6 ms·

And that's the core of the issue for me. I don't have any problem with the NSA working with and studying encryption and methods to break encryption. What I hav

by Finster 13y ago

And that's the core of the issue for me. I don't have any problem with the NSA working with and studying encryption and methods to break encryption. What I have a problem with is invading my privacy and gathering my communications and information without a warrant. My 4th amendment rights have been completely violated.

javajosh 13y ago
Totally. No-one (including me) would have blinked an eye if it turned out the NSA was snooping on anything and everything...with a warrant. Heck, I would have probably been moderately pleased. But snooping on anything, in secret, without judicial oversight, without public consent...that is all very wrong, and Sheier is right: it's a total betrayal of the internet. Whatever short-sighted jerk-offs came up with this grand plan ought to be put in prison for harming US interests. To say that Snowden is the one who harmed US interests for revealing these activities is an intolerable act of a government that values only one thing, loyalty. Principles? Nah. Principles are soooo pre-Industrial revolution. And let's face it: with all the thousands of people working on these projects, someone was bound to blow the whistle sooner or later, because no matter how far down the rabbit hole an agency like the NSA goes when it comes to defining new norms, there are always some awesome weirdos who don't buy it, no matter how normal everyone around them treats it. (Hat tip to you, Snowden, for not drinking the Kool-Aid). Guess what bozos (yes, NSA, I'm talking to you): national security is affected by abrogation of trust and betrayal of people like you. Our position as an exemplar of personal freedom, and self-restrained government, has been badly damaged by you. Going after Snowden, doubling down on internal security...these damage you, and us, further. Maybe Congress is confused on this issue, but I (and most everyone I've talked to) am not: you need to stop collecting data without warrants immediately. You need to dismantle your capacity to do so. You need to delete all information that you've gathered under those conditions. And this should be the last act of the NSA's senior leadership before resigning.
- malandrew 13y ago
  "...weirdos...." I prefer to describe them as people with a conscience, that are cognizant of the consequences of hypocrisy and danger of the actions of the organization which they serve.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Not quite. We don't allow general warrants so a court order to decrypt all internet traffic is not Constitutional. If the NSA was snooping on anything and everything with a warrant, that is no different than what is happening, and it is not Constitutional (particularity requirement not met). What is the problem is the NSA doing this sort of blanket surveillance where a warrant is normally required but where they make an end-run around the Constitution. We require warrants because we require magistrates to require particularity in the warrant. But it gets worse. What will come out of this is a massive market for more secure communications, much of it designed to thwart this sort of surveillance. The NSA by not respecting our rule of law has now encouraged people to do exactly what they are afraid of and in the end, wiretaps will now go dark. The NSA broke their end of the legal bargain and now the entire government will pay a price, and that price will, no doubt, impede legitimate law enforcement efforts as well as this.
  - MacsHeadroom 13y ago
    Snooping on "anything and everything" traversing the Internet without a warrant is perfectly constitutional according to SCOTUS, POTUS, most of Congress, and the 3 letter agencies doing the snooping. Information traversing the Internet has been legally deemed to not be included in one's "person, house, paper or effects" and as such is not constitutionally protected by the fourth amendment.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      > Snooping on "anything and everything" traversing the Internet without a warrant is perfectly constitutional according to SCOTUS, POTUS, most of Congress, and the 3 letter agencies doing the snooping. Please provide citations regarding SCOTUS. In fact, given that Katz v. United States was never overruled, that sounds very suspicious. The closest I think you can get is Amnesty International v. Clapper but that was a standing issue and never reached the merits.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        EFF has a good page about privacy, including the limitations on privacy for information provided to a third party. https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy The "communications records that receive special protection" are limited to ECPA, I believe, which doesn't apply to NSA since foreign surveillance trumps that law (though, IANAL so feel free to read and analyze for yourself).
doktrin 13y ago
Totally agree. I wish this would get more emphasis. This is primarily a matter of policy and respect for the rule of law. The involvement of technology is incidental, IMHO.
harryh 13y ago
FWIW, you have an incorrect understanding of what your 4th amendment rights actually are.
- cliffu 13y ago
  No, congress and the tech companies have the incorrect understanding that phone calls and emails going through a third party gives that third party consent to share them with the government.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    If that's an incorrect understanding, it's an incorrect understanding that the EFF also shares, just so you know: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
    - cliffu 13y ago
      Yes, I'm being flippant with the terminology. I know that to be true but strongly disagree that we should have no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails. Telephone calls go through a third party and they are covered.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, but telephone calls are covered because Congress passed a law making it so, not because of a Supreme Court ruling per se. Separate laws had to be passed to protect cell phone calls, beepers, etc.
  - rdl 13y ago
    4A as it has been interpreted is woefully inadequate for privacy protections in the modern world. Absent a complete change in how the courts do this, we need laws like ECPA (but better), technical countermeasures and a strikedown of laws like CALEA (which is unconstitutional already), or a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting privacy. Or all 3.

