9 ms·

Double Secret Surveillance

160 points by sethbannon 13y ago

Spearchucker 13y ago
Articles like this lead me to think that really ridding ourselves of surveillance is not unlike getting the sugar back out of a cup of coffee.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Controlling pervasive surveillance may end up a lot like controlling nuclear weapons--we can't uninvent the technology, and no one country has a monopoly on the technology, so the whole international community has to be united in the cause of preventing the most dreaded outcomes. Any break in solidarity may lead to proliferation of spying of a kind we never imagined.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    Interesting thought. However, the dreaded outcome is at the bottom of a slippery slope rather than in a giant ball of flame. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't quite apply.
    - reneherse 13y ago
      Indeed, mutually assured destruction was the motivating force for nation states to Not Go There with nukes. Here, however, the motivation for governments to eschew mass surveillance must come from a vocal populace and web-business interests. If "we the people" don't speak out against this, both on a grassroots and lobbying level, there is no motivation for our governments to abstain. States love to spy on one another; it gives justification for their budgets. Only individual citizens, businesses, and other free thinking organizations have anything to lose.
  - pcrh 13y ago
    It may not be impossible to "uninvent" the technology of pervasive surveillance, but it is possible to forbid governments from doing it. The government is, although it seems naive to say this these days, there for the people, not for itself. If the people do not want to be constantly monitored, they shouldn't be. Commercial organizations can also be restricted in what information they can legally gather, should we choose to make that the case.
    - a3n 13y ago
      As I understand the Fourth Amendment, they're already forbidden. But I'm merely an unsophisticated citizen, not a sophisticated and motivated government lawyer. Given that they're already forbidden ... now what?
      - pcrh 13y ago
        Simple: create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. They would seek out and shut down any scheme that is illegitimately collecting personal information. The technology exists, it can be done. Edit: the whole Chicken Little "the genie is out" scaremongering is defeatist garbage. No people more than HN readers know that the effort required to collect and parse all the information flowing through the internet is not trivial. It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it.
        uptown 13y ago
        "It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it." And you think depriving the government - particularly the department of defense - of tax dollars is "easy"?
        pcrh 13y ago
        I meant it is easy technologically. Having a government department that thwarts the wishes of the population is a political problem, not a technical one.
        13y ago
TempleOS 13y ago
God is perfectly just. Joseph had to get put in prison for 7 years before getting right to rule Egypt. God says... Burp Mars You_know driving no_more quit_it nevada don't_have_a_cow other ---- Highs and lows balance, you fucken niggers.
cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
I get a paywall.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Look it up in google by title ("Double Secret Surveillance") then follow the nytimes.com link. For some reason, NY Times doesn't paywall requests coming in from Google. Wait - did I just violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision?
  - cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
    That worked in Chrome, thanks.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    If you want your articles to be listed in Google News you have to provide free access to something like 5 articles a day for similar reasons to why cloaking is prohibited.
- crgt 13y ago
  Delete your cookies?
- jimmahoney 13y ago
  Open in Chrome's "Incognito" or Firefox's "Private" mode, i.e. without cookies to identify you to the Times.
bediger4000 13y ago
It just goes to show that evidence gathered through this sort of system is just used to prosecute, and never to refute chages. Dragent surveillance is only good for guilt by association. It's un-American, in that a defendant can't face accusers (it's SEKRIT!), and in that there's no previous suspicion. Fruit of an evil tree, in deed.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  As an aside, I think this is the first time in a while I read 'un-American' and didn't roll my eyes, even though I don't actually know if being able to face your accuser in court is actually an American original idea.
  - bcRIPster 13y ago
    As I understand it, the concept is derived from the Magna Carta in that the spirit of facing ones accuser is in line with the concept of being told what you are being charged with in a complaint.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    It actually goes all the way back to common law and the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, and was later enshrined in the Sixth Amendment. During the trial of Sir Raleigh, the prosecution moved affidavits for its witnesses into evidence, without giving the accused the right to cross-examine those that had made the affidavits. Raleigh, conducting his own defense, objected on the grounds of hearsay. He was overruled, since the prosecution anticipating this attack brought the prosecution under Norman civil law, which allows for hearsay. It was a large scandal at the time, an emblem of the state exerting arbitrary power. It marked legal thinking for generations, eventually leading to the American Sixth Amendment.
    - visarga 13y ago
      The history of the Amendments is fascinating. I've had a good Wikipedia read.
analyst74 13y ago
Ease and scale of surveillance was more a result of technical improvement, and if history has shown us anything, technical advancement can only be delayed, not stopped. Now take a step back, the problem with mass surveillance is that it gives disproportionate power to those who have access to it over those who don't. So instead of banning surveillance, which would be futile, it'll be much more practical to call for transparency, so the power generated by surveillance data is not concentrated to the select few.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  I agree. I think there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, and pretending that we can somehow control this is a fool's game that only fools would believe. The only way forward is for everybody to be guaranteed the same access. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Create a level playing field, and watch innovation take off as people try to gather their lives back together.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    It's interesting that more people are starting to speak up about it. Funny enough, I shared my thoughts on this a month ago: "When we allow for organizations such as the NSA to monopolize these tools for their own ends, we take the power away from ourselves to shape our own identities and for what purposes such information is used. We must realize that if we have already let things get to this point, that there will be no going back. That is why it is important for us to shift the focus on how data is collected on us as a whole, in favor for public uses."[0] [0]: http://blog.pictobar.com/post/52533760444/the-nsa-is-closed-source-were-open-source http://blog.pictobar.com/post/52533760444/the-nsa-is-closed-...
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    What does it mean that everyone has the same level of access? Would you just publish a big public database of all of the data collected via PRISM so everyone can just read everyone elses email?
    - 13y ago
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
This analysis is great as far as it goes, but the problem is even deeper than that. The government very well may be sitting on exculpatory information in its archives that it does not see fit to release because of "National Security" issues. So it's not just that the government promised not to use this information as part of the people's case without recourse and then did anyway, it's that the government is selectively using this information in ways that are actively detrimental to ongoing criminal cases being fought by defense attorneys. You can't just pick and choose, whether you're the one prosecuting or you're the one providing information for the defense. Once we allow the government to pick and choose which information gets released in which trials, the entire judicial system becomes more of a farce than it already is. We have seriously damaged the structure of the country.
- tantalor 13y ago
  Source? Generally exculpatory evidence must be shared. Why is this evidence any different?
mtgx 13y ago
> "In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance." This exactly what I feared, and I thought would happen. They're using the information gathered from the mass spying as "evidence" for probable cause to get individual warrants. This is the worst case scenario becoming real. They're doing fishing expeditions with the mass spying apparatus and then "legally" obtain the warrants to prosecute people.

