3 ms·

> The mental leap here is subtle, but substantial. Since I have been told I can't use US selectors , I assume the system enforces this. As such, US citizens hav

by mpyne 13y ago

> The mental leap here is subtle, but substantial. Since I have been told I can't use US selectors , I assume the system enforces this. As such, US citizens have nothing to worry about. For the life of me I cannot figure out why people refuse to accept the concept of training and policy as being relevant to proper civil liberties safeguards in addition to technical ones. Imagine applying that idea to any other field, and keep in mind the unintended consequences. For instance consider from a soldier's perspective "Since I've been told I can't shoot citizens or non-combatants, I assume the system enforces this. As such, US citizens and non-combatants have nothing to worry about." And yet our troops do have issued firearms (at least during things like field exercises and training), and the republic has not fallen to a coup. There are missile siloes dotted throughout the Midwest, yet no rogue junior officers or missileers have launched ICBMs at people. You're missing his greater point, which seems to be that it didn't even occur to him to "test the interlock" since he knew that by law and by policy, it was wrong to even try. He also made quite clear (if you'd bother to read to the end instead of cherry-picking quotes to declaim) that this doesn't mean such technical controls can't or shouldn't be strengthed, merely that there is indeed a "culture of compliance" among the analysts instead of a bunch of voyeurs. > > one employee spied on a spouse > So much for automated analysis, besides not being able to filter out US citizens' data it can't even filter out an employee's direct family. But there's no need to worry citizen, the NSA has a very high-quality workforce. Is it really your claim that a workforce must be 100% perfect in every way for an organization to be legitimate? Even the anarchists don't try to claim that there won't eventually be murderers amongst them, nor is there anywhere else in the real world where spouses are always exceptionally nice to each other in everything they do. Just ask Ashley Madison. > The most technologically advanced intelligence agency in the history of the world and they have no idea what files were electronically taken by one of their own. They also haven't solved the Halting Problem. But anyways I know I'm going to be speaking to an uncooperative crowd but perhaps you all should consider the high-level points of his "peek inside" and then discuss the ramifications of that, instead of always drilling down into the weeds. Many of the same arguments used here could be used with equal logic toward every large civilian IT concern, which would tend to devastate the need for things like YC capital. :P

Peaker 13y ago
> Imagine applying that idea to any other field, and keep in mind the unintended consequences The difference from other fields, is that the consequences in other fields are public. If a soldier shoots someone, that someone is dead and can prompt an investigation. If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. Or be able to know. No investigation will be triggered, and even if one is, it cannot possibly gather any evidence.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. But this claim is only a concern if an analyst can unilaterally abuse his power and never be caught. Are you saying this type of surveillance capability would then be acceptable if proper accountability and oversight safeguards can be emplaced? If anything this should be one of the easier things in the world to do, putting audit trails on computerized systems is hardly "pro league" stuff. But either way, you say that the consequences will at least be public in other scenarios. But that's not really true either. People get shot every day in this country; how do you know that any given shooting wasn't from a soldier? How do you know when the government lets a contract that they actually fully complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulations? How do you know that when a Congressman votes against his normal voting habits, whether that vote was due to his conscience or due to someone else's wallet? How do you know that when the NSF gives one scientist a grant and refuses another, that it was done in the public interest? You don't know any of this, as a rule, and yet many of those are much more impactful on the average citizen, even if we assume the existence of lapses in oversight. As far as I can tell with government IT, your data will always be at more risk of being leaked to cybercriminals via hacking or stupidity (the latter has happened to me already!), than be at risk of being looked at by a rogue NSA agent.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I thought the track record of the US Government on the matter was pretty clear: 1) Write down the law 2) Break it 3) Retroactively make the violation legal Wrt to what oversight exists, well... the fact that they have no idea what material Snowden took with him is telling. But that's not what I'd be the most worried about. How hard would it be for the White House to ask information about a specific individual for "national security" reasons? > But either way, you say that the consequences will at least be public in other scenarios. But that's not really true either. People get shot every day in this country; how do you know that any given shooting wasn't from a soldier? I'm not a US citizen, but I would think murders are investigated by the police. It's usually difficult to hide. > How do you know when the government lets a contract that they actually fully complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulations? I suppose there are audits? Not to suggest that abuse does not exist, but I assume there is some oversight. > How do you know that when a Congressman votes against his normal voting habits, whether that vote was due to his conscience or due to someone else's wallet? You certainly don't, but you can make an educated guess. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That the NSA doesn't need any form of oversight, and can be 100% trusted with the power to snoop on everybody belonging to any country (knowing - in case you thought "I don't care about these dirty foreigners as long as they promise not to look at US data" - that nothing prevents them from asking another Five Eyes member about your whereabouts without breaking the rules)? From the same government which gave you Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial executions-by-drone? Their definition of legality is terribly elastic.

by mpyne 13y ago

Peaker 13y ago

> Imagine applying that idea to any other field, and keep in mind the unintended consequences The difference from other fields, is that the consequences in other fields are public. If a soldier shoots someone, that someone is dead and can prompt an investigation. If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. Or be able to know. No investigation will be triggered, and even if one is, it cannot possibly gather any evidence.

mpyne 13y ago
> If someone in the NSA abuses his powers, it is very likely that nobody will ever know. But this claim is only a concern if an analyst can unilaterally abuse his power and never be caught. Are you saying this type of surveillance capability would then be acceptable if proper accountability and oversight safeguards can be emplaced? If anything this should be one of the easier things in the world to do, putting audit trails on computerized systems is hardly "pro league" stuff. But either way, you say that the consequences will at least be public in other scenarios. But that's not really true either. People get shot every day in this country; how do you know that any given shooting wasn't from a soldier? How do you know when the government lets a contract that they actually fully complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulations? How do you know that when a Congressman votes against his normal voting habits, whether that vote was due to his conscience or due to someone else's wallet? How do you know that when the NSF gives one scientist a grant and refuses another, that it was done in the public interest? You don't know any of this, as a rule, and yet many of those are much more impactful on the average citizen, even if we assume the existence of lapses in oversight. As far as I can tell with government IT, your data will always be at more risk of being leaked to cybercriminals via hacking or stupidity (the latter has happened to me already!), than be at risk of being looked at by a rogue NSA agent.
- mercurial 13y ago
  I thought the track record of the US Government on the matter was pretty clear: 1) Write down the law 2) Break it 3) Retroactively make the violation legal Wrt to what oversight exists, well... the fact that they have no idea what material Snowden took with him is telling. But that's not what I'd be the most worried about. How hard would it be for the White House to ask information about a specific individual for "national security" reasons? > But either way, you say that the consequences will at least be public in other scenarios. But that's not really true either. People get shot every day in this country; how do you know that any given shooting wasn't from a soldier? I'm not a US citizen, but I would think murders are investigated by the police. It's usually difficult to hide. > How do you know when the government lets a contract that they actually fully complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulations? I suppose there are audits? Not to suggest that abuse does not exist, but I assume there is some oversight. > How do you know that when a Congressman votes against his normal voting habits, whether that vote was due to his conscience or due to someone else's wallet? You certainly don't, but you can make an educated guess. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That the NSA doesn't need any form of oversight, and can be 100% trusted with the power to snoop on everybody belonging to any country (knowing - in case you thought "I don't care about these dirty foreigners as long as they promise not to look at US data" - that nothing prevents them from asking another Five Eyes member about your whereabouts without breaking the rules)? From the same government which gave you Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial executions-by-drone? Their definition of legality is terribly elastic.