3 ms·

That wasn't a very well-written article. First off, the anachronism of quoting James Madison to discuss internet privacy. Did you know that James Madison also o

That wasn't a very well-written article. First off, the anachronism of quoting James Madison to discuss internet privacy. Did you know that James Madison also owned slaves? Is the author condoning slavery? Second off, the intrusions he discuss already happen in the private sector. Having your credit card transaction? Wake up, that already happens. Child pornography; I'm fine with the state creating a system to find child pornographers. His point about the cold war is also inaccurate. Nuclear war with the Soviet Union didn't happen because each side was basically assured destruction. Our surveillance there was to figure out what they were capable of (satellites, U2 / SR71s) not local communication as is the case with terrorism. So a bunch of vague talk about our privacy with bad comparisons. The fear of terrorism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU Society has already moved beyond what this guy is talking about. Look at the Anthony Wiener case; he could very well be the next mayor of New York. We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before. There are other points he should have made better, specifically whether the archive could be manipulated. Snowden also mentioned this but this could easily be handled by simple hashing. Maybe they should propose it but I'd bet it's already being done.

agilebyte 13y ago
Once you own slaves you are rotten to the core and nothing that comes out of your mouth is worth paying attention to? One of the points of the article was that humans are fallible, that is our nature. Best to prepare for that fact in advance (like assuming someone will steal your data stored with the government).
- trestles 13y ago
  You don't get the irony of the Madison quote? Re 'your' data, the problem is that it all exists in the private sector already and IS GROWING in the private sector much more quickly. What do you the big data bandwagon is? I'm much more concerned about a breach of my SSN from Equifax than the US Govt.
  - nemesisj 13y ago
    Why? Equifax can't put you in jail indefinitely, or use everything you said in the last few years to build a case against you, just because you have a funny name. I get (and share) your concerns about corporations having so much sensitive data, but for now a company's ability to inflict harm (even when they don't mean to) is far less than a government's.
    - trestles 13y ago
      Major can of worms lol. Are you arguing that your concern is that the gov is going to change the record if it decides it doesn't like you and then imprison you? How about a bank creating fictitious > 10k deposits that they'd have to report to government? Now, the FBI is on your tail (see Eliot Spitzer).
      - dasil003 13y ago
        Privacy is not even necessarily the issue per se. Data is going to be out there in increasing quantities, and it's naive to think that we can force it all to be private. Obviously some legal controls should be in place to prevent corporate entities from abusing the data they collect, but that's really a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty. So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.
ctdonath 13y ago
We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before. Yesterday, an acquaintance had her home invaded by police, and all her lawfully owned & registered firearms were confiscated, without a warrant. Why? She posted a joke on the Internet. We may have more ways to talk, but also more reason not to. Bonus irony (for our international readers): this occurred on the USA's Independence Day, when we declared a national devotion to freedom, an event sparked by gun confiscation (see "Lexington & Concord"). Search "TJIC" to see this incident unfold.
- trestles 13y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is; the story is about PRISM and privacy not about writing jokes on public forums. Local authorities do stupid stuff sometimes.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    My point is while We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before thanks to PRISM we know those ways to talk are being copied, scoured, and sniffed for content to use against people whom authorities deem targets. The couple I referred to are upstanding law abiding citizens, but are vocal opponents of the local authorities. Not having any legal reason to shut them up, an obscure dark-humor posting by one of them was discovered and used as a pretext for totalitarian oppressive tactics (break into home without permission or warrant, confiscate lawful personal possessions (worth several months' pay) without adjudicated reason). It's akin to if you made some joke about observing the NSA like it observes you, a dozen armed-and-ready cops broke into your house and confiscated all your computers/phones/etc without a warrant. The more they know, the more they can act against you when they want to. ETA: I, like many, hesitate to say certain things on any recordable medium because we have reason to believe everything is recorded (and that which isn't can be derived from metadata). While my example used public data, the practical difference between public & private (chat board vs. PRISM) is becoming moot, and the consequences involving oppressive government acting without warrant is exactly the severity we are concerned about.
    - 13y ago

agilebyte 13y ago

Once you own slaves you are rotten to the core and nothing that comes out of your mouth is worth paying attention to? One of the points of the article was that humans are fallible, that is our nature. Best to prepare for that fact in advance (like assuming someone will steal your data stored with the government).

trestles 13y ago
You don't get the irony of the Madison quote? Re 'your' data, the problem is that it all exists in the private sector already and IS GROWING in the private sector much more quickly. What do you the big data bandwagon is? I'm much more concerned about a breach of my SSN from Equifax than the US Govt.
- nemesisj 13y ago
  Why? Equifax can't put you in jail indefinitely, or use everything you said in the last few years to build a case against you, just because you have a funny name. I get (and share) your concerns about corporations having so much sensitive data, but for now a company's ability to inflict harm (even when they don't mean to) is far less than a government's.
  - trestles 13y ago
    Major can of worms lol. Are you arguing that your concern is that the gov is going to change the record if it decides it doesn't like you and then imprison you? How about a bank creating fictitious > 10k deposits that they'd have to report to government? Now, the FBI is on your tail (see Eliot Spitzer).
    - dasil003 13y ago
      Privacy is not even necessarily the issue per se. Data is going to be out there in increasing quantities, and it's naive to think that we can force it all to be private. Obviously some legal controls should be in place to prevent corporate entities from abusing the data they collect, but that's really a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty. So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.

ctdonath 13y ago

We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before. Yesterday, an acquaintance had her home invaded by police, and all her lawfully owned & registered firearms were confiscated, without a warrant. Why? She posted a joke on the Internet. We may have more ways to talk, but also more reason not to. Bonus irony (for our international readers): this occurred on the USA's Independence Day, when we declared a national devotion to freedom, an event sparked by gun confiscation (see "Lexington & Concord"). Search "TJIC" to see this incident unfold.

trestles 13y ago
I'm not sure what your point is; the story is about PRISM and privacy not about writing jokes on public forums. Local authorities do stupid stuff sometimes.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  My point is while We have more freedom and more ways to talk than ever before thanks to PRISM we know those ways to talk are being copied, scoured, and sniffed for content to use against people whom authorities deem targets. The couple I referred to are upstanding law abiding citizens, but are vocal opponents of the local authorities. Not having any legal reason to shut them up, an obscure dark-humor posting by one of them was discovered and used as a pretext for totalitarian oppressive tactics (break into home without permission or warrant, confiscate lawful personal possessions (worth several months' pay) without adjudicated reason). It's akin to if you made some joke about observing the NSA like it observes you, a dozen armed-and-ready cops broke into your house and confiscated all your computers/phones/etc without a warrant. The more they know, the more they can act against you when they want to. ETA: I, like many, hesitate to say certain things on any recordable medium because we have reason to believe everything is recorded (and that which isn't can be derived from metadata). While my example used public data, the practical difference between public & private (chat board vs. PRISM) is becoming moot, and the consequences involving oppressive government acting without warrant is exactly the severity we are concerned about.
  - 13y ago