by Finster 13y ago

javajosh 13y ago

Totally. No-one (including me) would have blinked an eye if it turned out the NSA was snooping on anything and everything...with a warrant. Heck, I would have probably been moderately pleased. But snooping on anything, in secret, without judicial oversight, without public consent...that is all very wrong, and Sheier is right: it's a total betrayal of the internet. Whatever short-sighted jerk-offs came up with this grand plan ought to be put in prison for harming US interests. To say that Snowden is the one who harmed US interests for revealing these activities is an intolerable act of a government that values only one thing, loyalty. Principles? Nah. Principles are soooo pre-Industrial revolution. And let's face it: with all the thousands of people working on these projects, someone was bound to blow the whistle sooner or later, because no matter how far down the rabbit hole an agency like the NSA goes when it comes to defining new norms, there are always some awesome weirdos who don't buy it, no matter how normal everyone around them treats it. (Hat tip to you, Snowden, for not drinking the Kool-Aid). Guess what bozos (yes, NSA, I'm talking to you): national security is affected by abrogation of trust and betrayal of people like you. Our position as an exemplar of personal freedom, and self-restrained government, has been badly damaged by you. Going after Snowden, doubling down on internal security...these damage you, and us, further. Maybe Congress is confused on this issue, but I (and most everyone I've talked to) am not: you need to stop collecting data without warrants immediately. You need to dismantle your capacity to do so. You need to delete all information that you've gathered under those conditions. And this should be the last act of the NSA's senior leadership before resigning.

malandrew 13y ago
"...weirdos...." I prefer to describe them as people with a conscience, that are cognizant of the consequences of hypocrisy and danger of the actions of the organization which they serve.
einhverfr 13y ago
Not quite. We don't allow general warrants so a court order to decrypt all internet traffic is not Constitutional. If the NSA was snooping on anything and everything with a warrant, that is no different than what is happening, and it is not Constitutional (particularity requirement not met). What is the problem is the NSA doing this sort of blanket surveillance where a warrant is normally required but where they make an end-run around the Constitution. We require warrants because we require magistrates to require particularity in the warrant. But it gets worse. What will come out of this is a massive market for more secure communications, much of it designed to thwart this sort of surveillance. The NSA by not respecting our rule of law has now encouraged people to do exactly what they are afraid of and in the end, wiretaps will now go dark. The NSA broke their end of the legal bargain and now the entire government will pay a price, and that price will, no doubt, impede legitimate law enforcement efforts as well as this.
- MacsHeadroom 13y ago
  Snooping on "anything and everything" traversing the Internet without a warrant is perfectly constitutional according to SCOTUS, POTUS, most of Congress, and the 3 letter agencies doing the snooping. Information traversing the Internet has been legally deemed to not be included in one's "person, house, paper or effects" and as such is not constitutionally protected by the fourth amendment.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > Snooping on "anything and everything" traversing the Internet without a warrant is perfectly constitutional according to SCOTUS, POTUS, most of Congress, and the 3 letter agencies doing the snooping. Please provide citations regarding SCOTUS. In fact, given that Katz v. United States was never overruled, that sounds very suspicious. The closest I think you can get is Amnesty International v. Clapper but that was a standing issue and never reached the merits.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      EFF has a good page about privacy, including the limitations on privacy for information provided to a third party. https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy The "communications records that receive special protection" are limited to ECPA, I believe, which doesn't apply to NSA since foreign surveillance trumps that law (though, IANAL so feel free to read and analyze for yourself).

doktrin 13y ago

Totally agree. I wish this would get more emphasis. This is primarily a matter of policy and respect for the rule of law. The involvement of technology is incidental, IMHO.

harryh 13y ago

FWIW, you have an incorrect understanding of what your 4th amendment rights actually are.

cliffu 13y ago
No, congress and the tech companies have the incorrect understanding that phone calls and emails going through a third party gives that third party consent to share them with the government.
- mpyne 13y ago
  If that's an incorrect understanding, it's an incorrect understanding that the EFF also shares, just so you know: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
  - cliffu 13y ago
    Yes, I'm being flippant with the terminology. I know that to be true but strongly disagree that we should have no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails. Telephone calls go through a third party and they are covered.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Yes, but telephone calls are covered because Congress passed a law making it so, not because of a Supreme Court ruling per se. Separate laws had to be passed to protect cell phone calls, beepers, etc.
- rdl 13y ago
  4A as it has been interpreted is woefully inadequate for privacy protections in the modern world. Absent a complete change in how the courts do this, we need laws like ECPA (but better), technical countermeasures and a strikedown of laws like CALEA (which is unconstitutional already), or a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting privacy. Or all 3.