5 ms·

One slide from a May 2010 NSA presentation on getting data from smartphones – breathlessly titled "Golden Nugget!" – sets out the agency's "perfect scenario": "

One slide from a May 2010 NSA presentation on getting data from smartphones – breathlessly titled "Golden Nugget!" – sets out the agency's "perfect scenario": "Target uploading photo to a social media site taken with a mobile device. What can we get?" To me, this is quite telling. The NSA is not considering what data they need to achieve their mission, and then trying to find that data. Instead, they're just looking for "what can we get", and worry later about how it might be useful (or legal!). This is no way to run a successful organization in the 21st century.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rdl 13y ago
Why not? It is technically feasible. There was essentially no legal oversight at NSA or GCHQ. It seems like they responded correctly to the incentives they were given. The problem is with the legislature (and the judiciary), voters, and the media.
- streetnigga 13y ago
  Murdering people is technically feasible as well. If entities are given essentially no legal oversight then the correct response would be to act on the incentives they were given to murder freely. The problem is with the legislature (and the judiciary), voters, and the media.
  - john_b 13y ago
    I don't think the parent was trying to absolve the NSA of responsibility, merely pointing out that its mission incentivizes it to collect as much data as it can. It's ultimately the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the NSA and other intelligence agencies adhere to the law, and Congress has largely ignored this responsibility. The more subtle point that the parent makes is that, rather than always trying to prevent bad actors from doing bad things (e.g. murdering), a working system of checks and balances can punish the bad actors and deter future abuses. But checks and balances obviously don't work when everything is classified. The legislature and the judiciary were essentially the only two institutions that had access to this information and they did nothing about it. You can't vote judges out of office, but if large scale surveillance is an issue important to you I'd make sure my congressman or congresswoman knew about it.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  Why should our government agencies not commit crimes just because no one is looking? I'm just going to assume you were being sarcastic and move on.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I'm specifically questioning "no way to run a successful organization"; it was morally wrong (and legally, but there's no legal oversight, so that doesn't matter), but in no way hindered their success at their mission. So, because it's not hurting them in terms of success to operate this way, there's a need for external controls to prevent it. If being all-collecting hurt their effectiveness, we wouldn't need any new controls, because they'd be replaced for being unsuccessful.
    - 1457389 13y ago
      It's not hurting them insofar as they can sell this kind of useless (in terms of catching terrorists) data collection to bureaucrats who will sign off on it. I would argue that it is compromising their ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, when so much of their efforts and funding seems to be dedicated to adding to the latter. Plus, the inevitable outrage generated when these tactics became public is undeniably hurting their credibility and in the long term their ability to gather information.
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      > in no way hindered their success at their mission Except that their mission is deeply compromised by their actions: they've lowered domestic cyber-security, undermined the rule of law, and deeply shaken the public confidence in the armed forces - all of which are contrary to their core mission. They seem to have lost sight of their high level goals in their quest for more power to accomplish specific secondary tasks.
- shmerl 13y ago
  > It seems like they responded correctly to the incentives they were given. What incentives were those? To create a police state with kind of distopian program "Overseer"? Because that's exactly what they are doing.
gress 13y ago
I agree with you in general, but this is not the smoking gun you are suggesting. Once someone is a target, investigating them in general is legitimate, assuming that there is justification for regarding them as such.
- rhizome 13y ago
  What definition of "target" are you using here? Is the NSA/FBI/CIA/GCHQ/etc. using the same definition?
  - gress 13y ago
    It doesn't matter all that much. The point is that it's targeted collection - not a general scoop. It absolutely matters how broad the targeting is, but that is a separate question.
  - RexRollman 13y ago
    Considering the government has "targeted" political dissidents and protesters, I would say the definition is basically everyone.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rdl 13y ago

Why not? It is technically feasible. There was essentially no legal oversight at NSA or GCHQ. It seems like they responded correctly to the incentives they were given. The problem is with the legislature (and the judiciary), voters, and the media.

streetnigga 13y ago
Murdering people is technically feasible as well. If entities are given essentially no legal oversight then the correct response would be to act on the incentives they were given to murder freely. The problem is with the legislature (and the judiciary), voters, and the media.
- john_b 13y ago
  I don't think the parent was trying to absolve the NSA of responsibility, merely pointing out that its mission incentivizes it to collect as much data as it can. It's ultimately the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the NSA and other intelligence agencies adhere to the law, and Congress has largely ignored this responsibility. The more subtle point that the parent makes is that, rather than always trying to prevent bad actors from doing bad things (e.g. murdering), a working system of checks and balances can punish the bad actors and deter future abuses. But checks and balances obviously don't work when everything is classified. The legislature and the judiciary were essentially the only two institutions that had access to this information and they did nothing about it. You can't vote judges out of office, but if large scale surveillance is an issue important to you I'd make sure my congressman or congresswoman knew about it.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
Why should our government agencies not commit crimes just because no one is looking? I'm just going to assume you were being sarcastic and move on.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'm specifically questioning "no way to run a successful organization"; it was morally wrong (and legally, but there's no legal oversight, so that doesn't matter), but in no way hindered their success at their mission. So, because it's not hurting them in terms of success to operate this way, there's a need for external controls to prevent it. If being all-collecting hurt their effectiveness, we wouldn't need any new controls, because they'd be replaced for being unsuccessful.
  - 1457389 13y ago
    It's not hurting them insofar as they can sell this kind of useless (in terms of catching terrorists) data collection to bureaucrats who will sign off on it. I would argue that it is compromising their ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, when so much of their efforts and funding seems to be dedicated to adding to the latter. Plus, the inevitable outrage generated when these tactics became public is undeniably hurting their credibility and in the long term their ability to gather information.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    > in no way hindered their success at their mission Except that their mission is deeply compromised by their actions: they've lowered domestic cyber-security, undermined the rule of law, and deeply shaken the public confidence in the armed forces - all of which are contrary to their core mission. They seem to have lost sight of their high level goals in their quest for more power to accomplish specific secondary tasks.
shmerl 13y ago
> It seems like they responded correctly to the incentives they were given. What incentives were those? To create a police state with kind of distopian program "Overseer"? Because that's exactly what they are doing.

gress 13y ago

I agree with you in general, but this is not the smoking gun you are suggesting. Once someone is a target, investigating them in general is legitimate, assuming that there is justification for regarding them as such.

rhizome 13y ago
What definition of "target" are you using here? Is the NSA/FBI/CIA/GCHQ/etc. using the same definition?
- gress 13y ago
  It doesn't matter all that much. The point is that it's targeted collection - not a general scoop. It absolutely matters how broad the targeting is, but that is a separate question.
- RexRollman 13y ago
  Considering the government has "targeted" political dissidents and protesters, I would say the definition is basically everyone.