8 ms·

US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

196 points by shill 13y ago

brianbarker 13y ago
The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."
- bmelton 13y ago
  And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are making progress), and things like Stop & Frisk are only problems for those affected. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — HL Mencken
  - smtddr 13y ago
    > it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
    - bmelton 13y ago
      A DUI checkpoint is a search of your personal property, without a warrant, and without cause. They set them up at random locations, and at random times. They stop every car that comes across, whether they were acting suspiciously or not, require everyone to open their window, whereupon they peer inside and look for anything that remotely resembles probable cause so that they can get grounds to 'search' you, when in most cases, they've already done exactly that. More simply, a police officer can't stop you for no reason. They must have a reasonable belief that you've done something illegal. A DUI checkpoint violates that first tenet straight off the bat. Moreover, a police cannot search you without probable cause, but requiring you to open your window while they shine a flashlight throughout your car, after already having stopped you for no reason, is going even further. I won't bother touching upon situations where dogs are trained to 'alert' for illegal substances whether or not they exist (because I honestly don't know the frequency), but that also happens.
    - GauntletWizard 13y ago
      Many states have now set up DUI Checkpoints. These are not targeted based on behavior: Every car traveling between point A and point B is expected to pull over and take a breathalyzer. These are often targeted based on neighborhoods or proximity to 'party' districts. They are conducted without warrants, and cast a wide net on individuals traveling.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        I see. Okay, I didn't know that happened. I've only ran into one such checkpoint in my life and the policeman just asked me where I was coming from and where I was going, asked if I had anything to drink while pointing his flashlight into my car; I assume looking for an open can/bottle or anything suspicious. That last like 4 seconds, then I was on my way.
        chc 13y ago
        I'm going to guess you're white and probably look reasonably mainstream. Somebody more "suspicious"-looking will often end up with a less smooth experience.
        smtddr 13y ago
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY ... ;-) This happened in San Jose, California near Club Wet(now closed), officer was white. (Ironic I'm saying this, given some of my other past comments)
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      I'm not a lawyer and therefore not qualified to expound on what "Three-pronged Test" or "Doctrine" decides what qualifies as an invasion of privacy, but... If the cops could easily tell you were driving drunk, they'd pull you over and cuff you. They have no particular reason to suspect you're DUI if they have an armed checkpoint set up. There's the first problem, "no particular reason". That's not supposed to happen in America, that was what happened in Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia. The second problem comes from what's probably the real reason, or at least an important subsidiary reason, for the "DUI" armed checkpoints. According to some "N-Pronged Test" or "Doctrine" that non-lawyers can't possibly understand, the inside of your car is "public". If a cop sees something fishy, he or she can just search your car. That's the second problem: "DUI" checkpoints rapidly become fishing expeditions for whatever minor illegalities the cops can find. The penalty structure for any crime or administrative infraction (at least in the USA) is set pretty high. This may have made sense when cops were few and far between. The USA had to make penalties pretty severe so that folks would stop at stop signs even when a cop wasn't there to watch. You didn't get caught very often, even if you did whatever crime. A fairly harsh punishment made sense in sparse cop circumstances. But once you universally enforce some "sparse cop/harsh penalty" punishment regime, you've gone way off the ranch, and you're probably just doing it to increase revenue, either through fines, or through privatized prisons that need their bunks overfilled.
- denzquix 13y ago
  Surprise is overrated. The truth has no responsibility to blow your mind every day.
summerdown2 13y ago
At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important it was in a democracy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell-brand-vote-and-make-mps-notice-you-says-think-tank-8930949.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for-suckers/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for... http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-webb-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-web... ... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the parties, and that voting will make a difference. But so many of the places where their policies are identical are the ones I care about. I wish this post wasn't coming from a place of deep frustration, but the only way I can imagine this working is as described by Daniel Ellsberg, where learning top secret knowledge changes people: "... it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-... But if politicians always believe they know better on this subject, what does that say about democracy? And how does this line up with the same people happily admitting they don't understand modern technology?
contingencies 13y ago
Snowden's NSA leaks truly are the gift that keeps on giving.
prawn 13y ago
Fiveyesia. Effectively operating as one bloc when it comes to security and domination; at war with whatever parts of Eastasia or Eurasia seem threatening. And the security of that bloc trumps the personal rights of any of its members who aren't wealthy enough to dictate the maintenance of power.
shn 13y ago
There's no democracy only a shadow of it. We are pushed and shoved and most of the time did it ourselves voluntarily after listening patriotic brainwashing. We are ruled by elites, by big money, period. Worse is some really think that they own the country. I remember in a movie (can't remember now) a guy asks Matt Damon, Italians has this, that owns this, what you own? And he answers "we own the country". Those NSA people think exactly that way, they think they own you. Big companies think they can bend any rule. So don't expect anything change much for the benefit of the "taxpayer". I find it extremely weird that these agencies need to hide what they are doing. Why do it in secret if this is democracy? What is wrong with what they are doing if they are not harming people? Gathering intelligence is their job, we need it. Bogeys know that too. But still they need to do it in secret. Then there must be something wrong with not what they do, but what they do with it.
- joeshevland 13y ago
  Unfortunately I agree with you. I think increasing public awareness and loosening the old media hegemony will change things. In time.
- vellum 13y ago
  That would be from the Good Shepherd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg
Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
I think we're almost at the point where we all live in this secret state reading the same media and suffering the same banks. It doesn't matter what country you live in or who you vote for - the results are the same. People fought and died for this 'democracy' 70 years ago and it's rotten to the core. Every time I see a politician, I'm looking at a loser, someone who is useless and not part of my life at all. Just a mouthpiece of a failed state.
andy_ppp 13y ago
At this point you can't trust the government to even bother to lie to you; just a no comment, as if it's none of your fucking business. Carry on eating twinkles and let us protect you from The Bad Guys. Wasn't there a time when people accepted the risk of random terrorism as being small, but worth it for our freedoms? I 'd prefer that over "trust me we're doing this for your (our?) own good". At this point you can't trust the government.
veganarchocap 13y ago
I would normally make better points and comments on articles like this, but all I have left to say on this is: What a bunch of utter cunts.

