5 ms·

"For what it's worth, this is about the point where I get off the Snowden train. It's true that some of these disclosures are of clear public interest

"For what it's worth, this is about the point where I get off the Snowden train. It's true that some of these disclosures are of clear public interest. In particular, I'm thinking about the details of NSA efforts to infiltrate and corrupt the standards setting groups that produce commercial crypto schemes." If anything this new information should put more people on the Snowden train. In the 90s, legislation was proposed which would have put backdoors everywhere via the Clipper Chip. Back then, we voted against that bill and all was good. This new information is shocking because we've already told the government that backdooring things was unacceptable behavior, yet they've done so anyways. We should all be outraged by this because it clearly doesn't represent the interest of the people.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I can't any record of a Congressional vote on the subject, only that its adoption was the subject of a proposed FIPS #185. I don't think your statement above is founded in fact. I refer you to Michael Froomkin's lengthy but readable analysis from 1996: http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper...
lukejduncan 13y ago
That stood out to me too. It's exactly at that point I would hope for the opposite reaction in the general public.
- rondon 13y ago
  Maybe Kevin Drum can provide the government a live encrypted feed of his family's bathroom and bedroom. I'm sure they will only crack the encryption if they think a bad guy is on the video.
ewoodrich 13y ago
The Clipper Chip didn't fail because of any vote, and a Congressional vote wasn't really necessary because it was intended to be a "opt-in" technology mainly for telcos and electronics manufacturers. It was never adopted due to backlash and criticism, but it's not as if they were explicitly banned from similar pursuits. Of course, that isn't to say that this justifies recent actions or is really even relevant to the latest releases, but you made the connection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
- malandrew 13y ago
  Thanks for the correction. I recalled history correctly since I was young at the time and failed to fact check.
stfu 13y ago
It should be noted that Mother Jones is generally regarded as a left-wing magazine - even by Wikipedia's description. [1] From my understanding left-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the collective, represented by the state, over the interest of the individual. So the article and the author's conclusion seems to me completely in line with this way of thinking. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine)
- calibraxis 13y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "left". The Democrats are called left in the US, but clearly right-wing by much of the world's standards. It's a business party. If you mean leftists like the anarchist-influenced Occupy movement (like David Graeber [1] who popularized "We are the 99%"), well obviously there's many anti-statist leftists. (No one's going to accuse anarchists of being pro-state.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber
- toyg 13y ago
  That's a very simplistic view of a very complicated history of political theories. Anarchism, a doctrine that explicitly negates the State, is rooted squarely in the leftist camp as classically intended, and gives individuals freedom from being coerced in any collective action whatsoever. You also have Libertarian Socialism, probably the most romantic of all leftist ideologies, which tries to bring collectivist and individualist theories together. And then of course, the very source of the meaning of "left": the French Revolution, with its rights trifecta of freedom, fraternity and equality, which was born in complete opposition to the notion of the superiority of the State over individuals. Saying "left-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the collective, represented by the state, over the interest of the individual" is like saying "right-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the rich, represented by the individual, to screw the poor, over the interest of society to improve as a whole" -- a simplistic mystification.
  - mrxd 13y ago
    Don't forget Marxism, with the goal of "the withering away of the state."
windexh8er 13y ago
Kevin Drum (edited name) was relegated to an old guy who really doesn't get it when I read that paragraph. I understand the need to the NSA to have countermeasures and options - however this is in the public interest as it puts disclosure, privacy and breach laws in a very awkward position. It also asserts that there is no expectation of privacy within US borders on the Internet - that is unacceptable and complete bull shit. Soghoian said it best recently when he stated that it is not OK for the NSA to possess dragnet capabilities on all crypto. Sorry Kevin, I think you've gotten off the wrong train - you landed in the land of complacency.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > It also asserts that there is no expectation of privacy within US borders on the Internet - that is unacceptable and complete bull shit. Have you solved the problem of bright-line jurisdictional boundaries on the Internet? That doesn't just interest the NSA, it would surely interest tax agencies around the world.
ericlavigne 13y ago
It sounds like you're misunderstanding Kevin Drum's statement. The sentences that you quoted are examples of leaks that Kevin Drum believes were in the public interest. Kevin supports these leaks because they are about what the NSA chooses to do, and are therefore necessary for public debate about US policy. Kevin clearly distinguishes between leaking NSA behavior (as in your quote) and leaking NSA capabilities (which is in the following paragraph). The ability to decrypt certain types of encryption is the sort of technological advancement that we should expect military and intelligence agencies to make and to keep secret. Here's the part where Kevin talks about specific Snowden leaks (about NSA capabilities) that he disagrees with: "But the rest of it is a lot more dubious. It's not clear to me how disclosing NSA's decryption breakthroughs benefits the public debate much, unlike previous disclosures that have raised serious questions about the scope and legality of NSA's surveillance of U.S. persons. Conversely, it's really easy to see how disclosing them harms U.S. efforts to keep up our surveillance on genuine bad guys. Unlike previous rounds of disclosures, I'm a lot less certain that this one should have seen the light of day."
- Achshar 13y ago
  How is knowing a crypto is no longer strong not in public interest? We would most certainly like to know if they have broken RSA somehow.
  - ericlavigne 13y ago
    This latest leak reduces the NSA's effectiveness at whatever they are doing. That is a good thing if, and only if, the NSA does more harm than good. It tells us nothing about whether the NSA does more harm than good. That is the key point that distinguishes this leak from previous leaks. This leak does more to reduce the NSA's effectiveness than to improve the quality of public debate about NSA policy. (Previous Snowden leaks make me suspect that the NSA does do more harm than good... but I can disagree with Kevin's conclusion and still respect his position.)
    - barrkel 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

