6 ms·

What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know

65 points by ca98am79 13y ago

leokun 13y ago
> June 6, 2013 Given all the revelations since this was published it makes sense to add the date. In terms of the NSA disclosures timeline, two months is a long time and could be misleading if a reader isn't paying attention to the date.
vaadu 13y ago
3+ months. Do we really need to rehash old news?
wslh 13y ago
I think what's scary beyond the privacy issues is that the government can be involved in massive social engineering. If we add this to another top submission today: "US military scientists solve the fundamental problem of viral marketing" we have an excellent combo for manipulation 3.0.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
The real question is this: If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it?
- nullc 13y ago
  How many lives are lost by the increased range that people drive because the TSA is obnoxious, or because of ever so slightly reduced preference for telecommuting because of surveillance state concerns? 9/11 was horrible but it was also noise compared to boring sources of death that we struggle with every day, and whos risks may be increased by our overreactions to 9/11.
  - panarky 13y ago
    Yes, there are increased traffic deaths caused by heightened airport security. Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. IOW, the TSA has created approximately two 9-11s since its inception.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  If it was spying alone, I think you may have a point. My concern is that this is part of a larger trend in which the federal government ignores checks and balances in "wars" of various kinds - and those wars have cost most lives than 9/11 did to begin with. So the spying in isolation? Probably worth it. The general ignoring of checks and balances and human rights generally? Definitely not worth it.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it? There's a Ben Franklin quote that gets tossed around a lot -- and appropriately so -- in response to questions like this, but this time I'll let Patrick Henry answer for me: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" Also, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." And, "Fear is the passion of slaves."
- mason240 13y ago
  If it means the US loses its hegemony in internet/technology, then no.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  If this were absolutely the only use of such data slurping, then yes. The problem is, with such secrecy and an unwillingness to allow independent oversight, its hard to believe that. The problem is all the other uses of such information. And of course we have no idea what else the information is being used for. There is also the effects on people who don't know. For example, imagine the politician who wants to reign in a security service for over reach, but suspects that the security service in question might have some embarrassing data on him/her. Would such a politician take the risk? Or what if a candidate wanted to fight an election based on reigning in a security service, and the sitting politician was "helped by the security service at risk. And so on... Such information has great power to destroy what democracy we have.
- IanCal 13y ago
  As a contrasting question, how many lives could be saved if the money was spent elsewhere? The 'black budget' figure of $50B is just shy of 1/3rd of the total cost of universal health care in the UK, which equates to about 20 million people. A quick google gives a figure of ~22,000 [0] people dying from a lack of insurance, out of a population of 157 million (25-65), of which about 30 million were uninsured. Now this is more complicated because the uninsured are likely to be poorer, so possibly more longer term issues and the UK figure covers everyone (not just 25-65) which adds cost. I'm not too interested in creating a perfect comparison, but I feel it's fairly reasonable to say that not spending that money on healthcare costs on the order of tens of thousands of lives per year. If it's 12,000 then that equates to 4 9/11 incidents per year (in lives) I know these can't be compared quite like this but I think it does emphasise the sheer scale we're talking about. [0] http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf
rayiner 13y ago
The article is old, but timely, since today is Constitution Day. Here's what Justice Scalia had to say about the NSA issue last night: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/09/scalia-chides-activist-colleagues-on-eve-of-constitution-day.html http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/09/scalia-chides-acti... ("It has gotten to the point, Scalia said, that the current 'national debate' over the power of the National Security Agency to track private citizens' phone calls will be decided 'not by Congress, but by my court, because of the court's arrogation to itself ... [the power] to determine what privacy rights ought to exist.' The court, he said, is 'the branch that knows the least' about issues of national security."). There is an interesting and relevant blog post about how the NSA spying creates an internal conflict within conservatism: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/06/13/anti-nsa-conservative-choose-antonin-scalias-originalism-or-rand-pauls-living-constitutionalism http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013.... Basically, it's hard to reconcile originalism, which many conservatives espouse, with the idea that the 4th amendment should be reinterpreted to encompass digital privacy.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  It's to the point now that I almost feel like the only durable and consistent solution would come from a Constitutional amendment that directly addresses the concept of privacy. It would at least partially satisfy textualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, while addressing the concerns of modern data/privacy activists. It could also potentially address privacy concerns across both government (e.g. NSA) and private (e.g. Facebook) spheres. There's obviously a huge hurdle to overcome to make that happen. How would it be phrased? Very difficult to work out. And, what would cause sufficient outcry for the public to push for it? > As he often does when extolling the text of the Constitution, Scalia criticized his colleagues for their "activism" in creating new human rights not articulated by the framers. Argh, comments like this make my blood boil. My reading of history is that the Constitution was not intended to create any human rights, but rather to prevent the government from limiting the rights that we all have naturally. Which would include privacy.
  - rayiner 13y ago
cantrevealname 13y ago
The HackerNews crowd notwithstanding, it is depressing to report that the average person today is still utterly unaware of the Snowden revelations. Please tell your barber, sister-in-law, coffee buddy, or next-door neighbor about it. Tell them why it's important. EDIT: To the comments below that say that the average person knows but doesn't care: I think you've been speaking with significantly better informed people than the average. Really, my experience has been that the average person has never heard the name Snowden, let alone knows about the revelations. (I might even try an informal poll of people I meet up with, and report back.) That they might not care once they hear the story is a sad, but separate issue.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I have discussed the issue with my wife, my mom, and my dad. They all understand the issue, understand the potential implications (especially my parents, who as immigrants from a muslim country are a little anxious about profiling), but none of them have a problem with what is happening. I think the average person does know about the Snowden revelations. I think the average person just doesn't care.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    I second this. I've discussed it in entirety with my parents, my girlfriend, her parents, and her siblings. They get it as well. They also don't care. In fact, they're pretty much shocked at all the surprise and nerdrage on the internet right now. They responded almost universally the same way -- "We assumed this is how it's always been. This is a new thing?"
- blhack 13y ago
  I don't know about that. I think they "know" about these things, but they just don't care, or they don't "know" that these things are bad. What they know about is that some kid/nerd was a spy for the Russian government, where he is now living with Putin. That he is a traitor, and that he is trying to make us less safe from the terrorists. He put american lives at risk, and who knows what some nerd was able to look at while he was at he NSA. What we need is better spying to prevent this from happening again in the future.
bayesianhorse 13y ago
One of my big questions is: Does the NSA engage in industrial espionage? And if so, does it transmit data from foreign companies to US companies? It has been rumored that this is standard operating procedure in China, where each hotel employs some intelligence officers to invade business traveler's devices...
rosser 13y ago
Discussion on original submission from The Atlantic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5837253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5837253

