12 ms·

From the article: NSA Director Keith Alexander disclosed in Senate testimony in October that the NSA had run a pilot project in 2010 and 2011 to collect “sampl

From the article: NSA Director Keith Alexander disclosed in Senate testimony in October that the NSA had run a pilot project in 2010 and 2011 to collect “samples” of U.S. cellphone location data. The data collected were never available for intelligence analysis purposes, and the project was discontinued because it had no “operational value,” he said. Alexander allowed that a broader collection of such data “may be something that is a future requirement for the country, but it is not right now.” And for all this, I'm not going to lie--that'd be a fun dataset to hack on. And that, folks, is why we as engineers and hackers have a moral duty to be very selective in the types of work we take on and for whom.

contingencies 13y ago
Did anyone else read that and think of that scene in Enemy of the State? It's eerily equivalent. "Treadstone! Ahh yes, Treadstone. Treadstone was a pilot project to <blah blah blah>. It's all but decomissioned at this point."
- theg2 13y ago
  Treadstone is from The Bourne Identity isn't it?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - easy_rider 13y ago
    Yeah. Enemy of the state is the one where one of the Gov. hackers wears computer/shooting glasses and looks like Dexter Holland from The Offspring. http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Enemy-of-the-State-seth-green-292152_720_430.jpg http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Enemy-of-the-S...
    - dmunoz 13y ago
      Do those glasses have no benefit? They're marketed to gamers as reducing eye strain [0]. I step away from the monitor often enough that I don't get overly bothered by it, even if I'm programming for an extended period of time. I do also run f.lux as well, though. [0] http://www.gunnars.com/ http://www.gunnars.com/
      - easy_rider 13y ago
        I can say I own two of those gunnars, but you're better off looking for a cheaper alternative. What they provide is an f.lux experience, with a +1 magnification. their optics are quite clear, but no where near the marketing hype they claim. When I compared a $10 pair of sunglasses to a pair of +$100 Oakley's I was like wowzered by the optics. It actually provided me with better contrast across the range, in all but rainy weather. Always wanted to try one out after i saw that movie. So one day I got a tax benefit and could get them for free. They shipped out the wrong model first time, so I got two. They seemed really overpriced to me, but do help. Keep them on long enough and you'll see blue. I had clear benefits when for a year long I was doing online poker zombie shifts. But on one without a frame, the legs came of fairly easily. They were plastic and glued into the glasses. I still have to re-glue them, but never bothered. I might fix them and give them another go. But for $100+ I'm getting a solid yet lightweight frame from Oakley, and a crappy plastic frame holding not-so-impressive optics together.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    Yes it is. Though technically I've never seen Enemy of the State, so I suppose they could theoretically share the dialogue...
judk 13y ago
Google Maps does this. The only difference is that Google informs you before you turn on location services.
- rallison 13y ago
  And therein lies the the big difference. I can opt out of Google's tracking in a number of ways. Secret tracking from the NSA? I will likely not even know it is happening, and if I do, opting out is likely to be slightly more difficult. This, of course, does not even touch upon what that tracking data may then be used for.
  - privong 13y ago
    > I can opt out of Google's tracking in a number of ways. At face value, yes. But with the news that companies are tracking web users via browser fingerprints and other methods (even when users have "do not track" enabled), it seems that it is difficult to avoid being secretly tracked by corporations.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  And that Google isn't limited by the Constitution in the ways that the Federal government supposedly is.
  - ParkerK 13y ago
    >And that Google isn't limited by the Constitution I'm pretty sure it is...
    - lowkeykiwi 13y ago
      In what way? The Constitution creates the federal government and restricts it's actions.
    - wiredfool 13y ago
      Google is (modulo the corporation/person thingy) granted rights under the Constitution. The Constitution only limits Google to the extent that it's the basis for the system of laws that do the limiting.
res0nat0r 13y ago
FTA: The NSA does not target Americans’ location data by design, but the agency acquires a substantial amount of information on the whereabouts of domestic cellphones “incidentally,” a legal term that connotes a foreseeable but not deliberate result. So the US focused program was cancelled, but the overseas program is still in play, exactly within their mandate.
marvin 13y ago
> And that, folks, is why we as engineers and hackers have a moral duty to be very selective in the types of work we take on and for whom. Computer yechnology work is still a wild west. Other fields which have similar ethical considerations - medicine, chemistry, engineering - have ethics courses which make it clear to the graduates that their professional decisions have consequences. There is no such standard for computer people. It still baffles me that people would voluntarily work at implementing something like PRISM - I would literally quit my job over something like this; similar considerations have popped up in the research I do for my Masters thesis - but ethics is definitely something we would talk more about.
- agwa 13y ago
  Yet there is no shortage of doctors willing to assist in torture of prisoners at Guantanamo, assist in executions of prisoners, or conduct non-consensual and medically unnecessary procedures (inserting catheters, rectal examinations, etc.) upon demand of the police. The problem isn't lack of ethics courses but a fundamental flaw in human nature, which is that people easily forget all their personal ethics when someone in authority (whether their boss or the police) tells them to do something.
  - onosendai 13y ago
    > people easily forget all their personal ethics when someone in authority (whether their boss or the police) tells them to do something. I don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but you just described a famous experiment which essentially arrived at the same conclusion. It's worth a read for those not familiar with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
    - Crito 13y ago
      I haven't looked into it myself, but I did hear that there is an alternative interpretation of that experiment. Apparently the test subjects did as they were asked, up until the very last prompt used, which was the strongest. Less a request and more a demand. As soon as the prompts stopped appealing to the test subjects desire to further science or not fuck up the experiment, but began making demands, the test subjects almost universally balked. This interpretation isn't really any less disturbing, since it suggests that people will commit atrocities and simultaneously believe that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps it also says something about the general public's trust of, not necessarily authority figures, but rather scientists. Reading up on this has been on my back-burner for a while, this interpretation might be well considered and discarded, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I believe this is related: http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm
dredmorbius 13y ago
And that, folks, is why we as engineers and hackers have a moral duty to be very selective in the types of work we take on and for whom. Thank you. I was going to make the same point, you've done it well. Moreover: this is why the Snowden, PRISM, NSA/FBI, surveillance, privacy, and other stories matter on HN. Many of those working for startups are contributing directly (and occasionally indirectly) to the datastreams which are being harvested. I've never felt comfortable with Facebook and the ethics of its leadership, and I've been increasingly concerned about Google (I consider it to have lost rather than sold its soul). Both are far too actively carrying the NSA's water (as I've pointedly told Google multiple times). How to answer the challenge ... I really don't know, I'm at a loss here.
- neuralk 13y ago
  I'm not sure how much you can really blame Facebook or Google here. My understanding is that a corporation is legally compelled to comply with a National Security Letter if it receives one, which is far from voluntary collusion. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see where your dissatisfaction is coming from.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I'm not sure how much you can really blame Facebook or Google By creating an infrastructure in which the data are collected, centralized, individually identified, unencrypted, and specifically associated with vast trails of other nominally unassociated online information (search history, logins to other sites, analytics on other sites, etc.). This is in the sense of Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. The architectures of Facebook, Google, and other social networks, advertising networks, mobile phone systems, phone apps, PC-based snooping (inclusive of Microsoft Windows, OS X, Linux, Android, and other systems), etc., etc. These systems are designed in ways which maximize their utility to a national surveillance network, despite alternative architectures being available. As an example of alternatives, Twitter and Reddit, at the very least, don't demand / promote "real names", or (mostly) track information across third-party sites, at least not to the extent Facebook and Google are doing.