160 points by sethbannon 13y ago

Articles like this lead me to think that really ridding ourselves of surveillance is not unlike getting the sugar back out of a cup of coffee.

tokenadult 13y ago
Controlling pervasive surveillance may end up a lot like controlling nuclear weapons--we can't uninvent the technology, and no one country has a monopoly on the technology, so the whole international community has to be united in the cause of preventing the most dreaded outcomes. Any break in solidarity may lead to proliferation of spying of a kind we never imagined.
- amirmc 13y ago
  Interesting thought. However, the dreaded outcome is at the bottom of a slippery slope rather than in a giant ball of flame. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't quite apply.
  - reneherse 13y ago
    Indeed, mutually assured destruction was the motivating force for nation states to Not Go There with nukes. Here, however, the motivation for governments to eschew mass surveillance must come from a vocal populace and web-business interests. If "we the people" don't speak out against this, both on a grassroots and lobbying level, there is no motivation for our governments to abstain. States love to spy on one another; it gives justification for their budgets. Only individual citizens, businesses, and other free thinking organizations have anything to lose.
- pcrh 13y ago
  It may not be impossible to "uninvent" the technology of pervasive surveillance, but it is possible to forbid governments from doing it. The government is, although it seems naive to say this these days, there for the people, not for itself. If the people do not want to be constantly monitored, they shouldn't be. Commercial organizations can also be restricted in what information they can legally gather, should we choose to make that the case.
  - a3n 13y ago
    As I understand the Fourth Amendment, they're already forbidden. But I'm merely an unsophisticated citizen, not a sophisticated and motivated government lawyer. Given that they're already forbidden ... now what?
    - pcrh 13y ago
      Simple: create a government department whose prime duty is to protect the 4th amendment. They would seek out and shut down any scheme that is illegitimately collecting personal information. The technology exists, it can be done. Edit: the whole Chicken Little "the genie is out" scaremongering is defeatist garbage. No people more than HN readers know that the effort required to collect and parse all the information flowing through the internet is not trivial. It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it.
      - uptown 13y ago
        "It is easy to stop since only well-funded outfits can do it." And you think depriving the government - particularly the department of defense - of tax dollars is "easy"?
        pcrh 13y ago
        I meant it is easy technologically. Having a government department that thwarts the wishes of the population is a political problem, not a technical one.
      - 13y ago

