7 ms·

This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction. While I thoroughly disagree with what Keith is saying (I'll get to that i

by pvnick 13y ago

This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction. While I thoroughly disagree with what Keith is saying (I'll get to that in a minute), his acknowledgement and down-to-earth tone show that Snowden's purpose of igniting a national debate on privacy is working. Now on to what he actually said. >we provided over 50 cases to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that show the specific contribution of these programs >The challenge of these leaks is exacerbated by ... little awareness of the outcomes that our authorities yield We see on full display the "ends justify the means" attitude that the NSA argues. It is not an invalid argument, but it is one that I'm sure the vast majority of the HN audience would disagree with. Hopefully this attitude is debated in the national spotlight alongside the validity of the programs themselves. >Through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law Again, there's that "willful" keyword we've heard so much. That's a loophole you could drive a train through! If Keith is so confident in his mens rea defense [1], I'm sure he welcomes the spotlight being shined on his organization's workings. >Leadership ... is now engaged in a public dialogue to make sure the American public gets the rest of the story Like I said, it is fantastic that this - the goal Snowden described - is being acknowledged. I look forward to Greenwald's continued leaks (such as the imminent release describing the NSA's collecting of the contents of 1 Billion cell phone calls every day [2]). > We need you to focus on our primary mission of defending our nation and our allies Keith seems to be worried that these leaks are taking a toll on his organization's morale. I sincerely hope that this does not impact national security - I doubt it will - but, reading between the lines, I think he's petrified that Snowden's heroic leadership in this area will inspire more leaks. One can only hope. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea [2] http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-day-2013-6 http://businessinsider.com/greenwald-nsa-store-calls-every-d...

