4 ms·

The CNET “Bombshell” and the Four Surveillance Programs

38 points by jdp23 13y ago

joe_the_user 13y ago
Yes... Anyone think it's unfair that the government (or tech companies) has trouble refuting any accusation, up to and including of full and complete surveillance of every bit of data concerning US citizens? Anyone think it's unfortunate and unjournalistic that in this atmosphere such accusations will come up repeatedly? Until the government makes it legal to know what it does and does NOT do, any accusation of such things will seem plausible and any denial of such things will seem implausible. That's what happens when you have laws that effectively start, "first off, this gives people the obligation to lie about what the government is doing..." That has destroyed the credibility of any defender of the US government. Secret law and laws of secrecy are coming home to roost.
- jdp23 13y ago
  I don't think it's "unfair" at all to the government. They're the ones who insist on secret courts and fight any attempt to make information public. Tech companies who are actively fighting it deserve a fair amount of sympathy - Twitter, Google, sonic.net, Yahoo for the 2007/2008 case they lost, presumably others. As Marcy pointed out the CCIA (including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others) opposed telco immunity back in 2008: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/09/once-upon-a-time-the-prism-companies-fought-retroactive-immunity/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/09/once-upon-a-time-the-pr... The telcos and other tech companies who are going along without fighting it tooth and nail do not (in my books) deserve any sympathy.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    That is my point, yes. The tech companies are upset and should be upset because the law has destroyed their credibility. But by that token, by that very token, nothing they can say will get that back. It's really a problem because when a law direct people to lie, it produces an effect about as pernicious as anything.
- mpyne 13y ago
  To which law are you referring that requires people to lie?
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    National Security Letters require that the recipient not say that they receive them. This may only seem a "lie by omission" but it's pretty clearly authorizing a lie by commission when an entity is otherwise required to answer a question like "who have you been spying on" Q: Who have you given information about Bob to? A: No one ... except if I did given information to the NSA, I couldn't tell you. "[NSLs] contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Edit: And with secrets laws we also don't which laws might require even more. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html
    - mpyne 13y ago
      1: Who have you been spying on? 2: I'm not allowed to tell you. A stupendously truthy answer. Likewise, I don't see how a "secret security directive TSA can't tell you about" even hints at a requirement to lie, let alone lie even more. And this is my problem with many of these discussions on HN. One would think that a "secret law" is bad enough by itself that one would not have to further mislead what it does and does not imply. So great, before I couldn't trust the government or script kiddies, now I can't trust anybody.

38 points by jdp23 13y ago

Yes... Anyone think it's unfair that the government (or tech companies) has trouble refuting any accusation, up to and including of full and complete surveillance of every bit of data concerning US citizens? Anyone think it's unfortunate and unjournalistic that in this atmosphere such accusations will come up repeatedly? Until the government makes it legal to know what it does and does NOT do, any accusation of such things will seem plausible and any denial of such things will seem implausible. That's what happens when you have laws that effectively start, "first off, this gives people the obligation to lie about what the government is doing..." That has destroyed the credibility of any defender of the US government. Secret law and laws of secrecy are coming home to roost.

jdp23 13y ago
I don't think it's "unfair" at all to the government. They're the ones who insist on secret courts and fight any attempt to make information public. Tech companies who are actively fighting it deserve a fair amount of sympathy - Twitter, Google, sonic.net, Yahoo for the 2007/2008 case they lost, presumably others. As Marcy pointed out the CCIA (including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others) opposed telco immunity back in 2008: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/09/once-upon-a-time-the-prism-companies-fought-retroactive-immunity/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/09/once-upon-a-time-the-pr... The telcos and other tech companies who are going along without fighting it tooth and nail do not (in my books) deserve any sympathy.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  That is my point, yes. The tech companies are upset and should be upset because the law has destroyed their credibility. But by that token, by that very token, nothing they can say will get that back. It's really a problem because when a law direct people to lie, it produces an effect about as pernicious as anything.
mpyne 13y ago
To which law are you referring that requires people to lie?
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  National Security Letters require that the recipient not say that they receive them. This may only seem a "lie by omission" but it's pretty clearly authorizing a lie by commission when an entity is otherwise required to answer a question like "who have you been spying on" Q: Who have you given information about Bob to? A: No one ... except if I did given information to the NSA, I couldn't tell you. "[NSLs] contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Edit: And with secrets laws we also don't which laws might require even more. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html
  - mpyne 13y ago
    1: Who have you been spying on? 2: I'm not allowed to tell you. A stupendously truthy answer. Likewise, I don't see how a "secret security directive TSA can't tell you about" even hints at a requirement to lie, let alone lie even more. And this is my problem with many of these discussions on HN. One would think that a "secret law" is bad enough by itself that one would not have to further mislead what it does and does not imply. So great, before I couldn't trust the government or script kiddies, now I can't trust anybody.