5 ms·

I know I'll get downvoted for this. Please be a contributing community member of HN and state why. Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know?

I know I'll get downvoted for this. Please be a contributing community member of HN and state why. Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. Leaking those kind of emails can be spun to state the opposite, when those emails are direct evidence that such abuses are tracked and presumably punished. I've seen articles that have said "what if they use this power to subvert political dissidents" Well, what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed and this new information proves? Such rumor spinning gets us nowhere as a society. Wouldn't that make Snowden a spy with his own self interests at heart, not the interests of the American people? Leaking piece-meal like he has is in his interests, not ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_mass_surveillance_disclosures#Collection_and_Analysis_Programs_or_Hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_mass_surveillance_disclosu... Look at the scope of these systems. The fact that no abuses have come up (locally) is quite telling, imho. When this same type of hardware is in the hands of countries like China, we see these abuses. Is China seeing something we don't and just not telling us? I highly doubt it.

cma 13y ago
>Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? Are the two mutually incompatible? >The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. The love interest thing wasn't part of a leak, was it? I thought they just voluntarily disclosed it, probably to distract from thoughts of domestic spying on e.g. politcal views, rather than petty tabloid personal stuff.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
betterunix 13y ago
"Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know?" Anything we i.e. the readership of HN / Slashdot / Reddit / etc. do not know? Of course not. That accounts for about 2% of the population of the United States. The rest of America is still trying to get past the "but I am not even interesting, why would the NSA spy on me?" stage of life. "Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything?" How is that coherent with your first sentence? If the leaks did not tell us anything we do not already know, surely they are not telling our enemies anything they do not already know. The reality is that foreign governments already know that the US is trying to spy on them. Terrorists know that too. That is why foreign governments use cryptography and other information security techniques. That is why terrorists deliver notes by courier. "what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed" ...this is a story about a low-level sysadmin who walked out of the very same organization with an untold number of classified documents. What checks do you think are built in, exactly? "they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests" I think your question has been settled: no, effective checks on the NSA's power are not in place. Obama could not care less about some low level guy's love interests. Of course, those pesky journalists pointing out the ways he has lied, abused Presidential authority, etc., that's another story...
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  I have yet to see evidence that he has lied. Keep in mind that the personal data being mined by these systems was already recorded, legally and gathered legally with the contracts you agreed to with these companies. I've read the EULA and every single one of them states they will cooperate with authorities for data requests. Without evidence of abuse, there is no lie here. >How is that coherent with your first sentence? you can't have it both ways. People who live in USA and are technical would know about these systems. People external and non-technical would not necessarily. Is that so hard to understand? >What checks do you think are built in, exactly? Read the article, please, before commenting. >effective checks on the NSA's power are not in place. There is still no evidence that your statement is true. The article shows that effective checks are there, but like all defenses, they can be flanked. Thus Snowden had to abuse his trust to get around them. This is just reality. There will never be a defense that can't be flanked. You can say that this article is proof that there is ineffective checks, but then you have to admit that this article proves that Snowden had a ulterior motive when he accepted his contract with NSA. You must accept that if the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for) then you must also accept that Snowden broke some rules to steal these documents.
jgg 13y ago
How's that government paycheck treating you? Also, it's spelled "asymmetric", Che.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  ad hominem
  - jgg 13y ago
    You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewing garbage defending the government with little-to-no rationality. It also makes me angry that someone is being paid with tax-payer dollars to post complete crap. However, in the interest of the general populace, I'll be happy to point out why I disagree: Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. The NSA very strongly painted (in what little time they spent talking about their programs) the picture that the program was used mostly for foreign surveillance, and that blanket domestic spying was absurd, paranoid and not of interest to them. The leaks contradict this. (source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-dossiers/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-do...) Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? No. The "bad guys" with half a brain were savvy to techniques for avoiding government surveillance before the leaks (source: http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/new-encryption-is-it-the-key-to-al-qaeda-s-resurgence/cd30a1be7e88931a3513d4c3c6257316.html http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/n...). That is, al-Qaeda, who aren't exactly the most hi-tech organization in existence (to my understanding - please educate me if I am misinformed), are smart enough to realize that encrypting their traffic is a good idea; more organized groups caught on long ago (source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html). I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Since you like name-dropping fallacies: "no true Scotsman fallacy." What constitutes a 'serious' abuse of power is subjective, but my ethical reasoning says that vacuuming up most Americans communications online without explicit knowledge or consent is abuse in and of itself. Further, we've already seen the love interest scandal, which clearly constitutes abuse (by my reasoning). The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. And yet, the fact still stands that they used taxpayer money to fund a system that stored all of that information on people they were supposed to be serving, misled them about how much of it they had, and then abused it. Whether or not they caught it later is irrelevant. Leaking those kind of emails can be spun to state the opposite, when those emails are direct evidence that such abuses are tracked and presumably punished. Moronic, illogical nonsense. I've seen articles that have said "what if they use this power to subvert political dissidents" Well, what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed and this new information proves? So what? Does that justify having the information in the first place? I think not; I do not care that the state has the right to cut off my left arm to make cat food, if and only if a supervisory committee agrees that doing so is reasonable. The basic violation of a perceived right is the issue. Wouldn't that make Snowden a spy with his own self interests at heart, not the interests of the American people? Leaking piece-meal like he has is in his interests, not ours. Yes, perhaps he is. The thing is, what Snowden is or does, is irrelevant, because I only care about his message, since the discussion is concerned with abuse of authority, and Snowden has little-to-no sanctioned authority to abuse. What's that called when you attack the person instead of the message, AsymetricCom? Oh. Right. Ad hominem. Look at the scope of these systems. The fact that no abuses have come up (locally) is quite telling, imho. Once again, the concern is that these systems exist in the first place, not that no abuse has been documented. When this same type of hardware is in the hands of countries like China, we see these abuses. Is China seeing something we don't and just not telling us? I highly doubt it. What China does or doesn't do is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the United States government's actions. In conclusion, you seem to like to act logical when it's convenient, but abandon all signs of it when making your point.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
> Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. Due to the fourth amendment (I'd recommend reading it), I'm definitely surprised at the scope of what has come to light. These actions directly contradict it, both in letter and spirit. > I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Please make a modest effort before making such statements. 1. The fact that the blanket spying exists at all is an abuse. It is a DUI checkpoint on every single road, every day, instead of pulling over swerving drivers. 2. Secret laws, courts = abuse. In America? 3. No oversight, congress un/misinformed = abuse! 4. The sympathetic fisc court itself has ruled many actions have been unconstitutional. Abuse! 5. That the leak we're talking about exists is an abuse! 6. If there have been admitted abuses, the number of non-disclosed must be far larger. Due to #5 we know they are quite possible. 7. Harassment of journalists, families, abuse. In short, it is abusive from macro to micro. Betterunix's reply points out your multiple-contradictory statements.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  > Due to the fourth amendment (I'd recommend reading it), I'm definitely surprised at the scope of what has come to light. These actions directly contradict it, both in letter and spirit. I'd bother replying to the rest of your ill-informed statements, but it's clear that you don't understand the systems involved. Read up on it before making such false statements. I really don't need to address your circular logic, that's just sad. There is no "blanket spying" any more than a police watching traffic go by for speeders is "blanket spying". There's your car analogy.
  - cutie 13y ago
    Congrats on the most obtuse post of the day... content-free. So, you support the power of the state over the idea of the fourth amendment (warrant process)? Ok, stating that fact would be more effective than this "that's just sad" tripe.
    - AsymetricCom 13y ago
      It's not my job to help you reason with logic. If you can't appreciate that circular reasoning is a distraction, then what is my explaining going to do other than waste my time? I'll just have repeat myself as you spout more and more meme-like troupes and purposeful misunderstandings. I'm not hear to proselytize or market. I'm hear to figure out the truth for myself, if others happen to be convinced in the process, that's just a happy side-effect.

