3 ms·

This is not the same "surveillance apparatus [that] saw America through the Cold War." It's simply not comparable to even just fifteen years ago. The changes

This is not the same "surveillance apparatus [that] saw America through the Cold War." It's simply not comparable to even just fifteen years ago. The changes in technology and the self-satisfied attitude of the spooks have changed the game entirely. Half of the people in this country are deluding themselves just like you.

tptacek 13y ago
It is ahistorical and (perversely) wishful to suggest that communications surveillance in the 1950s was less onerous to the civilian population than it is today. During the heyday of the Cold War, no police force needed a court order to wiretap a phone; the notion of wiretap authorization dates back to, what, 1968? Today, we have rumors and gossip about NSA analysts "training" on Obama's comms in the early '00s. During the Cold War, the FBI brazenly monitored and transcribed all calls to various public figures and then blackmailed them: see Martin Luther King.
- hobs 13y ago
  I know you have a background in this, and I understand the intelligence agencies COULD have monitored anyone they wanted to in the past, but they couldn't automate it to create the scope of surveillance now in place. A phone tap in the 1950s would require recording and someone listening to it, would it not? How many people could the NSA employ to listen to conversations? Millions? Either way, just because they have been doing disgusting things for so long does not make it something we should stop getting upset about.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I agree! There's nothing in the "Reform Internet Surveillance" platform that I disagree with at all, including the need for such a platform.
rayiner 13y ago
Here's the thing: I don't even disagree with you. But "technology changes everything" is an argument that, while it resonates with a certain subset of people, is simply not compelling standing alone to many others. The tech community has the challenge of explaining to a generation that went from black & white TV to smart phones (and saw manned space travel, supersonic aircraft, and the nuclear arms race in-between), why in this case the change in technology yields a change in the very nature of surveillance. And everything I've seen linked on HN on this topic fails dismally in articulating this case in a way that doesn't presuppose an audience that already agrees with the anti-surveillance position.
- ericd 13y ago
  It seems like you could pretty easily explain it in terms of having a million virtual police listening to all calls at once versus the old way, which involved humans, and so naturally limited itself to conversations of interest.

tptacek 13y ago

It is ahistorical and (perversely) wishful to suggest that communications surveillance in the 1950s was less onerous to the civilian population than it is today. During the heyday of the Cold War, no police force needed a court order to wiretap a phone; the notion of wiretap authorization dates back to, what, 1968? Today, we have rumors and gossip about NSA analysts "training" on Obama's comms in the early '00s. During the Cold War, the FBI brazenly monitored and transcribed all calls to various public figures and then blackmailed them: see Martin Luther King.

hobs 13y ago
I know you have a background in this, and I understand the intelligence agencies COULD have monitored anyone they wanted to in the past, but they couldn't automate it to create the scope of surveillance now in place. A phone tap in the 1950s would require recording and someone listening to it, would it not? How many people could the NSA employ to listen to conversations? Millions? Either way, just because they have been doing disgusting things for so long does not make it something we should stop getting upset about.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I agree! There's nothing in the "Reform Internet Surveillance" platform that I disagree with at all, including the need for such a platform.

rayiner 13y ago

Here's the thing: I don't even disagree with you. But "technology changes everything" is an argument that, while it resonates with a certain subset of people, is simply not compelling standing alone to many others. The tech community has the challenge of explaining to a generation that went from black & white TV to smart phones (and saw manned space travel, supersonic aircraft, and the nuclear arms race in-between), why in this case the change in technology yields a change in the very nature of surveillance. And everything I've seen linked on HN on this topic fails dismally in articulating this case in a way that doesn't presuppose an audience that already agrees with the anti-surveillance position.

ericd 13y ago
It seems like you could pretty easily explain it in terms of having a million virtual police listening to all calls at once versus the old way, which involved humans, and so naturally limited itself to conversations of interest.