of personal data can be misused is not without valid precedent: see the reign of J. Edgar Hoover, for example. Who knows, maybe the political winds shift in, say, 5 years, and it becomes very dangerous to have certain ideological beliefs, or to have said certain things. I'm not crazy about making it easy for these guys (doing the whole "we were just following orders" thing, possibly) to go on a wholesale fishing expedition to find people to start giving the "yellow star" treatment. I know, I know... way hypothetical, and you could argue "paranoid". Unlikely, even. But just because something seems incredible or unlikely doesn't seem, to me, to be a good argument for making it any easier for that scenario to come to pass. :-)
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  How many different refutations of "I have nothing to hide" have to be posted before it sinks in what a terrible stance that is? Or are you simply explaining the average person's inner response?
  - marknutter 13y ago
    The latter. I agree it's a terrible stance.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The latter. But I'm going a step farther than you probably think I am. I'm terribly annoyed by the presumption geeks like us have that Americans are ok with surveillance because they're stupid. They're not: their stance on surveillance is entirely rational. It is a fact that most of them --- like, 99.999% of them --- really don't have anything to fear from NSA†; in fact, the cost/benefit of NSA surveillance vs. Islamist terrorism probably does favor NSA, for most of them. † IN 2013!
    - drivebyacct2 13y ago
      I see. I would tend to agree. Some Americans are ignorant and stupid about a lot of things (I say this as an American) but I think you're right. I mean, part of that also is being aware of the implications of saying "I have nothing to hide", etc, but that's for the other discussions. Anyway, to be clear, I don't think this is one of those "Why does America care about the Kardashians instead of this?!!" issues.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  "It's not just that most Americans don't believe they have anything to hide from NSA. It's that they don't have anything to hide from NSA." I'm not so sure about that. Roughly 90% of Americans use illegal drugs at some point in their lives[1], and supposedly the average American commits 3 felonies per day.[2] [1] http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009.pdf http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Most Americans do not believe NSA gives a shit whether they've smoked up before. I don't believe that either.
    - rdl 13y ago
      I would be somewhat concerned that NSA records could be used in employment verification (with NSA, or in government, or in general) in the future. Maybe "smoked pot" would not be a disqualifier, but what if a 22yo NSA candidate did coke at a party or something.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Unlikely the Verizon/Sprint hoovering, which may have been de jure lawful even if it violated the spirit/ intent of the law, the use you propose directly contravenes FISA.
        rdl 13y ago
        What happens if they make you sign a waiver to allow all their collections to become voluntary disclosures, though. And don't hire you if you refuse. Getting a clearance already means allowing a bunch of background investigations, medical records, financial records, etc. to be turned over.
        13y ago
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 13y ago
  I have no data to back this up, but I suspect you are wrong. I believe that the majority of American adults (let's say age 18 and above) are guilty of many crimes and that the NSA is very capable of obtaining evidence to convict them. Some of these crimes people are well aware of, like drug use, speeding, or the obvious copyright infringement, but some aren't, like tax crime or breaking safety regulations. As the quote goes, in a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. And when the government already has all the evidence it needs to convict everyone, then anything can essentially be made illegal by selective prosecution of unrelated crimes. Have you been protesting against the government's foreign policy? Suddenly you're in jail for the mistake you made on your taxes 5 years ago. Have you been active in an alternative currency like Bitcoin? Surprise, you're in jail for that movie torrent you seeded a few months ago.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    For starters: the NSA can't convict anyone; it doesn't have that power. Next: no matter who obtains information under FISA and how it's obtained, it can't be used as evidence in court unless the proceeding pertains to the objective of the FISA warrant, which itself must pertain to agents of foreign powers. If evidence of, say, drug trafficking is collected against you deliberately via FISA, you can move to suppress that evidence and courts are required to do so. If evidence is collected accidentally against you via FISA, the USG is required to destroy that evidence.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > For starters: the NSA can't convict anyone; it doesn't have that power. That's true (right now anyway), but I don't buy the idea that government agencies (or even branches) are distinct enough that we shouldn't be worried. Similarly, I wouldn't approve of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service employing a network of domestic assassins, and the fact that they are currently not legally permitted to carry out assassinations would be of no consolation.
      - tptacek 13y ago
- malandrew 13y ago
  92% of Patriot Act arrests were for drug-related offenses. 7% were for fraud. A mere 0.8% were for terrorist related activities. (n = 1755) [0] http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/ http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/

tptacek 13y ago

I get the sense that this doesn't surprise you. My question is: why would it surprise anyone? It's not just that most Americans don't believe they have anything to hide from NSA. It's that they don't have anything to hide from NSA. I'm not invoking the fallacious "nothing to hide" argument; I have stuff I need to keep hidden. But most people really don't, and especially not from NSA.