cma 13y ago

>Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? Are the two mutually incompatible? >The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. The love interest thing wasn't part of a leak, was it? I thought they just voluntarily disclosed it, probably to distract from thoughts of domestic spying on e.g. politcal views, rather than petty tabloid personal stuff.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

betterunix 13y ago

"Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know?" Anything we i.e. the readership of HN / Slashdot / Reddit / etc. do not know? Of course not. That accounts for about 2% of the population of the United States. The rest of America is still trying to get past the "but I am not even interesting, why would the NSA spy on me?" stage of life. "Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything?" How is that coherent with your first sentence? If the leaks did not tell us anything we do not already know, surely they are not telling our enemies anything they do not already know. The reality is that foreign governments already know that the US is trying to spy on them. Terrorists know that too. That is why foreign governments use cryptography and other information security techniques. That is why terrorists deliver notes by courier. "what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed" ...this is a story about a low-level sysadmin who walked out of the very same organization with an untold number of classified documents. What checks do you think are built in, exactly? "they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests" I think your question has been settled: no, effective checks on the NSA's power are not in place. Obama could not care less about some low level guy's love interests. Of course, those pesky journalists pointing out the ways he has lied, abused Presidential authority, etc., that's another story...

AsymetricCom 13y ago
I have yet to see evidence that he has lied. Keep in mind that the personal data being mined by these systems was already recorded, legally and gathered legally with the contracts you agreed to with these companies. I've read the EULA and every single one of them states they will cooperate with authorities for data requests. Without evidence of abuse, there is no lie here. >How is that coherent with your first sentence? you can't have it both ways. People who live in USA and are technical would know about these systems. People external and non-technical would not necessarily. Is that so hard to understand? >What checks do you think are built in, exactly? Read the article, please, before commenting. >effective checks on the NSA's power are not in place. There is still no evidence that your statement is true. The article shows that effective checks are there, but like all defenses, they can be flanked. Thus Snowden had to abuse his trust to get around them. This is just reality. There will never be a defense that can't be flanked. You can say that this article is proof that there is ineffective checks, but then you have to admit that this article proves that Snowden had a ulterior motive when he accepted his contract with NSA. You must accept that if the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for) then you must also accept that Snowden broke some rules to steal these documents.