65 points by ca98am79 13y ago

> June 6, 2013 Given all the revelations since this was published it makes sense to add the date. In terms of the NSA disclosures timeline, two months is a long time and could be misleading if a reader isn't paying attention to the date.

vaadu 13y ago

3+ months. Do we really need to rehash old news?

wslh 13y ago

I think what's scary beyond the privacy issues is that the government can be involved in massive social engineering. If we add this to another top submission today: "US military scientists solve the fundamental problem of viral marketing" we have an excellent combo for manipulation 3.0.

at-fates-hands 13y ago

The real question is this: If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it?

nullc 13y ago
How many lives are lost by the increased range that people drive because the TSA is obnoxious, or because of ever so slightly reduced preference for telecommuting because of surveillance state concerns? 9/11 was horrible but it was also noise compared to boring sources of death that we struggle with every day, and whos risks may be increased by our overreactions to 9/11.
- panarky 13y ago
  Yes, there are increased traffic deaths caused by heightened airport security. Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. IOW, the TSA has created approximately two 9-11s since its inception.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
If it was spying alone, I think you may have a point. My concern is that this is part of a larger trend in which the federal government ignores checks and balances in "wars" of various kinds - and those wars have cost most lives than 9/11 did to begin with. So the spying in isolation? Probably worth it. The general ignoring of checks and balances and human rights generally? Definitely not worth it.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it? There's a Ben Franklin quote that gets tossed around a lot -- and appropriately so -- in response to questions like this, but this time I'll let Patrick Henry answer for me: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" Also, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." And, "Fear is the passion of slaves."
mason240 13y ago
If it means the US loses its hegemony in internet/technology, then no.
alan_cx 13y ago
If this were absolutely the only use of such data slurping, then yes. The problem is, with such secrecy and an unwillingness to allow independent oversight, its hard to believe that. The problem is all the other uses of such information. And of course we have no idea what else the information is being used for. There is also the effects on people who don't know. For example, imagine the politician who wants to reign in a security service for over reach, but suspects that the security service in question might have some embarrassing data on him/her. Would such a politician take the risk? Or what if a candidate wanted to fight an election based on reigning in a security service, and the sitting politician was "helped by the security service at risk. And so on... Such information has great power to destroy what democracy we have.
IanCal 13y ago
As a contrasting question, how many lives could be saved if the money was spent elsewhere? The 'black budget' figure of $50B is just shy of 1/3rd of the total cost of universal health care in the UK, which equates to about 20 million people. A quick google gives a figure of ~22,000 [0] people dying from a lack of insurance, out of a population of 157 million (25-65), of which about 30 million were uninsured. Now this is more complicated because the uninsured are likely to be poorer, so possibly more longer term issues and the UK figure covers everyone (not just 25-65) which adds cost. I'm not too interested in creating a perfect comparison, but I feel it's fairly reasonable to say that not spending that money on healthcare costs on the order of tens of thousands of lives per year. If it's 12,000 then that equates to 4 9/11 incidents per year (in lives) I know these can't be compared quite like this but I think it does emphasise the sheer scale we're talking about. [0] http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