contingencies 13y ago

Did anyone else read that and think of that scene in Enemy of the State? It's eerily equivalent. "Treadstone! Ahh yes, Treadstone. Treadstone was a pilot project to <blah blah blah>. It's all but decomissioned at this point."

theg2 13y ago
Treadstone is from The Bourne Identity isn't it?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- easy_rider 13y ago
  Yeah. Enemy of the state is the one where one of the Gov. hackers wears computer/shooting glasses and looks like Dexter Holland from The Offspring. http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Enemy-of-the-State-seth-green-292152_720_430.jpg http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Enemy-of-the-S...
  - dmunoz 13y ago
    Do those glasses have no benefit? They're marketed to gamers as reducing eye strain [0]. I step away from the monitor often enough that I don't get overly bothered by it, even if I'm programming for an extended period of time. I do also run f.lux as well, though. [0] http://www.gunnars.com/ http://www.gunnars.com/
    - easy_rider 13y ago
      I can say I own two of those gunnars, but you're better off looking for a cheaper alternative. What they provide is an f.lux experience, with a +1 magnification. their optics are quite clear, but no where near the marketing hype they claim. When I compared a $10 pair of sunglasses to a pair of +$100 Oakley's I was like wowzered by the optics. It actually provided me with better contrast across the range, in all but rainy weather. Always wanted to try one out after i saw that movie. So one day I got a tax benefit and could get them for free. They shipped out the wrong model first time, so I got two. They seemed really overpriced to me, but do help. Keep them on long enough and you'll see blue. I had clear benefits when for a year long I was doing online poker zombie shifts. But on one without a frame, the legs came of fairly easily. They were plastic and glued into the glasses. I still have to re-glue them, but never bothered. I might fix them and give them another go. But for $100+ I'm getting a solid yet lightweight frame from Oakley, and a crappy plastic frame holding not-so-impressive optics together.
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  Yes it is. Though technically I've never seen Enemy of the State, so I suppose they could theoretically share the dialogue...

judk 13y ago

Google Maps does this. The only difference is that Google informs you before you turn on location services.