196 points by shill 13y ago

The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."

bmelton 13y ago
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are commonplace (though some areas are making progress), and things like Stop & Frisk are only problems for those affected. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — HL Mencken
- smtddr 13y ago
  > it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds. I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?
  - bmelton 13y ago
    A DUI checkpoint is a search of your personal property, without a warrant, and without cause. They set them up at random locations, and at random times. They stop every car that comes across, whether they were acting suspiciously or not, require everyone to open their window, whereupon they peer inside and look for anything that remotely resembles probable cause so that they can get grounds to 'search' you, when in most cases, they've already done exactly that. More simply, a police officer can't stop you for no reason. They must have a reasonable belief that you've done something illegal. A DUI checkpoint violates that first tenet straight off the bat. Moreover, a police cannot search you without probable cause, but requiring you to open your window while they shine a flashlight throughout your car, after already having stopped you for no reason, is going even further. I won't bother touching upon situations where dogs are trained to 'alert' for illegal substances whether or not they exist (because I honestly don't know the frequency), but that also happens.
  - GauntletWizard 13y ago
    Many states have now set up DUI Checkpoints. These are not targeted based on behavior: Every car traveling between point A and point B is expected to pull over and take a breathalyzer. These are often targeted based on neighborhoods or proximity to 'party' districts. They are conducted without warrants, and cast a wide net on individuals traveling.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      I see. Okay, I didn't know that happened. I've only ran into one such checkpoint in my life and the policeman just asked me where I was coming from and where I was going, asked if I had anything to drink while pointing his flashlight into my car; I assume looking for an open can/bottle or anything suspicious. That last like 4 seconds, then I was on my way.
      - chc 13y ago
        I'm going to guess you're white and probably look reasonably mainstream. Somebody more "suspicious"-looking will often end up with a less smooth experience.
        smtddr 13y ago
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY ... ;-) This happened in San Jose, California near Club Wet(now closed), officer was white. (Ironic I'm saying this, given some of my other past comments)
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    I'm not a lawyer and therefore not qualified to expound on what "Three-pronged Test" or "Doctrine" decides what qualifies as an invasion of privacy, but... If the cops could easily tell you were driving drunk, they'd pull you over and cuff you. They have no particular reason to suspect you're DUI if they have an armed checkpoint set up. There's the first problem, "no particular reason". That's not supposed to happen in America, that was what happened in Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia. The second problem comes from what's probably the real reason, or at least an important subsidiary reason, for the "DUI" armed checkpoints. According to some "N-Pronged Test" or "Doctrine" that non-lawyers can't possibly understand, the inside of your car is "public". If a cop sees something fishy, he or she can just search your car. That's the second problem: "DUI" checkpoints rapidly become fishing expeditions for whatever minor illegalities the cops can find. The penalty structure for any crime or administrative infraction (at least in the USA) is set pretty high. This may have made sense when cops were few and far between. The USA had to make penalties pretty severe so that folks would stop at stop signs even when a cop wasn't there to watch. You didn't get caught very often, even if you did whatever crime. A fairly harsh punishment made sense in sparse cop circumstances. But once you universally enforce some "sparse cop/harsh penalty" punishment regime, you've gone way off the ranch, and you're probably just doing it to increase revenue, either through fines, or through privatized prisons that need their bunks overfilled.
denzquix 13y ago
Surprise is overrated. The truth has no responsibility to blow your mind every day.

