8 ms·

Do you disagree?

by pyrocat 13y ago

Do you disagree?

tptacek 13y ago
YES.
- rgrieselhuber 13y ago
  Care to share more? This happened when we started fingerprinting all new visitors to the US at airports. Now it's done all over the world.
  - psykovsky 13y ago
    He must have some interest on the NSA continuing their mass surveillance efforts, or something. Juicy federal contracts aren't something you turn your back on when you're a 20 year old kid with a public voice.
    - Phlarp 13y ago
      I disagree with Tptacek in this particular instance; but to allege a conflict of interest like this is petty. AFAIK his security firm specifically does not do defense contracting.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - mahyarm 13y ago
      He is not a 20 year old kid, by a long shot. http://www.matasano.com/#overview http://www.matasano.com/#overview
      - psykovsky 13y ago
        It's not something to turn your back on even if you're 40. Thank you for making me see reason.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      Yes, anyone who isn't an unquestioning fan of Edward Snowden has a vested interest in NSA mass surveillance. Jesus, this whole story has made the geek world go retarded.
  - Sae5waip 13y ago
    I'd like to add that "everyone else is doing it too" is commonly used by governments like the US to "excuse" their spying.
  - baddox 13y ago
    And the drug war. And copyright law.
    - happyscrappy 13y ago
      And the irony is the UN is calling us out on breaking the treaty by legalizing pot in a few states. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/04/un-warning-cannabis-law-change-us-uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/04/un-warning-ca...
      - dTal 13y ago
        "The International Narcotics Control Board"[1] is 'calling us out' as you say, but I don't think it's quite fair to call them "the UN"[2]. [1] https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html [2] http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/04/05/INCB_Briefing.pdf http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/04/05/INCB_Briefing.pdf
        happyscrappy 13y ago
        That is exactly the wording The Guardian used, although maybe we shouldn't take everything they write at face value.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        Why not? See that logo in the upper-right of the page? That's the UN logo. Know who elects its members? ECOSOC, another UN body. Know who nominates at least five of them? The WHO, yet another UN body. A commission of ECOSOC is also responsible for the scheduling of drugs under the same treaty that set up the INCB. "Independent" agencies are not unusual in governmental contexts. The FCC, FDA, and FTC are all prominent US examples. "Independent" doesn't mean they're not part of the government, they're just outside the direct control of other parts of the government. Every time, for example, the FDA bans an import of <whatever>, headlines spring up both inside and outside the US about "the US" banning <whatever>, generally followed within the article by explicit explanation that it's the result of an FDA action. It is not unfair nor even misleading, the FDA is part of the US government, and on the world stage, the US is answerable for its actions.
  - schoen 13y ago
    Speculations about tptacek's amusement: Maybe he thinks other governments aren't anywhere near having the capability "to do the same", depending on what "the same" is. (Most states could tap cell phone calls off the air or make domestic carriers turn over lots of data, but not tap undersea cables, and probably not extensively compromise commercial telecommunications infrastructure in other countries.) Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so. Personally, I think your fingerprinting example is instructive because the practices of one state do have an influence on the practices of another -- though fingerprinting is something that the general public can see directly, unlike most electronic surveillance. After all,the fingerprinting is quite overt. I take Snowden's (and Eben Moglen's) point that states and spooks have talked together for a long time about their deeply shared understanding of spying, and never thought it was necessary to tell or ask the public.
