6 ms·

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 telecommun

by 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.
        tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        I agree with you in large part, but I do believe Snowden's revelations show government conduct that is far beyond a reasonable reading of Patriot, FISA, etc. Things like the "three hops rule" don't even pass the laugh test.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Man, even 'three hops rule' is one of those things where I have to say, "if you guys only knew...". The normal judicial discovery process itself can encompass far more needless data than even '3 hops' and few people would bat an eye, because the assumption is that the investigators are sifting through the data to find the evidence instead of just capturing everything to use for nefarious deeds afterward. Given the stated purpose of that search it even makes sense: To find connections between terrorists in cells that are directly connected you would need 1 hop, for cells directly connected through only 1 intermediary you would need 2 hops, etc. So if you're willing to limit yourself to discovering connections between cells that directly share a connection to a given other cell then 2 hops would be fine. But somehow I don't think that's the most prudent means of uncovering connections between terrorist groups and their ongoing recruits.
    - MacsHeadroom 13y ago
      The US does conduct investigations in accordance with the law without tipping off those investigated. FISA is the law. The PATRIOT Act is the law. The law is corrupt.

by mixmax 13y ago

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.
      - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        I agree with you in large part, but I do believe Snowden's revelations show government conduct that is far beyond a reasonable reading of Patriot, FISA, etc. Things like the "three hops rule" don't even pass the laugh test.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Man, even 'three hops rule' is one of those things where I have to say, "if you guys only knew...". The normal judicial discovery process itself can encompass far more needless data than even '3 hops' and few people would bat an eye, because the assumption is that the investigators are sifting through the data to find the evidence instead of just capturing everything to use for nefarious deeds afterward. Given the stated purpose of that search it even makes sense: To find connections between terrorists in cells that are directly connected you would need 1 hop, for cells directly connected through only 1 intermediary you would need 2 hops, etc. So if you're willing to limit yourself to discovering connections between cells that directly share a connection to a given other cell then 2 hops would be fine. But somehow I don't think that's the most prudent means of uncovering connections between terrorist groups and their ongoing recruits.
  - MacsHeadroom 13y ago
    The US does conduct investigations in accordance with the law without tipping off those investigated. FISA is the law. The PATRIOT Act is the law. The law is corrupt.