summerdown2 13y ago

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important it was in a democracy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell-brand-vote-and-make-mps-notice-you-says-think-tank-8930949.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for-suckers/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for... http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-webb-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-web... ... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the parties, and that voting will make a difference. But so many of the places where their policies are identical are the ones I care about. I wish this post wasn't coming from a place of deep frustration, but the only way I can imagine this working is as described by Daniel Ellsberg, where learning top secret knowledge changes people: "... it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-... But if politicians always believe they know better on this subject, what does that say about democracy? And how does this line up with the same people happily admitting they don't understand modern technology?

contingencies 13y ago

Snowden's NSA leaks truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

prawn 13y ago

Fiveyesia. Effectively operating as one bloc when it comes to security and domination; at war with whatever parts of Eastasia or Eurasia seem threatening. And the security of that bloc trumps the personal rights of any of its members who aren't wealthy enough to dictate the maintenance of power.

shn 13y ago

There's no democracy only a shadow of it. We are pushed and shoved and most of the time did it ourselves voluntarily after listening patriotic brainwashing. We are ruled by elites, by big money, period. Worse is some really think that they own the country. I remember in a movie (can't remember now) a guy asks Matt Damon, Italians has this, that owns this, what you own? And he answers "we own the country". Those NSA people think exactly that way, they think they own you. Big companies think they can bend any rule. So don't expect anything change much for the benefit of the "taxpayer". I find it extremely weird that these agencies need to hide what they are doing. Why do it in secret if this is democracy? What is wrong with what they are doing if they are not harming people? Gathering intelligence is their job, we need it. Bogeys know that too. But still they need to do it in secret. Then there must be something wrong with not what they do, but what they do with it.

joeshevland 13y ago
Unfortunately I agree with you. I think increasing public awareness and loosening the old media hegemony will change things. In time.
vellum 13y ago
That would be from the Good Shepherd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg

Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago

I think we're almost at the point where we all live in this secret state reading the same media and suffering the same banks. It doesn't matter what country you live in or who you vote for - the results are the same. People fought and died for this 'democracy' 70 years ago and it's rotten to the core. Every time I see a politician, I'm looking at a loser, someone who is useless and not part of my life at all. Just a mouthpiece of a failed state.

andy_ppp 13y ago

At this point you can't trust the government to even bother to lie to you; just a no comment, as if it's none of your fucking business. Carry on eating twinkles and let us protect you from The Bad Guys. Wasn't there a time when people accepted the risk of random terrorism as being small, but worth it for our freedoms? I 'd prefer that over "trust me we're doing this for your (our?) own good". At this point you can't trust the government.

veganarchocap 13y ago

I would normally make better points and comments on articles like this, but all I have left to say on this is: What a bunch of utter cunts.