47 ms·

That's why the surveillance state will exist. Cause the answers are non-obvious. What I find most annoying about the comments on hacker news over the last coup

by Sven7 13y ago

That's why the surveillance state will exist. Cause the answers are non-obvious. What I find most annoying about the comments on hacker news over the last couple weeks, is the amount of people crying about the problems or potential problems and hardly anyone talking solutions. The lack of solutions itself is a sign that no one has anything better to offer than what the NSA is currently upto.

ObviousPoints 13y ago
> The lack of solutions itself is a sign that no one has anything better to offer than what the NSA is currently upto. Not doing what the NSA is currently up to, and letting a 9/11 happen every year, would be better than what we're currently doing. "Preventing all terrorism" is both impossible and wildly impractical: to even get close, you must eviscerate the freedoms in your society and undermine the rule of law. The "solution" is "be an adult, and don't go in to a frenzied panic every time you get hurt".
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Not doing what the NSA is currently up to, and letting a 9/11 happen every year, would be better than what we're currently doing. In a democracy, you have to at least try to get people to agree with you, and given what we know about the NSA program, you're nuts if you think any politician who proposed the tradeoff you're making would get 15% of the vote.
- bas 13y ago
  You can't be serious. If a 9/11 were to happen every year, then the police state you dream of would obtain.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > "Preventing all terrorism" is both impossible and wildly impractical: to even get close, you must eviscerate the freedoms in your society and undermine the rule of law. Preventing all terrorism isn't actually the goal though. Just like our vaccination regimes are not intended to completely eradicate disease, merely prevent epidemics and pandemics, the anti-terrorism programs are intended to increase safety and security for Americans (and by proxy, other nations who would also be targets of the groups aligned against the USA), in a way such that terrorism does not happen so often that the people demand the police state we all claim here to despise. It is recognized that completely eradicating terrorism is probably impossible, but the U.S. can make it almost impossibly difficult to form large enough terror cells to repeat things like 9/11. And unlike your rather defeatist attitude, I think that can be done without "eviscerating" civil liberties, as long as we employ ample doses of transparency, watchdog groups, and organizational structures designed to keep those programs directed to the mission and provide accountability and oversight. Of course it can be done; how do banks holding billions of dollars of their customers funds manage to provide strict accountability for those? Pretty much every prior technological breakthrough has made tyranny in the U.S. more likely, and the U.S. has managed to pull through in each case (though sometimes with roadbumps...). And, if you're really concerned about the rule of law you will do everything possible to avoid "a 9/11 every year". When the state fails to protect the people, the people (armed by the 2nd Amendment) will take matters into their own hands, and it won't be pretty for many innocents in America. But again, if you have better ideas I'm sure the NSA is listening...
3amOpsGuy 13y ago
You've asked some tough questions which are really against the grain here. You've been respectful, direct to the point and articulate. Just felt a simple up vote didn't convey enough of a thanks. You've provoked the conversation in far more interesting directions than it would otherwise have taken. Thank you sven7.
- Sven7 13y ago
  Thanks OpsGuy :) It was indeed an eye opener. If asking a question, in what generally appears to be an open minded forum of seemingly well read people of above average intelligence, can be this complicated...its easy to imagine why Congress has a tough time doing anything. I guess we just have to keep trying to refocus on solutions and hope for the best.
brugidou 13y ago
What about spending the anti-terror money to make the US "look good" to the people that could be terrorists? That would lower the probability of terrorist attacks. I know this sounds cheesy but I think repression is just making things worse.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The U.S. has done that before (and is doing it now; witness Egypt and Pakistan). It normally has come back to bite us in the ass though.
dllthomas 13y ago
Simple proposal that I think everyone would agree is preferable to what the NSA is currently up to: What the NSA is doing, but properly implementing mandatory access control (like what they added to Linux over a decade ago with SELinux) to ensure that admins do not have more access than they should. That said, I'm not eager to let them define the Overton window and just settle for that - I'm leaning a little further on the "radical transparency" side of the spectrum - but clearly, what the NSA is up to is not treating our data with the care it merits.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I'd even add more technical controls on top of accountability/oversight compliance organizational changes: - Any data collected under a general warrant is encrypted immediately. - Access to this data is audited to a WORM-style server. - Decrypting the data requires 2 persons to provide a key (I believe there are crypto schemes that do this in the literature; if not I'm sure NSA could figure it out). - The process that decrypts the data after the authentication creds are provided also notifies a random 3rd party within NSA (or even a Congressional/FBI/etc. panel setup for this purpose). On top of this there need to be changes to how NSLs and FISA warrants are treated. They are secret only so long as needed for the law enforcement purpose. Afterwards, if there is still an issue of sensitivity from a counter-terrorism standpoint (e.g. enemy groups would learn too much about our capabilities if fully detailed NSLs/warrants were public), then they are scrubbed as little as necessary to allow for public dissemination. This could mean aggregate reporting, sunset provisions for gag orders, etc. But having permanent gag orders is not befitting our Republic. Finally I agree that having NSA write its own rules is not a good idea. I would require Congress to set overarching policy and limits on NSA's actions and prevent Congress from delegating that into the Executive Branch. I think even the Dems and GOP could hopefully get along long enough to ensure national security is being guarded...
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I agree with everything here. Given a free hand, I'd likely go significantly further. I was simply proposing the simplest, smallest change that I think everyone serious would agree an improvement over what has been implemented. I don't think it's anywhere near enough.