craigyk 13y ago
Yeah. You'll get me too pull out my pitchfork if there is ever evidence this is being used for anything other than national security, I haven't seen that. IMO, the first shady use of this would most likely be the war on drugs, if we see that happen than I'll start getting worried.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Hey: my pitchfork is already within arm's reach. My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement, especially with things like "OMG Palantir is even named after the all-seeing eye in Lord of the Rings, they must be in on it". It's not OK if NSA is hoovering all communications in the US and sifting for national security issues, and that does appear to be what happened with Verizon/ATT/Sprint (though it does not appear to be true of Google and Facebook).
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement Right there with you. I've started digging in my heels at breaking stories simply for the speed at which people start jumping to conclusions.
- rayiner 13y ago
  If you're really interested in civil liberties, the battle ground is the drug war. Everything becomes less scary once sending people to prison for drug use and possession is taken off the table.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Drug war far and away #1. Gambling and tax evasion might be #2. Child porn is probably morally abhorrent enough (and genuinely rare; if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit) to not be an issue. Maybe terrorism, if "terrorism" is badly interpreted enough to mean any contacts with terrorists, or advocacy of extreme political viewpoints.
    - clicks 13y ago
      > if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit Er, you should be wary in nuking only people who've done the crimes, not just those who 'want' to (even if it's something like child porn). That aside, I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if X causes Y, and Y is something really bad, don't treat Y, do something with X. So, if you have a pattern of priests abusing kids, maybe we should focus on more underlying problems: coerce the church to nullify the moronic rules that prohibit priests from marrying women... and let them live as normal humans live with normal human urges. I know pedophilia strikes a certain chord for people... but everyone deserves justice and dignity, even criminals. The first focus shouldn't be on punishment for the sake of punishment, it should be an action intended to curb future occurrences by studying what causes the bad behavior and indeed tending to those underlying causes.
- baddox 13y ago
  I think it's pitchfork-worthy when this evidence is used to justify the killing of innocent people on the other side of the world even if it's done in the name of "national security."
  - tptacek 13y ago
    If you believe the entire enterprise of violently suppressing foreign terrorist groups is counterfeit or immoral, you of course aren't going to be convinced by any reasoning mustered by the USG or its supporters. But what about counterproliferation? The USG has the world's largest and most capable nuclear arsenal. In terrorist cases, reasonable people can disagree about how the USG's interests line up; maybe those cases have just as much to do with energy security or corporate profits as they do with safeguarding innocent citizens. But the same isn't true of proliferation: it really is in the USG's interests to suppress nuclear proliferation. Not coincidentally, nonproliferation is the other objective to which FISA surveillance has recently been put to use.
    - baddox 13y ago
      There's really two issues here. Firstly, I meant "killing innocent people" to refer to people who are innocent of anything that anyone routinely refers to as "terrorism," like children. Secondly, I have purposefully tried to leave out my own personal views on what constitutes "terrorism" and what constitutes a good response to it, because like you predicted, I'm probably not going to be convinced. But the first point still stands.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm deliberately not challenging any perspective you might have on the "global war on terror" and instead trying to sidestep it for the sake of discussion with an isomorphic but distinct alternative issue.
mindcrime 13y ago
But most people really don't, and especially not from NSA. How can we say that though, when we don't really know what the NSA is collecting, what they are doing with it, who they are sharing it with, etc.? The actual data collection per-se aside, one of the biggest problems with this whole setup is that we have allowed the development of a "shadow government" (not in the conspiracy theory sense, mind you) that lacks effective oversight (Congress is not sufficient oversight in my book), and is barely - if at all - accountable to the American people. Between the NSA, the CIA, the FISA courts, and FSM knows what other agencies - as well as "National Security Letters" and "gag orders" - we have a monster on our hands that we barely know anything about.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Well, stick me at the place on the Venn diagram of Americans who: * Have a problem with the NSA getting wholesale access to telephonic metadata for all domestic phone calls. * Generally do not believe NSA is using that metadata for purposes other than nonproliferation and counterterrorism, where "counterterrorism" means "pursuit of groups with active plans to kill American citizens". * Agree that the shortcut NSA appears to be taking around existing due process is going to be a problem in the future if it isn't addressed and restricted. Also, I find the number of acronyms we're tossing around --- NSA, FISA, FAA, &c --- comforting, not alarming. There's a lot of process here. Some of it is really bad and needs to be fixed. But in the 1950s, we had no process; the USG just listened to everything.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Fair enough. I also doubt that the NSA - as an agency in general - are using their snoop data for "purposes other than nonproliferation and counterterrorism"... yet. And while it's admittedly hypothetical, it's that "yet" that concerns me. But fear of how government collection of personal data can be misused is not without valid precedent: see the reign of J. Edgar Hoover, for example. Who knows, maybe the political winds shift in, say, 5 years, and it becomes very dangerous to have certain ideological beliefs, or to have said certain things. I'm not crazy about making it easy for these guys (doing the whole "we were just following orders" thing, possibly) to go on a wholesale fishing expedition to find people to start giving the "yellow star" treatment. I know, I know... way hypothetical, and you could argue "paranoid". Unlikely, even. But just because something seems incredible or unlikely doesn't seem, to me, to be a good argument for making it any easier for that scenario to come to pass. :-)
drivebyacct2 13y ago
How many different refutations of "I have nothing to hide" have to be posted before it sinks in what a terrible stance that is? Or are you simply explaining the average person's inner response?
