5 ms·

I suppose you could move to a different country and never return to the USA. I don't know if that qualifies as a "solution" though.

seiji 13y ago
Last year at Heathrow, I got selected for a "random screening" where they take everything out of your luggage and scan every piece individually through the x-ray machine again. It takes me half an hour to pack my luggage, so the process took a while. I was not pleased that morning. (Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)
dataminer 13y ago
Every other country has these problems, the bureaucratic machinery is all powerful, even more powerful than politicians whom you can vote out.
- mixmax 13y ago
  I think America is pretty bad - certainly worse than where I happened to be born (Denmark). An example: Like many other countries we have logging of telecommunications. The difference from the US is that it has been a transparent process. A bill was introduced into parlaiment, it was discussed both in the media and on the floor of parlaiment, then voted on and made into law. I know exactly what is logged, because the process is open. So does the media, and some of the major Danish tech-sites have criticised the way the logging works (it's basically useless for the police). Personally I don't like the law, but it was an open process; I know exactly who voted yes and no, I know exactly what is being logged, I know from the media debates how the police uses this, etc. Democracy at work.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > I know exactly what is logged Wouldn't one of the reason it's "useless for the police" be because anyone who has been paying attention has the exact blueprint needed to evade this logging?
    - lcampbell 13y ago
      Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        I wasn't aware that was the only option. I wonder if there are any nations out there which are able to conduct investigations in accordance with the law, but without tipping off those being investigated?
        lcampbell 13y ago
        I'm completely oblivious to non-US law, but I think, in general, you cannot both have your cake and eat it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices: * Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark. * Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US. I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Well the middle ground (and what the U.S. does) is to publish the general standards and practices specifying what the government is to do in law, and then leaving the how secret. E.g. the FBI is given authority to wiretap with a warrant, telecom providers are ordered to make it possible to comply with such warrants, but it's left up to the FBI and telecom providers to figure out the actual operational details. This is, after all, why people were protesting against PATRIOT ACT, FISA Amendments Act, etc., was because they were worded to permit activities much like (if not exactly like) were revealed by Snowden. For the non-foreign surveillance things (like DEA's "SOD") I'm not so sure they're fully legal, but if they are illegal they'd still be just as illegal under a general law as they would be under detailed S&P.

seiji 13y ago

Last year at Heathrow, I got selected for a "random screening" where they take everything out of your luggage and scan every piece individually through the x-ray machine again. It takes me half an hour to pack my luggage, so the process took a while. I was not pleased that morning. (Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)

dataminer 13y ago

Every other country has these problems, the bureaucratic machinery is all powerful, even more powerful than politicians whom you can vote out.

mixmax 13y ago
I think America is pretty bad - certainly worse than where I happened to be born (Denmark). An example: Like many other countries we have logging of telecommunications. The difference from the US is that it has been a transparent process. A bill was introduced into parlaiment, it was discussed both in the media and on the floor of parlaiment, then voted on and made into law. I know exactly what is logged, because the process is open. So does the media, and some of the major Danish tech-sites have criticised the way the logging works (it's basically useless for the police). Personally I don't like the law, but it was an open process; I know exactly who voted yes and no, I know exactly what is being logged, I know from the media debates how the police uses this, etc. Democracy at work.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > I know exactly what is logged Wouldn't one of the reason it's "useless for the police" be because anyone who has been paying attention has the exact blueprint needed to evade this logging?
  - lcampbell 13y ago
    Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I wasn't aware that was the only option. I wonder if there are any nations out there which are able to conduct investigations in accordance with the law, but without tipping off those being investigated?
      - lcampbell 13y ago
        I'm completely oblivious to non-US law, but I think, in general, you cannot both have your cake and eat it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices: * Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark. * Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US. I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Well the middle ground (and what the U.S. does) is to publish the general standards and practices specifying what the government is to do in law, and then leaving the how secret. E.g. the FBI is given authority to wiretap with a warrant, telecom providers are ordered to make it possible to comply with such warrants, but it's left up to the FBI and telecom providers to figure out the actual operational details. This is, after all, why people were protesting against PATRIOT ACT, FISA Amendments Act, etc., was because they were worded to permit activities much like (if not exactly like) were revealed by Snowden. For the non-foreign surveillance things (like DEA's "SOD") I'm not so sure they're fully legal, but if they are illegal they'd still be just as illegal under a general law as they would be under detailed S&P.