7 ms·

Leahy is the author of CALEA, a surveillance law that is one big reason we're in this situation to begin with. He introduced portions of the Patriot Act under t

by declan 13y ago

Leahy is the author of CALEA, a surveillance law that is one big reason we're in this situation to begin with. He introduced portions of the Patriot Act under the name EPPSCA a year before the Sep. 11 attacks (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S58859 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S58859). Leahy has sat on modest surveillance reform (requiring search warrants for email, cell phone location) for over three and a half years without advancing it to the Senate floor. One proposal he circulated a year ago included an exception allowing dozens of federal agencies to access email without a warrant (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/). Then, after Snowden's revelations, when the political tide was moving toward significant reform, Leahy's first instinct was to handcuff companies from challenging NSLs (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57592778-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57592778-38/). I suspect that, after all the likely political compromises and conference committees and markups, any bill principally authored by Leahy will follow the same pattern as CALEA and the Patriot Act. One obvious solution, of course, is to avoid limiting yourself to looking at a pair of existing flawed bills and find a politician willing to back real reform. Another solution, better for HN, is to work toward technical solutions that will work in the likely event that our esteemed leaders in Washington, D.C. get it wrong once again. Trust math, not laws.

chris_mahan 13y ago
There is no technical solution that works when the federal government can seize/inspect/hack into any computer located in the United States or in friendly countries, as well as hack into computers anywhere in the world. They can then access the decryption private keys of anyone, and thus all encryption can be defeated, along with any other means of attempting to hide information from prying eyes. If Google itself is unable to protect its own network from NSA intrusion, what makes you think anyone else is able to? Remember, the NSA is tasked with spying on Russian, Chinese, (and everybody else's) systems, and given that the Russians and Chinese have great mathematical and computing minds, is should be assumed that the NSA is employing equally great minds in the USA in order to penetrate the military (including nuclear and biological weapons systems), government, commercial, and individual systems of these foreign powers. That the NSA turned the sophisticated looking glass inward to spy on the citizenry, in such an insecure manner, is the problem. The other problem is that, well, citizens of the United States can be terrorists. If the NSA is tasked with stopping terrorism, then they, of necessity, need to monitor everyone, including US citizens. So the answer lies in the terrorism part: Everyone went bonkers wondering why the government agencies were not able to stop the Boston bombers, yet when they do try to collect information and analyze it in a manner consistent with stopping this threat, they are then denounced as violators of the Constitution. I have a sobering proposal: We tell the NSA to not worry about terrorism. On the other hand, we come to terms with the notion that terrorists do what they do because it does terrorize us, and we make a conscious decision that we are going to not care anymore and accept a certain amount of casualties in exchange for the government not spying on us. We accept that 30,000 Americans die on our roads each year in car accidents. We accept that another 30,000 Americans die of gun violence every year. Could we not accept that 30,000 Americans die of terrorism related incidents every year? I lived in France in the 1980's. We had a lot of terrorism. Bombs in malls, bombs in restaurants, bombs in the street in front of synagogues. After a while, callous as this may seem, the French just stopped caring anymore. It had become routine. Then the terrorists stopped. There was no reason for them to keep doing this, because the French would just put it on page 4 of the paper, next to the political scandal section. The police would close the street, clean up, etc. Yes, these were tragedies for the families, but not more than the tragedies for victims of gun violence, drug overdose, and horrible car accidents that mangled the bodies of children beyond recognition. Taking away everyone's car is not the solution to car accidents. Taking away everyone's guns, swords, pick-axes, chainsaw, power drill, kitchen knives, and banning boxing, wrestling, and martial arts is not the solution to murder. Likewise, taking away everyone's freedom is not the solution to terrorism. Because taking away everyone's freedom's been tried before, and the human spirit of freedom asserts itself, and people die on both sides as they rebel and attempt to overthrow the oppressors. And that is why the NSA and other agencies that spy on Americans must be muzzled.
- late2part 13y ago
  I agree with your general premise and thesis, but the gun deaths from guns statistic, while pedantically accurate, ignores the context shown here: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths Analogy with not using encryption?
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Since committing suicide is against the law, then does my analogy hold? Now using encryption or not using encryption does not matter in the context of being monitored by the NSA.
    - late2part 13y ago
      Since you've brought up the topic of poorly enforceable laws, when was the last conviction. My reference re: not using encryption is that it is akin to suicide.
      - chris_mahan 13y ago
        Well, if you have life insurance and you commit suicide, your beneficiaries won't be able to collect (in most cases, there are a few policies...) because suicide is against the law. It may be the reason suicide's illegal.

