4 ms·

Just to take this to an extreme: what's there to stop the government from systematically killing Americans who voice opposition to the NSA spying? Assume a secr

Just to take this to an extreme: what's there to stop the government from systematically killing Americans who voice opposition to the NSA spying? Assume a secret court decides that the NSA can arbitrarily label any American as a 'terrorist' and that killing terrorists without a trial is a-ok. Let's also assume that anyone who knows about this program and leaks the information about how it works to anyone else is a 'terrorist' in this system. That seems to be the same line of reasoning that the government is using for these gag orders (just taken to the most extreme case possible). There's no recourse to challenge any of this since none of the companies can talk about specifics of what they're compelled to do.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
In some sense, there is nothing to stop the government from executing anyone it wants for no reason at all. Indeed, there is nothing to stop me from killing you or you from killing me, not unless you indulge the premise that "law" can stop someone from doing something they otherwise have the ability to do. If you are willing to indulge that premise, then what stops the government from acting out your hypothetical is that it would be clearly illegal.[1] There is widespread misunderstanding about the basic nature of FISA. Yes, it's a secret court and that's bad, but it's a secret court with one power: to grant FISA warrants. Furthermore, the whole process pertains to something, foreign intelligence surveillance, that didn't require any judicial supervision at all prior to FISA. [1] As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. It doesn't sit well with technologists, but most of the things that inspire outrage, from surveilling foreign leaders to collecting phone metadata to getting e-mails pursuant to court orders are well within the bounds of the law as it's understood. Now, maybe we don't want the NSA to engage in these activities, but the fact that they do isn't a sign that they've totally disregarded the law and are ready to start executing people at random. They're clearly trying to work at the boundaries of things like the third party doctrine, but that's different from ignoring the law.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. tptacek: "It's hard not to come to the conclusion that these activities were essentially criminal. I don't see how the administration can fail to disavow them, investigate them fully, and hold their instigators accountable. It feels like Special Prosecutor time." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 I don't want to take quotes out of context; the context seemed similar, to the point of it spawning interesting discussion. And I'd love to get your take on his position.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    'tptacek is very well-informed about these issues and I hesitate to disagree with him because he's almost certainly thought about the specific point more thoroughly than I have, but I think the key is this: "NSA documents about the effort refer directly to 'full take,' 'bulk access' and 'high volume' operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...). I'm not quite sure what dimension is added to the problem by the fact that U.S. companies are involved, but the NSA tapping into overseas links doesn't seem to me, on its face, to be illegal. Indeed, that would seem to be the point of the NSA.
    - milkshakes 13y ago
      These are private circuits leased by Google and Yahoo you're talking about here, connecting data centers that they own outright. Are you arguing that because these links are geographically located in a foreign country, the NSA should be able to disregard the provenance of the data they carry?
      - 13y ago
memracom 13y ago
Governments who have tried that in the past find that groups of civilians start systematically killing government agents, particularly police and security forces. It's generally a bad idea to go that route because the government is effectively condoning illegal actions and others will adjust their behavior similarly. Rather like the streets with graffitti and broken windows that seem to attract crime. Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. Some groups have taken it upon themselves to spy back on the government but I don't know of anyone who suggests killing people as a response to illegal spying. In any case, increasing the use of force leads to escalation and escalation leads to an expanding spiral of destruction that quickly becomes uncontrollable. For an example of what happens then, read a book called "10 days in October" and think about whether the USA really wants to follow the Soviet example. In addition, the Soviets themselves have pretty much abandoned that approach which is the main reason why the dissolution of the Soviet Union was so peaceful. Wiser heads prevailed. Can the USA at least match that as the American Empire fades away?
- grey-area 13y ago
  Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. As the parent pointed out, the US government has already claimed the power to assassinate Americans (or anyone else) at will without explanation. They claim this is legal and no law was broken. I'm not aware of any claimed attacks on US soil as yet, but there are plenty of examples abroad. I agree it is ill-advised and counter-productive, but you can't argue that arbitrary extrajudicial killing has not been used against civilians and enemies already.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

In some sense, there is nothing to stop the government from executing anyone it wants for no reason at all. Indeed, there is nothing to stop me from killing you or you from killing me, not unless you indulge the premise that "law" can stop someone from doing something they otherwise have the ability to do. If you are willing to indulge that premise, then what stops the government from acting out your hypothetical is that it would be clearly illegal.[1] There is widespread misunderstanding about the basic nature of FISA. Yes, it's a secret court and that's bad, but it's a secret court with one power: to grant FISA warrants. Furthermore, the whole process pertains to something, foreign intelligence surveillance, that didn't require any judicial supervision at all prior to FISA. [1] As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. It doesn't sit well with technologists, but most of the things that inspire outrage, from surveilling foreign leaders to collecting phone metadata to getting e-mails pursuant to court orders are well within the bounds of the law as it's understood. Now, maybe we don't want the NSA to engage in these activities, but the fact that they do isn't a sign that they've totally disregarded the law and are ready to start executing people at random. They're clearly trying to work at the boundaries of things like the third party doctrine, but that's different from ignoring the law.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. tptacek: "It's hard not to come to the conclusion that these activities were essentially criminal. I don't see how the administration can fail to disavow them, investigate them fully, and hold their instigators accountable. It feels like Special Prosecutor time." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 I don't want to take quotes out of context; the context seemed similar, to the point of it spawning interesting discussion. And I'd love to get your take on his position.
- rayiner 13y ago
  'tptacek is very well-informed about these issues and I hesitate to disagree with him because he's almost certainly thought about the specific point more thoroughly than I have, but I think the key is this: "NSA documents about the effort refer directly to 'full take,' 'bulk access' and 'high volume' operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...). I'm not quite sure what dimension is added to the problem by the fact that U.S. companies are involved, but the NSA tapping into overseas links doesn't seem to me, on its face, to be illegal. Indeed, that would seem to be the point of the NSA.
  - milkshakes 13y ago
    These are private circuits leased by Google and Yahoo you're talking about here, connecting data centers that they own outright. Are you arguing that because these links are geographically located in a foreign country, the NSA should be able to disregard the provenance of the data they carry?
    - 13y ago

memracom 13y ago

Governments who have tried that in the past find that groups of civilians start systematically killing government agents, particularly police and security forces. It's generally a bad idea to go that route because the government is effectively condoning illegal actions and others will adjust their behavior similarly. Rather like the streets with graffitti and broken windows that seem to attract crime. Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. Some groups have taken it upon themselves to spy back on the government but I don't know of anyone who suggests killing people as a response to illegal spying. In any case, increasing the use of force leads to escalation and escalation leads to an expanding spiral of destruction that quickly becomes uncontrollable. For an example of what happens then, read a book called "10 days in October" and think about whether the USA really wants to follow the Soviet example. In addition, the Soviets themselves have pretty much abandoned that approach which is the main reason why the dissolution of the Soviet Union was so peaceful. Wiser heads prevailed. Can the USA at least match that as the American Empire fades away?

grey-area 13y ago
Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. As the parent pointed out, the US government has already claimed the power to assassinate Americans (or anyone else) at will without explanation. They claim this is legal and no law was broken. I'm not aware of any claimed attacks on US soil as yet, but there are plenty of examples abroad. I agree it is ill-advised and counter-productive, but you can't argue that arbitrary extrajudicial killing has not been used against civilians and enemies already.