by Sven7 13y ago

ObviousPoints 13y ago

> The lack of solutions itself is a sign that no one has anything better to offer than what the NSA is currently upto. Not doing what the NSA is currently up to, and letting a 9/11 happen every year, would be better than what we're currently doing. "Preventing all terrorism" is both impossible and wildly impractical: to even get close, you must eviscerate the freedoms in your society and undermine the rule of law. The "solution" is "be an adult, and don't go in to a frenzied panic every time you get hurt".

twoodfin 13y ago
Not doing what the NSA is currently up to, and letting a 9/11 happen every year, would be better than what we're currently doing. In a democracy, you have to at least try to get people to agree with you, and given what we know about the NSA program, you're nuts if you think any politician who proposed the tradeoff you're making would get 15% of the vote.
bas 13y ago
You can't be serious. If a 9/11 were to happen every year, then the police state you dream of would obtain.
mpyne 13y ago
> "Preventing all terrorism" is both impossible and wildly impractical: to even get close, you must eviscerate the freedoms in your society and undermine the rule of law. Preventing all terrorism isn't actually the goal though. Just like our vaccination regimes are not intended to completely eradicate disease, merely prevent epidemics and pandemics, the anti-terrorism programs are intended to increase safety and security for Americans (and by proxy, other nations who would also be targets of the groups aligned against the USA), in a way such that terrorism does not happen so often that the people demand the police state we all claim here to despise. It is recognized that completely eradicating terrorism is probably impossible, but the U.S. can make it almost impossibly difficult to form large enough terror cells to repeat things like 9/11. And unlike your rather defeatist attitude, I think that can be done without "eviscerating" civil liberties, as long as we employ ample doses of transparency, watchdog groups, and organizational structures designed to keep those programs directed to the mission and provide accountability and oversight. Of course it can be done; how do banks holding billions of dollars of their customers funds manage to provide strict accountability for those? Pretty much every prior technological breakthrough has made tyranny in the U.S. more likely, and the U.S. has managed to pull through in each case (though sometimes with roadbumps...). And, if you're really concerned about the rule of law you will do everything possible to avoid "a 9/11 every year". When the state fails to protect the people, the people (armed by the 2nd Amendment) will take matters into their own hands, and it won't be pretty for many innocents in America. But again, if you have better ideas I'm sure the NSA is listening...

3amOpsGuy 13y ago

You've asked some tough questions which are really against the grain here. You've been respectful, direct to the point and articulate. Just felt a simple up vote didn't convey enough of a thanks. You've provoked the conversation in far more interesting directions than it would otherwise have taken. Thank you sven7.

Sven7 13y ago
Thanks OpsGuy :) It was indeed an eye opener. If asking a question, in what generally appears to be an open minded forum of seemingly well read people of above average intelligence, can be this complicated...its easy to imagine why Congress has a tough time doing anything. I guess we just have to keep trying to refocus on solutions and hope for the best.

brugidou 13y ago

What about spending the anti-terror money to make the US "look good" to the people that could be terrorists? That would lower the probability of terrorist attacks. I know this sounds cheesy but I think repression is just making things worse.

mpyne 13y ago
The U.S. has done that before (and is doing it now; witness Egypt and Pakistan). It normally has come back to bite us in the ass though.

dllthomas 13y ago

Simple proposal that I think everyone would agree is preferable to what the NSA is currently up to: What the NSA is doing, but properly implementing mandatory access control (like what they added to Linux over a decade ago with SELinux) to ensure that admins do not have more access than they should. That said, I'm not eager to let them define the Overton window and just settle for that - I'm leaning a little further on the "radical transparency" side of the spectrum - but clearly, what the NSA is up to is not treating our data with the care it merits.

mpyne 13y ago
I'd even add more technical controls on top of accountability/oversight compliance organizational changes: - Any data collected under a general warrant is encrypted immediately. - Access to this data is audited to a WORM-style server. - Decrypting the data requires 2 persons to provide a key (I believe there are crypto schemes that do this in the literature; if not I'm sure NSA could figure it out). - The process that decrypts the data after the authentication creds are provided also notifies a random 3rd party within NSA (or even a Congressional/FBI/etc. panel setup for this purpose). On top of this there need to be changes to how NSLs and FISA warrants are treated. They are secret only so long as needed for the law enforcement purpose. Afterwards, if there is still an issue of sensitivity from a counter-terrorism standpoint (e.g. enemy groups would learn too much about our capabilities if fully detailed NSLs/warrants were public), then they are scrubbed as little as necessary to allow for public dissemination. This could mean aggregate reporting, sunset provisions for gag orders, etc. But having permanent gag orders is not befitting our Republic. Finally I agree that having NSA write its own rules is not a good idea. I would require Congress to set overarching policy and limits on NSA's actions and prevent Congress from delegating that into the Executive Branch. I think even the Dems and GOP could hopefully get along long enough to ensure national security is being guarded...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I agree with everything here. Given a free hand, I'd likely go significantly further. I was simply proposing the simplest, smallest change that I think everyone serious would agree an improvement over what has been implemented. I don't think it's anywhere near enough.