TempleOS 13y ago

God is perfectly just. Joseph had to get put in prison for 7 years before getting right to rule Egypt. God says... Burp Mars You_know driving no_more quit_it nevada don't_have_a_cow other ---- Highs and lows balance, you fucken niggers.

cdvonstinkpot 13y ago

I get a paywall.

bediger4000 13y ago
Look it up in google by title ("Double Secret Surveillance") then follow the nytimes.com link. For some reason, NY Times doesn't paywall requests coming in from Google. Wait - did I just violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision?
- cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
  That worked in Chrome, thanks.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  If you want your articles to be listed in Google News you have to provide free access to something like 5 articles a day for similar reasons to why cloaking is prohibited.
crgt 13y ago
Delete your cookies?
jimmahoney 13y ago
Open in Chrome's "Incognito" or Firefox's "Private" mode, i.e. without cookies to identify you to the Times.

bediger4000 13y ago

It just goes to show that evidence gathered through this sort of system is just used to prosecute, and never to refute chages. Dragent surveillance is only good for guilt by association. It's un-American, in that a defendant can't face accusers (it's SEKRIT!), and in that there's no previous suspicion. Fruit of an evil tree, in deed.

cobrausn 13y ago
As an aside, I think this is the first time in a while I read 'un-American' and didn't roll my eyes, even though I don't actually know if being able to face your accuser in court is actually an American original idea.
- bcRIPster 13y ago
  As I understand it, the concept is derived from the Magna Carta in that the spirit of facing ones accuser is in line with the concept of being told what you are being charged with in a complaint.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  It actually goes all the way back to common law and the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, and was later enshrined in the Sixth Amendment. During the trial of Sir Raleigh, the prosecution moved affidavits for its witnesses into evidence, without giving the accused the right to cross-examine those that had made the affidavits. Raleigh, conducting his own defense, objected on the grounds of hearsay. He was overruled, since the prosecution anticipating this attack brought the prosecution under Norman civil law, which allows for hearsay. It was a large scandal at the time, an emblem of the state exerting arbitrary power. It marked legal thinking for generations, eventually leading to the American Sixth Amendment.
  - visarga 13y ago
    The history of the Amendments is fascinating. I've had a good Wikipedia read.

analyst74 13y ago

Ease and scale of surveillance was more a result of technical improvement, and if history has shown us anything, technical advancement can only be delayed, not stopped. Now take a step back, the problem with mass surveillance is that it gives disproportionate power to those who have access to it over those who don't. So instead of banning surveillance, which would be futile, it'll be much more practical to call for transparency, so the power generated by surveillance data is not concentrated to the select few.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I agree. I think there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, and pretending that we can somehow control this is a fool's game that only fools would believe. The only way forward is for everybody to be guaranteed the same access. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Create a level playing field, and watch innovation take off as people try to gather their lives back together.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  It's interesting that more people are starting to speak up about it. Funny enough, I shared my thoughts on this a month ago: "When we allow for organizations such as the NSA to monopolize these tools for their own ends, we take the power away from ourselves to shape our own identities and for what purposes such information is used. We must realize that if we have already let things get to this point, that there will be no going back. That is why it is important for us to shift the focus on how data is collected on us as a whole, in favor for public uses."[0] [0]: http://blog.pictobar.com/post/52533760444/the-nsa-is-closed-source-were-open-source http://blog.pictobar.com/post/52533760444/the-nsa-is-closed-...
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  What does it mean that everyone has the same level of access? Would you just publish a big public database of all of the data collected via PRISM so everyone can just read everyone elses email?
  - 13y ago

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

This analysis is great as far as it goes, but the problem is even deeper than that. The government very well may be sitting on exculpatory information in its archives that it does not see fit to release because of "National Security" issues. So it's not just that the government promised not to use this information as part of the people's case without recourse and then did anyway, it's that the government is selectively using this information in ways that are actively detrimental to ongoing criminal cases being fought by defense attorneys. You can't just pick and choose, whether you're the one prosecuting or you're the one providing information for the defense. Once we allow the government to pick and choose which information gets released in which trials, the entire judicial system becomes more of a farce than it already is. We have seriously damaged the structure of the country.

tantalor 13y ago
Source? Generally exculpatory evidence must be shared. Why is this evidence any different?

mtgx 13y ago

> "In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance." This exactly what I feared, and I thought would happen. They're using the information gathered from the mass spying as "evidence" for probable cause to get individual warrants. This is the worst case scenario becoming real. They're doing fishing expeditions with the mass spying apparatus and then "legally" obtain the warrants to prosecute people.