    - larrys 13y ago
      "Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so." I think that's it. Clearly enough to eject drink from nose to suggest that something that is essentially a secret activity will be stopped merely because the US doesn't do it anymore. Will point out though that in reverse maybe not as true. In other words it's quite possible that something that you perceive someone as doing that you hadn't thought of then becomes something that you contemplate. Let's take an example. Red light cameras. You see it done in one city and so you say "hey we can do red light cameras". A bit later another city (say NYC) decides to remove red light cameras (assuming they have them I'm using NYC as "well known and large" for the purposes of this example). Doesn't mean other cities will stop (once the cat is out of the bag or the genie out of the bottle etc.)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    Presumably all governments already consider themselves to have a green light for mass surveillance. All the same, I do think it's possible for someone to take a lead in allowing their citizens privacy. And even if that isn't possible, surely there's virtue in a democratic discussion about the reasons we all have to be surveilled. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/306288/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-ask... There's also the issue that the US government and other members of the five eyes appear to be egging each other on to ever more elaborate ways round local restrictions.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    In theory it's the NSA's job to defend us from foreign intelligence agencies. Instead, their behavior has the effect of equipping those agencies with both motivation and moral authority. That may have been what tptacek was guffawing at. If so, it's hard to argue with him.
tokenadult 13y ago
Not to speak for anyone else, but it is plain that some governments will assume a green light to spy on all of their own citizens and residents, and as many citizens and residents of other countries as they can reach, regardless of what the United States does. We have seen this happen more than once.
mpyne 13y ago
International "norms" are only that; norms. It is the absolute height of arrogance to assume that other nations will follow the West's lead because we're "right" or "morally superior" or any other bullshit people want to make up. The implication is that if NSA can engage in mass surveillance, that other nations might think that's acceptable. But the implication is already proven false; NSA wasn't even the first, and the list of countries that do engage in technical surveillance is not just Russia and China. In the end a nation will or will not use network surveillance because it does or does not help them meet their policy and strategic goals. After all look at the Russian response to very strongly-held "norms" about the sovereignty of borders in Ukraine. Whatever rhetoric you wish to use to defend their actions, the fact is that they're stepping on one of the few clearly-drawn lines in international law. What's more, the reason that they're doing so isn't because there isn't a "norm" against this behavior, it's because they judged there will be no appreciable penalty for their action. Putin isn't "going rogue" and he's definitely not stupid. In case you're wondering, that is where the world will be led; power politics instead of wishy-washy Western values, because power politics is what works.