rallison 13y ago
And therein lies the the big difference. I can opt out of Google's tracking in a number of ways. Secret tracking from the NSA? I will likely not even know it is happening, and if I do, opting out is likely to be slightly more difficult. This, of course, does not even touch upon what that tracking data may then be used for.
- privong 13y ago
  > I can opt out of Google's tracking in a number of ways. At face value, yes. But with the news that companies are tracking web users via browser fingerprints and other methods (even when users have "do not track" enabled), it seems that it is difficult to avoid being secretly tracked by corporations.
MrZongle2 13y ago
And that Google isn't limited by the Constitution in the ways that the Federal government supposedly is.
- ParkerK 13y ago
  >And that Google isn't limited by the Constitution I'm pretty sure it is...
  - lowkeykiwi 13y ago
    In what way? The Constitution creates the federal government and restricts it's actions.
  - wiredfool 13y ago
    Google is (modulo the corporation/person thingy) granted rights under the Constitution. The Constitution only limits Google to the extent that it's the basis for the system of laws that do the limiting.

res0nat0r 13y ago

FTA: The NSA does not target Americans’ location data by design, but the agency acquires a substantial amount of information on the whereabouts of domestic cellphones “incidentally,” a legal term that connotes a foreseeable but not deliberate result. So the US focused program was cancelled, but the overseas program is still in play, exactly within their mandate.

marvin 13y ago

> And that, folks, is why we as engineers and hackers have a moral duty to be very selective in the types of work we take on and for whom. Computer yechnology work is still a wild west. Other fields which have similar ethical considerations - medicine, chemistry, engineering - have ethics courses which make it clear to the graduates that their professional decisions have consequences. There is no such standard for computer people. It still baffles me that people would voluntarily work at implementing something like PRISM - I would literally quit my job over something like this; similar considerations have popped up in the research I do for my Masters thesis - but ethics is definitely something we would talk more about.

agwa 13y ago
Yet there is no shortage of doctors willing to assist in torture of prisoners at Guantanamo, assist in executions of prisoners, or conduct non-consensual and medically unnecessary procedures (inserting catheters, rectal examinations, etc.) upon demand of the police. The problem isn't lack of ethics courses but a fundamental flaw in human nature, which is that people easily forget all their personal ethics when someone in authority (whether their boss or the police) tells them to do something.
- onosendai 13y ago
  > people easily forget all their personal ethics when someone in authority (whether their boss or the police) tells them to do something. I don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but you just described a famous experiment which essentially arrived at the same conclusion. It's worth a read for those not familiar with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
  - Crito 13y ago
    I haven't looked into it myself, but I did hear that there is an alternative interpretation of that experiment. Apparently the test subjects did as they were asked, up until the very last prompt used, which was the strongest. Less a request and more a demand. As soon as the prompts stopped appealing to the test subjects desire to further science or not fuck up the experiment, but began making demands, the test subjects almost universally balked. This interpretation isn't really any less disturbing, since it suggests that people will commit atrocities and simultaneously believe that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps it also says something about the general public's trust of, not necessarily authority figures, but rather scientists. Reading up on this has been on my back-burner for a while, this interpretation might be well considered and discarded, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I believe this is related: http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm

dredmorbius 13y ago

And that, folks, is why we as engineers and hackers have a moral duty to be very selective in the types of work we take on and for whom. Thank you. I was going to make the same point, you've done it well. Moreover: this is why the Snowden, PRISM, NSA/FBI, surveillance, privacy, and other stories matter on HN. Many of those working for startups are contributing directly (and occasionally indirectly) to the datastreams which are being harvested. I've never felt comfortable with Facebook and the ethics of its leadership, and I've been increasingly concerned about Google (I consider it to have lost rather than sold its soul). Both are far too actively carrying the NSA's water (as I've pointedly told Google multiple times). How to answer the challenge ... I really don't know, I'm at a loss here.

neuralk 13y ago
I'm not sure how much you can really blame Facebook or Google here. My understanding is that a corporation is legally compelled to comply with a National Security Letter if it receives one, which is far from voluntary collusion. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see where your dissatisfaction is coming from.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I'm not sure how much you can really blame Facebook or Google By creating an infrastructure in which the data are collected, centralized, individually identified, unencrypted, and specifically associated with vast trails of other nominally unassociated online information (search history, logins to other sites, analytics on other sites, etc.). This is in the sense of Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. The architectures of Facebook, Google, and other social networks, advertising networks, mobile phone systems, phone apps, PC-based snooping (inclusive of Microsoft Windows, OS X, Linux, Android, and other systems), etc., etc. These systems are designed in ways which maximize their utility to a national surveillance network, despite alternative architectures being available. As an example of alternatives, Twitter and Reddit, at the very least, don't demand / promote "real names", or (mostly) track information across third-party sites, at least not to the extent Facebook and Google are doing.