4 ms·

Just to clarify, I think you are irritated with the inaccurate/sensationalist reporting of PRISM, and not that it was leaked to begin with?

tptacek 13y ago
My perspective on this is going to sound weird to you. 1. I am very irritated at inaccurate and sensationalized reporting. 2. I think the USG should have been much more open and forthcoming, at least in the aggregate, about how foreign signals intelligence was coming into contact with online services used mostly by citizens. 3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. 4. I hope Google picks a giant fight with the DoJ and wins it.
- haberman 13y ago
  I agree with your perspective, with the exception of a slight modification to #3. I believe that leaking should be a crime, but I also believe that if the court of public opinion judges the original secret worse than the leak, that it should become politically out-of-bounds to actually prosecute the case. I think there's a world of difference between Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. And while I think Manning's treatment has been harsh, I do think he should be prosecuted because he was reckless and untargeted. Snowden clearly has a much more focused goal and surgical approach.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I don't know enough about what happened with Snowden to have an opinion about him one way or another; I'm just not of the opinion that leaks are by default heroic.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      What if one of Kim Jung Un's subordinates leaks details on "abuses" in the prison camp system? Technically he's breaking the law - North Korea's law - but I think it would be difficult to say that it would be the wrong thing to do. Also, if these reports are accurate, then I wouldn't necessarily consider that analogy too hyperbolic.
      - RobAtticus 13y ago
        The key phrase in tptacek's comment would be "by default."
- yid 13y ago
  > 3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. This one surprised me. Wouldn't the strongest signals intelligence program be one that doesn't need to depend on obfuscation?
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    Can you expand on this idea? I would think that one of the main points of signals intelligence and their efficacy is if the emitter is not aware that you are collecting their signal.
    - yid 13y ago
      Then you run the risk (as it just happened) of having the program losing efficacy if knowledge about it is leaked. Compared to a hypothetical program where knowing of its existence doesn't weaken it. Whether such a system can be built is debatable (something like the universal eavesdropping in 1984), but not a priori impossible.
- Spearchucker 13y ago
  3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. I think dealing in absolutes, anywhere, should be a crime.
  - mrt0mat0 13y ago
    by saying "anywhere", aren't you dealing in absolutes?
    - mikegioia 13y ago
      He absolutely is
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  3 surprises me. I don't think leaking should ever be a crime. Making leaking a crime is an invitation for the government to engage in more illegal activities. Leaking should get you fired, of course. Realistically, it will and you'll be blackballed from working in security forever. I think that's more than enough incentive not to leak unless there is real abuse going on.

tptacek 13y ago

My perspective on this is going to sound weird to you. 1. I am very irritated at inaccurate and sensationalized reporting. 2. I think the USG should have been much more open and forthcoming, at least in the aggregate, about how foreign signals intelligence was coming into contact with online services used mostly by citizens. 3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. 4. I hope Google picks a giant fight with the DoJ and wins it.

haberman 13y ago
I agree with your perspective, with the exception of a slight modification to #3. I believe that leaking should be a crime, but I also believe that if the court of public opinion judges the original secret worse than the leak, that it should become politically out-of-bounds to actually prosecute the case. I think there's a world of difference between Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. And while I think Manning's treatment has been harsh, I do think he should be prosecuted because he was reckless and untargeted. Snowden clearly has a much more focused goal and surgical approach.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I don't know enough about what happened with Snowden to have an opinion about him one way or another; I'm just not of the opinion that leaks are by default heroic.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    What if one of Kim Jung Un's subordinates leaks details on "abuses" in the prison camp system? Technically he's breaking the law - North Korea's law - but I think it would be difficult to say that it would be the wrong thing to do. Also, if these reports are accurate, then I wouldn't necessarily consider that analogy too hyperbolic.
    - RobAtticus 13y ago
      The key phrase in tptacek's comment would be "by default."
yid 13y ago
> 3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. This one surprised me. Wouldn't the strongest signals intelligence program be one that doesn't need to depend on obfuscation?
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Can you expand on this idea? I would think that one of the main points of signals intelligence and their efficacy is if the emitter is not aware that you are collecting their signal.
  - yid 13y ago
    Then you run the risk (as it just happened) of having the program losing efficacy if knowledge about it is leaked. Compared to a hypothetical program where knowing of its existence doesn't weaken it. Whether such a system can be built is debatable (something like the universal eavesdropping in 1984), but not a priori impossible.
Spearchucker 13y ago
3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime. I think dealing in absolutes, anywhere, should be a crime.
- mrt0mat0 13y ago
  by saying "anywhere", aren't you dealing in absolutes?
  - mikegioia 13y ago
    He absolutely is
flyinRyan 13y ago
3 surprises me. I don't think leaking should ever be a crime. Making leaking a crime is an invitation for the government to engage in more illegal activities. Leaking should get you fired, of course. Realistically, it will and you'll be blackballed from working in security forever. I think that's more than enough incentive not to leak unless there is real abuse going on.