Do you disagree?

by pyrocat 13y ago

Do you disagree?

tptacek 13y ago

YES.

rgrieselhuber 13y ago
Care to share more? This happened when we started fingerprinting all new visitors to the US at airports. Now it's done all over the world.
- psykovsky 13y ago
  He must have some interest on the NSA continuing their mass surveillance efforts, or something. Juicy federal contracts aren't something you turn your back on when you're a 20 year old kid with a public voice.
  - Phlarp 13y ago
    I disagree with Tptacek in this particular instance; but to allege a conflict of interest like this is petty. AFAIK his security firm specifically does not do defense contracting.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - mahyarm 13y ago
    He is not a 20 year old kid, by a long shot. http://www.matasano.com/#overview http://www.matasano.com/#overview
    - psykovsky 13y ago
      It's not something to turn your back on even if you're 40. Thank you for making me see reason.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    Yes, anyone who isn't an unquestioning fan of Edward Snowden has a vested interest in NSA mass surveillance. Jesus, this whole story has made the geek world go retarded.
- Sae5waip 13y ago
  I'd like to add that "everyone else is doing it too" is commonly used by governments like the US to "excuse" their spying.
- baddox 13y ago
  And the drug war. And copyright law.
  - happyscrappy 13y ago
    And the irony is the UN is calling us out on breaking the treaty by legalizing pot in a few states. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/04/un-warning-cannabis-law-change-us-uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/04/un-warning-ca...
    - dTal 13y ago
      "The International Narcotics Control Board"[1] is 'calling us out' as you say, but I don't think it's quite fair to call them "the UN"[2]. [1] https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html [2] http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/04/05/INCB_Briefing.pdf http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/04/05/INCB_Briefing.pdf
      - happyscrappy 13y ago
        That is exactly the wording The Guardian used, although maybe we shouldn't take everything they write at face value.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Why not? See that logo in the upper-right of the page? That's the UN logo. Know who elects its members? ECOSOC, another UN body. Know who nominates at least five of them? The WHO, yet another UN body. A commission of ECOSOC is also responsible for the scheduling of drugs under the same treaty that set up the INCB. "Independent" agencies are not unusual in governmental contexts. The FCC, FDA, and FTC are all prominent US examples. "Independent" doesn't mean they're not part of the government, they're just outside the direct control of other parts of the government. Every time, for example, the FDA bans an import of <whatever>, headlines spring up both inside and outside the US about "the US" banning <whatever>, generally followed within the article by explicit explanation that it's the result of an FDA action. It is not unfair nor even misleading, the FDA is part of the US government, and on the world stage, the US is answerable for its actions.
- schoen 13y ago
  Speculations about tptacek's amusement: Maybe he thinks other governments aren't anywhere near having the capability "to do the same", depending on what "the same" is. (Most states could tap cell phone calls off the air or make domestic carriers turn over lots of data, but not tap undersea cables, and probably not extensively compromise commercial telecommunications infrastructure in other countries.) Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so. Personally, I think your fingerprinting example is instructive because the practices of one state do have an influence on the practices of another -- though fingerprinting is something that the general public can see directly, unlike most electronic surveillance. After all,the fingerprinting is quite overt. I take Snowden's (and Eben Moglen's) point that states and spooks have talked together for a long time about their deeply shared understanding of spying, and never thought it was necessary to tell or ask the public.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so." I think that's it. Clearly enough to eject drink from nose to suggest that something that is essentially a secret activity will be stopped merely because the US doesn't do it anymore. Will point out though that in reverse maybe not as true. In other words it's quite possible that something that you perceive someone as doing that you hadn't thought of then becomes something that you contemplate. Let's take an example. Red light cameras. You see it done in one city and so you say "hey we can do red light cameras". A bit later another city (say NYC) decides to remove red light cameras (assuming they have them I'm using NYC as "well known and large" for the purposes of this example). Doesn't mean other cities will stop (once the cat is out of the bag or the genie out of the bottle etc.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- summerdown2 13y ago
  Presumably all governments already consider themselves to have a green light for mass surveillance. All the same, I do think it's possible for someone to take a lead in allowing their citizens privacy. And even if that isn't possible, surely there's virtue in a democratic discussion about the reasons we all have to be surveilled. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/306288/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-ask... There's also the issue that the US government and other members of the five eyes appear to be egging each other on to ever more elaborate ways round local restrictions.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  In theory it's the NSA's job to defend us from foreign intelligence agencies. Instead, their behavior has the effect of equipping those agencies with both motivation and moral authority. That may have been what tptacek was guffawing at. If so, it's hard to argue with him.

tokenadult 13y ago

Not to speak for anyone else, but it is plain that some governments will assume a green light to spy on all of their own citizens and residents, and as many citizens and residents of other countries as they can reach, regardless of what the United States does. We have seen this happen more than once.

mpyne 13y ago

International "norms" are only that; norms. It is the absolute height of arrogance to assume that other nations will follow the West's lead because we're "right" or "morally superior" or any other bullshit people want to make up. The implication is that if NSA can engage in mass surveillance, that other nations might think that's acceptable. But the implication is already proven false; NSA wasn't even the first, and the list of countries that do engage in technical surveillance is not just Russia and China. In the end a nation will or will not use network surveillance because it does or does not help them meet their policy and strategic goals. After all look at the Russian response to very strongly-held "norms" about the sovereignty of borders in Ukraine. Whatever rhetoric you wish to use to defend their actions, the fact is that they're stepping on one of the few clearly-drawn lines in international law. What's more, the reason that they're doing so isn't because there isn't a "norm" against this behavior, it's because they judged there will be no appreciable penalty for their action. Putin isn't "going rogue" and he's definitely not stupid. In case you're wondering, that is where the world will be led; power politics instead of wishy-washy Western values, because power politics is what works.