jgg 13y ago

How's that government paycheck treating you? Also, it's spelled "asymmetric", Che.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
ad hominem
- jgg 13y ago
  You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewing garbage defending the government with little-to-no rationality. It also makes me angry that someone is being paid with tax-payer dollars to post complete crap. However, in the interest of the general populace, I'll be happy to point out why I disagree: Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. The NSA very strongly painted (in what little time they spent talking about their programs) the picture that the program was used mostly for foreign surveillance, and that blanket domestic spying was absurd, paranoid and not of interest to them. The leaks contradict this. (source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-dossiers/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-do...) Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? No. The "bad guys" with half a brain were savvy to techniques for avoiding government surveillance before the leaks (source: http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/new-encryption-is-it-the-key-to-al-qaeda-s-resurgence/cd30a1be7e88931a3513d4c3c6257316.html http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/n...). That is, al-Qaeda, who aren't exactly the most hi-tech organization in existence (to my understanding - please educate me if I am misinformed), are smart enough to realize that encrypting their traffic is a good idea; more organized groups caught on long ago (source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html). I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Since you like name-dropping fallacies: "no true Scotsman fallacy." What constitutes a 'serious' abuse of power is subjective, but my ethical reasoning says that vacuuming up most Americans communications online without explicit knowledge or consent is abuse in and of itself. Further, we've already seen the love interest scandal, which clearly constitutes abuse (by my reasoning). The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. And yet, the fact still stands that they used taxpayer money to fund a system that stored all of that information on people they were supposed to be serving, misled them about how much of it they had, and then abused it. Whether or not they caught it later is irrelevant. Leaking those kind of emails can be spun to state the opposite, when those emails are direct evidence that such abuses are tracked and presumably punished. Moronic, illogical nonsense. I've seen articles that have said "what if they use this power to subvert political dissidents" Well, what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed and this new information proves? So what? Does that justify having the information in the first place? I think not; I do not care that the state has the right to cut off my left arm to make cat food, if and only if a supervisory committee agrees that doing so is reasonable. The basic violation of a perceived right is the issue. Wouldn't that make Snowden a spy with his own self interests at heart, not the interests of the American people? Leaking piece-meal like he has is in his interests, not ours. Yes, perhaps he is. The thing is, what Snowden is or does, is irrelevant, because I only care about his message, since the discussion is concerned with abuse of authority, and Snowden has little-to-no sanctioned authority to abuse. What's that called when you attack the person instead of the message, AsymetricCom? Oh. Right. Ad hominem. Look at the scope of these systems. The fact that no abuses have come up (locally) is quite telling, imho. Once again, the concern is that these systems exist in the first place, not that no abuse has been documented. When this same type of hardware is in the hands of countries like China, we see these abuses. Is China seeing something we don't and just not telling us? I highly doubt it. What China does or doesn't do is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the United States government's actions. In conclusion, you seem to like to act logical when it's convenient, but abandon all signs of it when making your point.

mixmastamyk 13y ago

> Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. Due to the fourth amendment (I'd recommend reading it), I'm definitely surprised at the scope of what has come to light. These actions directly contradict it, both in letter and spirit. > I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Please make a modest effort before making such statements. 1. The fact that the blanket spying exists at all is an abuse. It is a DUI checkpoint on every single road, every day, instead of pulling over swerving drivers. 2. Secret laws, courts = abuse. In America? 3. No oversight, congress un/misinformed = abuse! 4. The sympathetic fisc court itself has ruled many actions have been unconstitutional. Abuse! 5. That the leak we're talking about exists is an abuse! 6. If there have been admitted abuses, the number of non-disclosed must be far larger. Due to #5 we know they are quite possible. 7. Harassment of journalists, families, abuse. In short, it is abusive from macro to micro. Betterunix's reply points out your multiple-contradictory statements.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
> Due to the fourth amendment (I'd recommend reading it), I'm definitely surprised at the scope of what has come to light. These actions directly contradict it, both in letter and spirit. I'd bother replying to the rest of your ill-informed statements, but it's clear that you don't understand the systems involved. Read up on it before making such false statements. I really don't need to address your circular logic, that's just sad. There is no "blanket spying" any more than a police watching traffic go by for speeders is "blanket spying". There's your car analogy.
- cutie 13y ago
  Congrats on the most obtuse post of the day... content-free. So, you support the power of the state over the idea of the fourth amendment (warrant process)? Ok, stating that fact would be more effective than this "that's just sad" tripe.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    It's not my job to help you reason with logic. If you can't appreciate that circular reasoning is a distraction, then what is my explaining going to do other than waste my time? I'll just have repeat myself as you spout more and more meme-like troupes and purposeful misunderstandings. I'm not hear to proselytize or market. I'm hear to figure out the truth for myself, if others happen to be convinced in the process, that's just a happy side-effect.