3 ms·

This actually seems like a reasonable compromise

by pvnick 13y ago

walshemj 13y ago
So you trust the phone company more than the NSA - remind me again what over sight the phone companies have from the FCC? The FCC is unable to actually regulate in some areas (ADSL for example)as states rights trump its ability to be an effective regulator.
- crusso 13y ago
  So you trust the phone company more than the NSA It's not about whom you trust more. It's about the power of the phone company to string together your phone calls, your cell phone calls, your Internet access, your library books, and your license plate camera sightings. That power is nil with the phone company since they don't have all that other data and they don't have any kind of reason or mandate to make those kinds of connections. The NSA, on the other hand...
  - wpietri 13y ago
    And, further, it creates systemic inertia. If the NSA has to ask, via court order, for each set of records it wants, I'm a lot less worried about somebody in government using the data for personal entertainment, financial gain, or political advantage.
    - amirmc 13y ago
      > "And, further, it creates systemic inertia" This is an assumption (and a dangerous one, imho). From what I've read they've already optimised the hell out of getting 'court-orders' so I don't see it as a stretch to imagine that they would do the same with data stored at remote locations. There have been stories that said companies would help with NSA access since the alternative was to have NSA machines on site. Pushing data back to the companies doesn't mean NSA would walk in and demand to install some of their own hardware.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        No, I think it's more than an assumption. The number of people whose records have been seized through court order is much smaller than the the wholesale collection of every phone call record and photos of every piece of paper mail. We literally have no idea what is done with the bulk-collected data at the NSA. As Snowden and Manning show, internal controls on supposedly sensitive data are weak. But we do know that they can't look through the data they haven't collected. The court order, even if it's easy to get, leaves a paper trail thrice over. One with the executive branch, one with the courts, and one with whatever company has to cough up data. That won't prevent somebody sufficiently powerful and confident from getting data. But it will act as a significant deterrent to casual snooping by insiders, and also to political misuse of the system.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    really? try talking to the CWA about some of the stuff that some phone companies get up to in the US. And I suggest you Google Ernestine the operator "You're dealing with the phone company, Mr. Veedle. We are not bound by city, state, or federal regulations. We are omnipotent."

This actually seems like a reasonable compromise

by pvnick 13y ago

This actually seems like a reasonable compromise

So you trust the phone company more than the NSA - remind me again what over sight the phone companies have from the FCC? The FCC is unable to actually regulate in some areas (ADSL for example)as states rights trump its ability to be an effective regulator.

crusso 13y ago
So you trust the phone company more than the NSA It's not about whom you trust more. It's about the power of the phone company to string together your phone calls, your cell phone calls, your Internet access, your library books, and your license plate camera sightings. That power is nil with the phone company since they don't have all that other data and they don't have any kind of reason or mandate to make those kinds of connections. The NSA, on the other hand...
- wpietri 13y ago
  And, further, it creates systemic inertia. If the NSA has to ask, via court order, for each set of records it wants, I'm a lot less worried about somebody in government using the data for personal entertainment, financial gain, or political advantage.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    > "And, further, it creates systemic inertia" This is an assumption (and a dangerous one, imho). From what I've read they've already optimised the hell out of getting 'court-orders' so I don't see it as a stretch to imagine that they would do the same with data stored at remote locations. There have been stories that said companies would help with NSA access since the alternative was to have NSA machines on site. Pushing data back to the companies doesn't mean NSA would walk in and demand to install some of their own hardware.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      No, I think it's more than an assumption. The number of people whose records have been seized through court order is much smaller than the the wholesale collection of every phone call record and photos of every piece of paper mail. We literally have no idea what is done with the bulk-collected data at the NSA. As Snowden and Manning show, internal controls on supposedly sensitive data are weak. But we do know that they can't look through the data they haven't collected. The court order, even if it's easy to get, leaves a paper trail thrice over. One with the executive branch, one with the courts, and one with whatever company has to cough up data. That won't prevent somebody sufficiently powerful and confident from getting data. But it will act as a significant deterrent to casual snooping by insiders, and also to political misuse of the system.
- walshemj 13y ago
  really? try talking to the CWA about some of the stuff that some phone companies get up to in the US. And I suggest you Google Ernestine the operator "You're dealing with the phone company, Mr. Veedle. We are not bound by city, state, or federal regulations. We are omnipotent."