4 ms·

Surveillance has kept pace with technology. I doubt Mr. Church really imagined the Internet. Do you really think that China today has nothing like our automat

by skwirl 13y ago

Surveillance has kept pace with technology. I doubt Mr. Church really imagined the Internet. Do you really think that China today has nothing like our automation? And do you actually think the way China acts on this information and the way we act on this information are comparable?

mpyne 13y ago
I think what this has all really indicated is that the law is not ready for the Internet. I used to think that imbalance disadvantaged the government. Now I'm not so sure. I wonder if the tech community will be ready to talk about regulation now that the NSA has shown what a nearly-unfettered government agency with a blank check can really do with TCP/IP.
- declan 13y ago
  Regulation of the NSA, sure. Regulation of themselves in the form of the FBI's build-in-backdoors-for-surveillance demands, definitely not. The NSA loves CALEA interfaces. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wir...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well, built-in backdoors would be problematic for the same reason admin panel backdoors or Clipper-chip backdoors would be problematic. But if the Congress end up extending 'reasonable expectation of privacy' to cover any "common carrier" (which I think is long overdue) I'd be very surprised to see them leave out any ability to surveil, wiretap, etc., at least from the major telecoms. That doesn't need to mean backdoors or warrantless snooping though.
    - declan 13y ago
      Nobody (except the ACLU, if you phrase the question carefully) will say that court-authorized Title III wiretaps violate the 4A. The questions involve the process, standards, procedures, and scope. Telcos + CALEA == a lost cause. Not so with going up the protocol stack.
Zigurd 13y ago
So the question is: Do we build an internet that is inherently private and secure and blinds the censors in the despotic regimes, or are we too afraid of that freedom now?
- roywiggins 13y ago
  It's basically been done (ish). Freenet's one, there are probably more, but you give up a lot in exchange. Freenet can be pretty slow and you need to find trusted people to bootstrap yourself into the network. You can't host dynamic content, either.
- mpyne 13y ago
  We've been able to build that Internet for years. The people didn't want it. They wanted GMail and Facebook and Flickr and Instagram and all the rest of the magic of the Cloud. We could possibly start shifting to federated models but honestly I've quite enjoyed being able to easily talk with people from outside the U.S. and I worry it would be that much more difficult in such a scheme. We'd essentially all be going isolationist at the same time, building some digital Berlin Walls. What I think would be most feasible is bilateral "Internet privacy" treaties that define what requirements are necessary to intercept traffic (which is something that every nation wants to do but none are able to easily ask for). But at the same time I don't think European countries would be happy with the idea that the NSA could even theoretically obtain their citizens' info from cloud providers, and I don't think the USA would ever completely get rid of FISA while they still have the KICK ME target painted on their backs. I wish I had a good answer for this. :-/

by skwirl 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

I think what this has all really indicated is that the law is not ready for the Internet. I used to think that imbalance disadvantaged the government. Now I'm not so sure. I wonder if the tech community will be ready to talk about regulation now that the NSA has shown what a nearly-unfettered government agency with a blank check can really do with TCP/IP.

declan 13y ago
Regulation of the NSA, sure. Regulation of themselves in the form of the FBI's build-in-backdoors-for-surveillance demands, definitely not. The NSA loves CALEA interfaces. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wir...
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well, built-in backdoors would be problematic for the same reason admin panel backdoors or Clipper-chip backdoors would be problematic. But if the Congress end up extending 'reasonable expectation of privacy' to cover any "common carrier" (which I think is long overdue) I'd be very surprised to see them leave out any ability to surveil, wiretap, etc., at least from the major telecoms. That doesn't need to mean backdoors or warrantless snooping though.
  - declan 13y ago
    Nobody (except the ACLU, if you phrase the question carefully) will say that court-authorized Title III wiretaps violate the 4A. The questions involve the process, standards, procedures, and scope. Telcos + CALEA == a lost cause. Not so with going up the protocol stack.

Zigurd 13y ago

So the question is: Do we build an internet that is inherently private and secure and blinds the censors in the despotic regimes, or are we too afraid of that freedom now?

roywiggins 13y ago
It's basically been done (ish). Freenet's one, there are probably more, but you give up a lot in exchange. Freenet can be pretty slow and you need to find trusted people to bootstrap yourself into the network. You can't host dynamic content, either.
mpyne 13y ago
We've been able to build that Internet for years. The people didn't want it. They wanted GMail and Facebook and Flickr and Instagram and all the rest of the magic of the Cloud. We could possibly start shifting to federated models but honestly I've quite enjoyed being able to easily talk with people from outside the U.S. and I worry it would be that much more difficult in such a scheme. We'd essentially all be going isolationist at the same time, building some digital Berlin Walls. What I think would be most feasible is bilateral "Internet privacy" treaties that define what requirements are necessary to intercept traffic (which is something that every nation wants to do but none are able to easily ask for). But at the same time I don't think European countries would be happy with the idea that the NSA could even theoretically obtain their citizens' info from cloud providers, and I don't think the USA would ever completely get rid of FISA while they still have the KICK ME target painted on their backs. I wish I had a good answer for this. :-/