rayiner 13y ago

The article is old, but timely, since today is Constitution Day. Here's what Justice Scalia had to say about the NSA issue last night: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/09/scalia-chides-activist-colleagues-on-eve-of-constitution-day.html http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/09/scalia-chides-acti... ("It has gotten to the point, Scalia said, that the current 'national debate' over the power of the National Security Agency to track private citizens' phone calls will be decided 'not by Congress, but by my court, because of the court's arrogation to itself ... [the power] to determine what privacy rights ought to exist.' The court, he said, is 'the branch that knows the least' about issues of national security."). There is an interesting and relevant blog post about how the NSA spying creates an internal conflict within conservatism: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/06/13/anti-nsa-conservative-choose-antonin-scalias-originalism-or-rand-pauls-living-constitutionalism http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013.... Basically, it's hard to reconcile originalism, which many conservatives espouse, with the idea that the 4th amendment should be reinterpreted to encompass digital privacy.

snowwrestler 13y ago
It's to the point now that I almost feel like the only durable and consistent solution would come from a Constitutional amendment that directly addresses the concept of privacy. It would at least partially satisfy textualists, originalists, and strict constructionists, while addressing the concerns of modern data/privacy activists. It could also potentially address privacy concerns across both government (e.g. NSA) and private (e.g. Facebook) spheres. There's obviously a huge hurdle to overcome to make that happen. How would it be phrased? Very difficult to work out. And, what would cause sufficient outcry for the public to push for it? > As he often does when extolling the text of the Constitution, Scalia criticized his colleagues for their "activism" in creating new human rights not articulated by the framers. Argh, comments like this make my blood boil. My reading of history is that the Constitution was not intended to create any human rights, but rather to prevent the government from limiting the rights that we all have naturally. Which would include privacy.
- rayiner 13y ago

cantrevealname 13y ago

The HackerNews crowd notwithstanding, it is depressing to report that the average person today is still utterly unaware of the Snowden revelations. Please tell your barber, sister-in-law, coffee buddy, or next-door neighbor about it. Tell them why it's important. EDIT: To the comments below that say that the average person knows but doesn't care: I think you've been speaking with significantly better informed people than the average. Really, my experience has been that the average person has never heard the name Snowden, let alone knows about the revelations. (I might even try an informal poll of people I meet up with, and report back.) That they might not care once they hear the story is a sad, but separate issue.

rayiner 13y ago
I have discussed the issue with my wife, my mom, and my dad. They all understand the issue, understand the potential implications (especially my parents, who as immigrants from a muslim country are a little anxious about profiling), but none of them have a problem with what is happening. I think the average person does know about the Snowden revelations. I think the average person just doesn't care.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  I second this. I've discussed it in entirety with my parents, my girlfriend, her parents, and her siblings. They get it as well. They also don't care. In fact, they're pretty much shocked at all the surprise and nerdrage on the internet right now. They responded almost universally the same way -- "We assumed this is how it's always been. This is a new thing?"
blhack 13y ago
I don't know about that. I think they "know" about these things, but they just don't care, or they don't "know" that these things are bad. What they know about is that some kid/nerd was a spy for the Russian government, where he is now living with Putin. That he is a traitor, and that he is trying to make us less safe from the terrorists. He put american lives at risk, and who knows what some nerd was able to look at while he was at he NSA. What we need is better spying to prevent this from happening again in the future.

bayesianhorse 13y ago

One of my big questions is: Does the NSA engage in industrial espionage? And if so, does it transmit data from foreign companies to US companies? It has been rumored that this is standard operating procedure in China, where each hotel employs some intelligence officers to invade business traveler's devices...

rosser 13y ago

Discussion on original submission from The Atlantic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5837253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5837253