- marknutter 13y ago
  The latter. I agree it's a terrible stance.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The latter. But I'm going a step farther than you probably think I am. I'm terribly annoyed by the presumption geeks like us have that Americans are ok with surveillance because they're stupid. They're not: their stance on surveillance is entirely rational. It is a fact that most of them --- like, 99.999% of them --- really don't have anything to fear from NSA†; in fact, the cost/benefit of NSA surveillance vs. Islamist terrorism probably does favor NSA, for most of them. † IN 2013!
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    I see. I would tend to agree. Some Americans are ignorant and stupid about a lot of things (I say this as an American) but I think you're right. I mean, part of that also is being aware of the implications of saying "I have nothing to hide", etc, but that's for the other discussions. Anyway, to be clear, I don't think this is one of those "Why does America care about the Kardashians instead of this?!!" issues.
Alex3917 13y ago
"It's not just that most Americans don't believe they have anything to hide from NSA. It's that they don't have anything to hide from NSA." I'm not so sure about that. Roughly 90% of Americans use illegal drugs at some point in their lives[1], and supposedly the average American commits 3 felonies per day.[2] [1] http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009.pdf http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
- tptacek 13y ago
  Most Americans do not believe NSA gives a shit whether they've smoked up before. I don't believe that either.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I would be somewhat concerned that NSA records could be used in employment verification (with NSA, or in government, or in general) in the future. Maybe "smoked pot" would not be a disqualifier, but what if a 22yo NSA candidate did coke at a party or something.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Unlikely the Verizon/Sprint hoovering, which may have been de jure lawful even if it violated the spirit/ intent of the law, the use you propose directly contravenes FISA.
      - rdl 13y ago
        What happens if they make you sign a waiver to allow all their collections to become voluntary disclosures, though. And don't hire you if you refuse. Getting a clearance already means allowing a bunch of background investigations, medical records, financial records, etc. to be turned over.
        13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
baddox 13y ago
I have no data to back this up, but I suspect you are wrong. I believe that the majority of American adults (let's say age 18 and above) are guilty of many crimes and that the NSA is very capable of obtaining evidence to convict them. Some of these crimes people are well aware of, like drug use, speeding, or the obvious copyright infringement, but some aren't, like tax crime or breaking safety regulations. As the quote goes, in a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. And when the government already has all the evidence it needs to convict everyone, then anything can essentially be made illegal by selective prosecution of unrelated crimes. Have you been protesting against the government's foreign policy? Suddenly you're in jail for the mistake you made on your taxes 5 years ago. Have you been active in an alternative currency like Bitcoin? Surprise, you're in jail for that movie torrent you seeded a few months ago.
- tptacek 13y ago
  For starters: the NSA can't convict anyone; it doesn't have that power. Next: no matter who obtains information under FISA and how it's obtained, it can't be used as evidence in court unless the proceeding pertains to the objective of the FISA warrant, which itself must pertain to agents of foreign powers. If evidence of, say, drug trafficking is collected against you deliberately via FISA, you can move to suppress that evidence and courts are required to do so. If evidence is collected accidentally against you via FISA, the USG is required to destroy that evidence.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > For starters: the NSA can't convict anyone; it doesn't have that power. That's true (right now anyway), but I don't buy the idea that government agencies (or even branches) are distinct enough that we shouldn't be worried. Similarly, I wouldn't approve of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service employing a network of domestic assassins, and the fact that they are currently not legally permitted to carry out assassinations would be of no consolation.
    - tptacek 13y ago
malandrew 13y ago
92% of Patriot Act arrests were for drug-related offenses. 7% were for fraud. A mere 0.8% were for terrorist related activities. (n = 1755) [0] http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/ http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/