I can't any record of a Congressional vote on the subject, only that its adoption was the subject of a proposed FIPS #185. I don't think your statement above is founded in fact. I refer you to Michael Froomkin's lengthy but readable analysis from 1996: http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper...

lukejduncan 13y ago

That stood out to me too. It's exactly at that point I would hope for the opposite reaction in the general public.

rondon 13y ago
Maybe Kevin Drum can provide the government a live encrypted feed of his family's bathroom and bedroom. I'm sure they will only crack the encryption if they think a bad guy is on the video.

ewoodrich 13y ago

The Clipper Chip didn't fail because of any vote, and a Congressional vote wasn't really necessary because it was intended to be a "opt-in" technology mainly for telcos and electronics manufacturers. It was never adopted due to backlash and criticism, but it's not as if they were explicitly banned from similar pursuits. Of course, that isn't to say that this justifies recent actions or is really even relevant to the latest releases, but you made the connection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

malandrew 13y ago
Thanks for the correction. I recalled history correctly since I was young at the time and failed to fact check.

stfu 13y ago

It should be noted that Mother Jones is generally regarded as a left-wing magazine - even by Wikipedia's description. [1] From my understanding left-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the collective, represented by the state, over the interest of the individual. So the article and the author's conclusion seems to me completely in line with this way of thinking. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine)

calibraxis 13y ago
Depends on what you mean by "left". The Democrats are called left in the US, but clearly right-wing by much of the world's standards. It's a business party. If you mean leftists like the anarchist-influenced Occupy movement (like David Graeber [1] who popularized "We are the 99%"), well obviously there's many anti-statist leftists. (No one's going to accuse anarchists of being pro-state.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber
toyg 13y ago
That's a very simplistic view of a very complicated history of political theories. Anarchism, a doctrine that explicitly negates the State, is rooted squarely in the leftist camp as classically intended, and gives individuals freedom from being coerced in any collective action whatsoever. You also have Libertarian Socialism, probably the most romantic of all leftist ideologies, which tries to bring collectivist and individualist theories together. And then of course, the very source of the meaning of "left": the French Revolution, with its rights trifecta of freedom, fraternity and equality, which was born in complete opposition to the notion of the superiority of the State over individuals. Saying "left-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the collective, represented by the state, over the interest of the individual" is like saying "right-wing ideology has always placed the interest of the rich, represented by the individual, to screw the poor, over the interest of society to improve as a whole" -- a simplistic mystification.
- mrxd 13y ago
  Don't forget Marxism, with the goal of "the withering away of the state."

windexh8er 13y ago

Kevin Drum (edited name) was relegated to an old guy who really doesn't get it when I read that paragraph. I understand the need to the NSA to have countermeasures and options - however this is in the public interest as it puts disclosure, privacy and breach laws in a very awkward position. It also asserts that there is no expectation of privacy within US borders on the Internet - that is unacceptable and complete bull shit. Soghoian said it best recently when he stated that it is not OK for the NSA to possess dragnet capabilities on all crypto. Sorry Kevin, I think you've gotten off the wrong train - you landed in the land of complacency.

mpyne 13y ago
> It also asserts that there is no expectation of privacy within US borders on the Internet - that is unacceptable and complete bull shit. Have you solved the problem of bright-line jurisdictional boundaries on the Internet? That doesn't just interest the NSA, it would surely interest tax agencies around the world.

ericlavigne 13y ago

It sounds like you're misunderstanding Kevin Drum's statement. The sentences that you quoted are examples of leaks that Kevin Drum believes were in the public interest. Kevin supports these leaks because they are about what the NSA chooses to do, and are therefore necessary for public debate about US policy. Kevin clearly distinguishes between leaking NSA behavior (as in your quote) and leaking NSA capabilities (which is in the following paragraph). The ability to decrypt certain types of encryption is the sort of technological advancement that we should expect military and intelligence agencies to make and to keep secret. Here's the part where Kevin talks about specific Snowden leaks (about NSA capabilities) that he disagrees with: "But the rest of it is a lot more dubious. It's not clear to me how disclosing NSA's decryption breakthroughs benefits the public debate much, unlike previous disclosures that have raised serious questions about the scope and legality of NSA's surveillance of U.S. persons. Conversely, it's really easy to see how disclosing them harms U.S. efforts to keep up our surveillance on genuine bad guys. Unlike previous rounds of disclosures, I'm a lot less certain that this one should have seen the light of day."

Achshar 13y ago
How is knowing a crypto is no longer strong not in public interest? We would most certainly like to know if they have broken RSA somehow.
- ericlavigne 13y ago
  This latest leak reduces the NSA's effectiveness at whatever they are doing. That is a good thing if, and only if, the NSA does more harm than good. It tells us nothing about whether the NSA does more harm than good. That is the key point that distinguishes this leak from previous leaks. This leak does more to reduce the NSA's effectiveness than to improve the quality of public debate about NSA policy. (Previous Snowden leaks make me suspect that the NSA does do more harm than good... but I can disagree with Kevin's conclusion and still respect his position.)
  - barrkel 13y ago