4 ms·

From "it's only to catch terrorists, guys" to potentially "it's also used to prove guilt in minor domestic cases." I, for one, hope this succeeds. Maybe then w

by just2n 13y ago

From "it's only to catch terrorists, guys" to potentially "it's also used to prove guilt in minor domestic cases." I, for one, hope this succeeds. Maybe then we'll have a way to get the masses to understand just how bad this surveillance state really is, for all of us.

pplante 13y ago
the problem is that the general public will still think the surveillance state is okay because it puts "bad people" behind bars. this would not work unless it starts being used to indite innocent people, who can then prove their innocence. unfortunately the general public still would not care more than 1-2 weeks after the case first breaks.
sliverstorm 13y ago
You know, it could wind up being good. Isn't one of our most basic tenants to do our damndest to avoid convicting the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty go free? If it succeeds, we could potentially see even better exoneration numbers for the innocent, and I'm not certain how to weight that against my privacy.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If we felt that the accuracy of the justice system trumped all privacy concerns, then we could have voluntarily adopted such systems years ago after honest plain public discussion. We didn't.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Did that discussion actually happen yet? Maybe I missed it.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      That is my point...
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Well then maybe now is the time for that discussion?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        You can have it whenever you like, but such a decision cannot be made retroactively. If we as a society decide that we want to make that tradeoff, then we can only make it going forward. Those who do not consent to such an invasion of privacy must be given fair warning. For the majority to retroactively strip privacy would be tyrannical. I should not have to explain why.
    - mayneack 13y ago
      Some sort of discussion got us the 4th amendment.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  No one is looking for the truth, but rather results. If the phone records, email and so on prove the person is innocent, that data simply won't be used unless they also find an even better candidate for conviction.
colkassad 13y ago
It's only a matter of time until this data is used for political means (see the recent IRS story). All it will take is someone coming into power that threatens the agency or its valued partners in any way. Then out comes the embarrassing tweets or tax evasion evidence pulled from Amazon. This will only become more easy as the young people of today become the Senators and Presidential candidates of tomorrow.
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  "Out comes the blackmail" is an optimistic scenario. More likely, it's quietly made known that they have such information, and magically, their position changes - with the public none the wiser.
  - rodgerd 13y ago
    Pretty much describes J Edgar Hoover's career. And why, once the Mob got dirt on him, they were free to do as they pleased with no FBI interference.
  - e3pi 13y ago
    "Regretfully stepping down to engage with my wonderful family."
- SCAQTony 13y ago
  You nailed it: they could start out by taking out some child pornographers, money launderers, corrupt congressmen, senators, judges and mayors. Then move on to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, members of the press, uppity hackers like Aaron Schwartz, et al. But wait there is more, How about some ambitious sys admin from Booz Allen or otherwise sell the information to HR departments, the Enquirer, The Daily Mail, Goldman Sacks, the Chinese, the Russians, or start his own "protection business"? </sarcasm>
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  I'd be beyond shocked if this wasn't already happening. I suspect one or two "discoveries" (e.g. a mayor smoking crack with a prostitute) were probably really from one of these sources and everyone else is simply shown what is out there on them and they avoid rocking the boat.
jrmattox1 13y ago
Remember "Wired", the Bob Woodward biography of John Belushi? Many who knew Belushi were outraged that it was not an accurate depiction. In a fascinating Slate article (http://slate.me/Y6ZQqd http://slate.me/Y6ZQqd) Tanner Colby describes the experience of re-reporting the Belushi story "page by page and source by source". Colby was surprised to find that, broadly, Woodward's book didn't contain outright falsehoods. Woodward just put the facts through a narrative filter that left out important context. What's left is a distorted picture of a person that, while factually accurate, doesn't reflect reality. Colby: "I say it’s like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn’t very good at playing basketball." In the wake of the NSA story, it is chilling to consider what kind of distortions could be created. The Belushi biography was mainly based on interviews. What narratives might be spun from years of calls, emails, and web analytics?

by just2n 13y ago

pplante 13y ago

the problem is that the general public will still think the surveillance state is okay because it puts "bad people" behind bars. this would not work unless it starts being used to indite innocent people, who can then prove their innocence. unfortunately the general public still would not care more than 1-2 weeks after the case first breaks.

sliverstorm 13y ago

You know, it could wind up being good. Isn't one of our most basic tenants to do our damndest to avoid convicting the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty go free? If it succeeds, we could potentially see even better exoneration numbers for the innocent, and I'm not certain how to weight that against my privacy.

jlgreco 13y ago
If we felt that the accuracy of the justice system trumped all privacy concerns, then we could have voluntarily adopted such systems years ago after honest plain public discussion. We didn't.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Did that discussion actually happen yet? Maybe I missed it.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    That is my point...
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Well then maybe now is the time for that discussion?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        You can have it whenever you like, but such a decision cannot be made retroactively. If we as a society decide that we want to make that tradeoff, then we can only make it going forward. Those who do not consent to such an invasion of privacy must be given fair warning. For the majority to retroactively strip privacy would be tyrannical. I should not have to explain why.
  - mayneack 13y ago
    Some sort of discussion got us the 4th amendment.
flyinRyan 13y ago
No one is looking for the truth, but rather results. If the phone records, email and so on prove the person is innocent, that data simply won't be used unless they also find an even better candidate for conviction.

colkassad 13y ago

It's only a matter of time until this data is used for political means (see the recent IRS story). All it will take is someone coming into power that threatens the agency or its valued partners in any way. Then out comes the embarrassing tweets or tax evasion evidence pulled from Amazon. This will only become more easy as the young people of today become the Senators and Presidential candidates of tomorrow.

fiatmoney 13y ago
"Out comes the blackmail" is an optimistic scenario. More likely, it's quietly made known that they have such information, and magically, their position changes - with the public none the wiser.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Pretty much describes J Edgar Hoover's career. And why, once the Mob got dirt on him, they were free to do as they pleased with no FBI interference.
- e3pi 13y ago
  "Regretfully stepping down to engage with my wonderful family."
SCAQTony 13y ago
You nailed it: they could start out by taking out some child pornographers, money launderers, corrupt congressmen, senators, judges and mayors. Then move on to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, members of the press, uppity hackers like Aaron Schwartz, et al. But wait there is more, How about some ambitious sys admin from Booz Allen or otherwise sell the information to HR departments, the Enquirer, The Daily Mail, Goldman Sacks, the Chinese, the Russians, or start his own "protection business"? </sarcasm>
flyinRyan 13y ago
I'd be beyond shocked if this wasn't already happening. I suspect one or two "discoveries" (e.g. a mayor smoking crack with a prostitute) were probably really from one of these sources and everyone else is simply shown what is out there on them and they avoid rocking the boat.

jrmattox1 13y ago

Remember "Wired", the Bob Woodward biography of John Belushi? Many who knew Belushi were outraged that it was not an accurate depiction. In a fascinating Slate article (http://slate.me/Y6ZQqd http://slate.me/Y6ZQqd) Tanner Colby describes the experience of re-reporting the Belushi story "page by page and source by source". Colby was surprised to find that, broadly, Woodward's book didn't contain outright falsehoods. Woodward just put the facts through a narrative filter that left out important context. What's left is a distorted picture of a person that, while factually accurate, doesn't reflect reality. Colby: "I say it’s like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn’t very good at playing basketball." In the wake of the NSA story, it is chilling to consider what kind of distortions could be created. The Belushi biography was mainly based on interviews. What narratives might be spun from years of calls, emails, and web analytics?