by declan 13y ago

chris_mahan 13y ago

There is no technical solution that works when the federal government can seize/inspect/hack into any computer located in the United States or in friendly countries, as well as hack into computers anywhere in the world. They can then access the decryption private keys of anyone, and thus all encryption can be defeated, along with any other means of attempting to hide information from prying eyes. If Google itself is unable to protect its own network from NSA intrusion, what makes you think anyone else is able to? Remember, the NSA is tasked with spying on Russian, Chinese, (and everybody else's) systems, and given that the Russians and Chinese have great mathematical and computing minds, is should be assumed that the NSA is employing equally great minds in the USA in order to penetrate the military (including nuclear and biological weapons systems), government, commercial, and individual systems of these foreign powers. That the NSA turned the sophisticated looking glass inward to spy on the citizenry, in such an insecure manner, is the problem. The other problem is that, well, citizens of the United States can be terrorists. If the NSA is tasked with stopping terrorism, then they, of necessity, need to monitor everyone, including US citizens. So the answer lies in the terrorism part: Everyone went bonkers wondering why the government agencies were not able to stop the Boston bombers, yet when they do try to collect information and analyze it in a manner consistent with stopping this threat, they are then denounced as violators of the Constitution. I have a sobering proposal: We tell the NSA to not worry about terrorism. On the other hand, we come to terms with the notion that terrorists do what they do because it does terrorize us, and we make a conscious decision that we are going to not care anymore and accept a certain amount of casualties in exchange for the government not spying on us. We accept that 30,000 Americans die on our roads each year in car accidents. We accept that another 30,000 Americans die of gun violence every year. Could we not accept that 30,000 Americans die of terrorism related incidents every year? I lived in France in the 1980's. We had a lot of terrorism. Bombs in malls, bombs in restaurants, bombs in the street in front of synagogues. After a while, callous as this may seem, the French just stopped caring anymore. It had become routine. Then the terrorists stopped. There was no reason for them to keep doing this, because the French would just put it on page 4 of the paper, next to the political scandal section. The police would close the street, clean up, etc. Yes, these were tragedies for the families, but not more than the tragedies for victims of gun violence, drug overdose, and horrible car accidents that mangled the bodies of children beyond recognition. Taking away everyone's car is not the solution to car accidents. Taking away everyone's guns, swords, pick-axes, chainsaw, power drill, kitchen knives, and banning boxing, wrestling, and martial arts is not the solution to murder. Likewise, taking away everyone's freedom is not the solution to terrorism. Because taking away everyone's freedom's been tried before, and the human spirit of freedom asserts itself, and people die on both sides as they rebel and attempt to overthrow the oppressors. And that is why the NSA and other agencies that spy on Americans must be muzzled.

late2part 13y ago
I agree with your general premise and thesis, but the gun deaths from guns statistic, while pedantically accurate, ignores the context shown here: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths Analogy with not using encryption?
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Since committing suicide is against the law, then does my analogy hold? Now using encryption or not using encryption does not matter in the context of being monitored by the NSA.
  - late2part 13y ago
    Since you've brought up the topic of poorly enforceable laws, when was the last conviction. My reference re: not using encryption is that it is akin to suicide.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Well, if you have life insurance and you commit suicide, your beneficiaries won't be able to collect (in most cases, there are a few policies...) because suicide is against the law. It may be the reason suicide's illegal.