abraininavat 13y ago
I agree with most of what you said. I want to nitpick one thing though. I don't agree that "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. It's not an argument at all, it's a premise in the argument at hand. And, as you alluded to, the majority of us here seem to disagree with the premise, making the overall argument invalid. Probably not the case for the rest of the country th ough. I'd like to think that we represent the "thoughtful minority", but doesn't everyone.
- pvnick 13y ago
  It's interesting you pointed that out. I wanted to explore the workings of that argument a little more (I choose my words carefully when constructing posts on this site) using "validity" and "soundness", but I was in a bit of a hurry as I have a lot of work to do today. Thank you for your response.
mindcrime 13y ago
This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction It read, to me, like nothing but a blowhard spouting hot-air and empty rhetoric, while desperately hoping to spike morale and discourage the next Edward Snowden from doing The Right Thing. I mean, it's already well established that the NSA operates with almost zero effective oversight: given that the FISA courts are nothing but a rubber-stamp, Congress is lied to and accepts the lies - or engages in willful ignorance - about this whole situation (well, up until it breaks to the public thanks to Snowden), and the NSA operate under their own interpretation of the law anyway. There's no real judicial oversight of the NSA, there's no Congressional oversight, so that leaves the Executive branch... and does anybody trust them to exercise restraint??? I think he's petrified that Snowden's heroic leadership in this area will inspire more leaks. One can only hope. No doubt.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I agree with what you're saying, but the mere existence of this letter is indicative of the fear gripping those in power whom would rather their illegitimate authorities remain a secret.
- embolism 13y ago
  ...given that the FISA courts are nothing but a rubber-stamp How is this 'given'? Do we have any evidence of this whatsoever?
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    It's been publicly revealed that they only deny something like .03% of all requests.[1] If that isn't a "rubber stamp" then I don't know what is. Of course they have a response to that "Well, the requests are so well done that there are very few that there is any reason to deny them" but that doesn't pass the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+.03%25 https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+.03%25
    - embolism 13y ago
      but that doesn't pass the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned. So it's gone from a 'given' to 'in your opinion'. It's easy to explain the 0.03 figure if there are a large number of routine boilerplate small scale requests. It seems highly plausible that this is the case. The fact that the figure is plausible doesn't rule out the possibility that abuses might be being rubberstamped, but the truth is that we don't know, not that it's a 'given'.
kenjackson 13y ago
We see on full display the "ends justify the means" attitude that the NSA argues. It is not an invalid argument, but it is one that I'm sure the vast majority of the HN audience would disagree with. Hopefully this attitude is debated in the national spotlight alongside the validity of the programs themselves. I do think that the "ends justifying the means" will resonate with most of the US population. And I think that's one reason it won't be a big deal in this country over the long haul. As it is, even among my less technically sophisticated senior-citizen in-laws the attitude is really, "Why is this news? Of course we're doing this!" I think there is a bit of naivete with a lot of the HN crowd. It's sort of the same naivete that the RIAA has. You can't stop the flow of information. The information will find its way into the hands of the determined. You can't transmit data over virtually public networks and not expect it to be observed. This all goes together with the discussion between on-site and cloud storage. If you want your data to be private, don't hand it to a 3rd party. That 3rd party includes Google, Verizon, ATT, or Comcast. Once you hand your data to a 3rd party, all bets are off. This needs to be the way we think about data. We should learn the lesson from the RIAA that fighting a losing battle, just puts us in worse shape when we come to our senses. We should start teaching people that their data over these networks isn't private. Even if the gov't didn't look at it, someone from Google/Facebook/Verizon can do the same -- and is potentially more likely to sell to foreign nations. This battle is over. Most Americans know this. The tech sector ironically seems to be the ones who are having the most trouble seeing how this plays out.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  It is very depressing to me, knowing that computers, which I grew to love as a child are now the driving force behind enabling the new surveillance/police state (formerly thought of as science-fiction). Everything we do is tracked, recorded. Our information is sold without our consent. Zero privacy and it only gets worse.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I disagree. What we need, and what we can really achieve if we put enough pressure on congress, is sweeping legislation that protects our privacy. I believe there's a tipping point beyond which even the least privacy-conscious of citizens becomes angry. Once that happens - hopefully within the span of these leaks - we have the opportunity to force congress's hand in making explicit our privacy protection in the digital age.
hayksaakian 13y ago
Just because there are two sides to an argument does not mean they are both equally valid, and that the argument itself is debatable. Stupid false choice BS spread by modern media. You can have safety, privacy and security all at the same time.
- embolism 13y ago
  You can have safety, privacy and security all at the same time. Is there a single explanation anywhere of how this can be achieved? If it is so straightforward that anyone who thinks otherwise is 'stupid', I would love to know.
  - straight_talk 13y ago
    Total surveillance has nothing to do with the security of the average citizen and all to do with keeping and extending the current elite powers. We're slowly transforming from a democracy to a totalitarian state.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Total surveillance has nothing to do with the security of the average citizen... If you really mean this, you are beyond reason. I don't disagree about the slow transformation you describe, but it's hard to believe that no NSA operatives are working towards preventing terrorism. One of the problems is that surveillance can be used for both purposes. However neither of your statements are an actual attempt to answer my question.

by pvnick 13y ago

abraininavat 13y ago

I agree with most of what you said. I want to nitpick one thing though. I don't agree that "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. It's not an argument at all, it's a premise in the argument at hand. And, as you alluded to, the majority of us here seem to disagree with the premise, making the overall argument invalid. Probably not the case for the rest of the country th ough. I'd like to think that we represent the "thoughtful minority", but doesn't everyone.

pvnick 13y ago
It's interesting you pointed that out. I wanted to explore the workings of that argument a little more (I choose my words carefully when constructing posts on this site) using "validity" and "soundness", but I was in a bit of a hurry as I have a lot of work to do today. Thank you for your response.

mindcrime 13y ago

This statement indicates real progress and is a fantastic step in the right direction It read, to me, like nothing but a blowhard spouting hot-air and empty rhetoric, while desperately hoping to spike morale and discourage the next Edward Snowden from doing The Right Thing. I mean, it's already well established that the NSA operates with almost zero effective oversight: given that the FISA courts are nothing but a rubber-stamp, Congress is lied to and accepts the lies - or engages in willful ignorance - about this whole situation (well, up until it breaks to the public thanks to Snowden), and the NSA operate under their own interpretation of the law anyway. There's no real judicial oversight of the NSA, there's no Congressional oversight, so that leaves the Executive branch... and does anybody trust them to exercise restraint??? I think he's petrified that Snowden's heroic leadership in this area will inspire more leaks. One can only hope. No doubt.

pvnick 13y ago
I agree with what you're saying, but the mere existence of this letter is indicative of the fear gripping those in power whom would rather their illegitimate authorities remain a secret.
embolism 13y ago
...given that the FISA courts are nothing but a rubber-stamp How is this 'given'? Do we have any evidence of this whatsoever?
- mindcrime 13y ago
  It's been publicly revealed that they only deny something like .03% of all requests.[1] If that isn't a "rubber stamp" then I don't know what is. Of course they have a response to that "Well, the requests are so well done that there are very few that there is any reason to deny them" but that doesn't pass the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+.03%25 https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+.03%25
  - embolism 13y ago
    but that doesn't pass the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned. So it's gone from a 'given' to 'in your opinion'. It's easy to explain the 0.03 figure if there are a large number of routine boilerplate small scale requests. It seems highly plausible that this is the case. The fact that the figure is plausible doesn't rule out the possibility that abuses might be being rubberstamped, but the truth is that we don't know, not that it's a 'given'.

kenjackson 13y ago

We see on full display the "ends justify the means" attitude that the NSA argues. It is not an invalid argument, but it is one that I'm sure the vast majority of the HN audience would disagree with. Hopefully this attitude is debated in the national spotlight alongside the validity of the programs themselves. I do think that the "ends justifying the means" will resonate with most of the US population. And I think that's one reason it won't be a big deal in this country over the long haul. As it is, even among my less technically sophisticated senior-citizen in-laws the attitude is really, "Why is this news? Of course we're doing this!" I think there is a bit of naivete with a lot of the HN crowd. It's sort of the same naivete that the RIAA has. You can't stop the flow of information. The information will find its way into the hands of the determined. You can't transmit data over virtually public networks and not expect it to be observed. This all goes together with the discussion between on-site and cloud storage. If you want your data to be private, don't hand it to a 3rd party. That 3rd party includes Google, Verizon, ATT, or Comcast. Once you hand your data to a 3rd party, all bets are off. This needs to be the way we think about data. We should learn the lesson from the RIAA that fighting a losing battle, just puts us in worse shape when we come to our senses. We should start teaching people that their data over these networks isn't private. Even if the gov't didn't look at it, someone from Google/Facebook/Verizon can do the same -- and is potentially more likely to sell to foreign nations. This battle is over. Most Americans know this. The tech sector ironically seems to be the ones who are having the most trouble seeing how this plays out.

mixmastamyk 13y ago
It is very depressing to me, knowing that computers, which I grew to love as a child are now the driving force behind enabling the new surveillance/police state (formerly thought of as science-fiction). Everything we do is tracked, recorded. Our information is sold without our consent. Zero privacy and it only gets worse.
pvnick 13y ago
I disagree. What we need, and what we can really achieve if we put enough pressure on congress, is sweeping legislation that protects our privacy. I believe there's a tipping point beyond which even the least privacy-conscious of citizens becomes angry. Once that happens - hopefully within the span of these leaks - we have the opportunity to force congress's hand in making explicit our privacy protection in the digital age.

hayksaakian 13y ago

Just because there are two sides to an argument does not mean they are both equally valid, and that the argument itself is debatable. Stupid false choice BS spread by modern media. You can have safety, privacy and security all at the same time.

embolism 13y ago
You can have safety, privacy and security all at the same time. Is there a single explanation anywhere of how this can be achieved? If it is so straightforward that anyone who thinks otherwise is 'stupid', I would love to know.
- straight_talk 13y ago
  Total surveillance has nothing to do with the security of the average citizen and all to do with keeping and extending the current elite powers. We're slowly transforming from a democracy to a totalitarian state.
  - embolism 13y ago
    Total surveillance has nothing to do with the security of the average citizen... If you really mean this, you are beyond reason. I don't disagree about the slow transformation you describe, but it's hard to believe that no NSA operatives are working towards preventing terrorism. One of the problems is that surveillance can be used for both purposes. However neither of your statements are an actual attempt to answer my question.