6 ms·

This is the same women who said "It’s called protecting America" when defending the NSA's gathering of phone call records. [0] So surveillance is good, but not

This is the same women who said "It’s called protecting America" when defending the NSA's gathering of phone call records. [0] So surveillance is good, but not when you're the person being surveilled? [0] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-ns...

rayiner 13y ago
This is an overly simplistic argument. It is not inconsistent to believe that it is a far greater danger for the executive to spy on a co-equal branch of government, in a way that acquires content, than when the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata. It's glib to say "oh, so Congressmen are more important than regular people?" but in at least certain ways, it's true. The dangers created in the two situations are quite different. You might have a different evaluation of the relative gravity of the dangers, you have to concede that they're different.
- Mc_Big_G 13y ago
  ...assuming you believe the "metadata" bullshit.
  - throwawayaway 13y ago
    There's been no proof that it is metadata, we are supposed to take liars at their word. Seems rayiner is willing to do so.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - chc 13y ago
      It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.
      - throwawayaway 13y ago
        accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?
      - throwawayaway 13y ago
        you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    For better or worse, the distinction between data and metadata is deeply ingrained in 4th amendment law, specifically Smith v. Maryland. And technology hasn't changed the rationale underlying that distinction either. Back in the day, addressing on the outside of an envelope was considered "metadata" and unprotected because you had to reveal that information to the third party for the mail to get routed, so had no expectation of privacy. This same reasoning applies perfectly well to the phone calls in the 1970's in Smith, or for that matter a cell phone call, and arguably TCP/IP headers, today.
    - throwawayaway 13y ago
      It's too much of a jump from one person being recorded without a warrant, to everyone being recorded without a warrant. That distinction hasn't changed at all.
    - shutupalready 13y ago
      My understanding is that the "Subject" line of emails are also considered metadata for the purpose of surveillance and warrantless information demands by police. Subject lines are clearly not needed for routing. There's feature creep (a.k.a. slippery slope) at work even for metadata.
      - chc 13y ago
        They're headers, which categorically tend to be viewed as metadata even by technologists. You're right that they aren't necessary for routing, but this is not exactly the government being slippery. Even where encryption is used, metadata — including the subject — tends to be sent in the clear.
        bashinator 13y ago
        They're MUA headers, not MTA headers. That's an important distinction; those headers are generated directly by the end-users' systems, rather than by the systems responsible for routing the mail around.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Ad ignorantiam is to argue that something is true because it has not been proven false. Walk me through how that applies to what I said?
- ameister14 13y ago
  Personally, I was more disturbed by the Director of National Intelligence perjuring himself before Senate committees and getting away with it. This I actually expected, and I think Feinstein did too; she seems really upset at her staff being threatened.
- throwwit 13y ago
  'Congressmen' were once 'people' too, is the counter-point I'd make.
spikels 13y ago
Yes - Feinstein has been awful on the NSA spying issue. So far there have been only two narrow issues that have bothered her all all: spying on her and spying on friendly foreign leaders. She has been one of the ruling elite for so long that she has lost the ability to see this issue from any other perspective. She needs to retire and enjoy the roughly $100 million she has acquired in a life of "public service".
- rhizome 13y ago
  The explanation I've seen for Feinstein's apparent two-facedness is that one of her bugaboos is torture. She started her speech with reference to the CIA's destruction of the videotapes documenting torture, and the documents affected by the CIA's actions here are concerned with the SSCI torture report. It just so happens that the current Outside General Counsel for the CIA, Robert Eatinger, is the lawyer who approved the torture tape destruction, and apparently his name is mentioned in the Torture Report 1,600 times for things such as referring SSCI torture investigators to the DOJ for investigation as a method of intimidation.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Correction: OGC is actually "Office of General Counsel," not "Outside."
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Her husband is a wealthy investment banker. It's not inconceivable that he made more because of her connections, but $100m doesn't seem crazy unusual for a "Chairman and President of an equity investment management firm" (as he is described on Wikipedia) over the course of his career. Attributing all of the moneymaking to her is profoundly incorrect without an allegation that her husband would have been unsuccessful but for her profession - which is possible but it's a claim that hasn't been proved and certainly deserves to be made explicit.
SDGT 13y ago
Also the same woman who would happily remove your right to protect yourself, but not hers.
00rion 13y ago
Sounds like this would make for a great movie script.
pekk 13y ago
So it is OK for CIA to defeat its own oversight?

rayiner 13y ago

This is an overly simplistic argument. It is not inconsistent to believe that it is a far greater danger for the executive to spy on a co-equal branch of government, in a way that acquires content, than when the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata. It's glib to say "oh, so Congressmen are more important than regular people?" but in at least certain ways, it's true. The dangers created in the two situations are quite different. You might have a different evaluation of the relative gravity of the dangers, you have to concede that they're different.

Mc_Big_G 13y ago
...assuming you believe the "metadata" bullshit.
- throwawayaway 13y ago
  There's been no proof that it is metadata, we are supposed to take liars at their word. Seems rayiner is willing to do so.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - chc 13y ago
    It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.
    - throwawayaway 13y ago
      accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.
  - lern_too_spel 13y ago
    In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?
    - throwawayaway 13y ago
      you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.
- rayiner 13y ago
  For better or worse, the distinction between data and metadata is deeply ingrained in 4th amendment law, specifically Smith v. Maryland. And technology hasn't changed the rationale underlying that distinction either. Back in the day, addressing on the outside of an envelope was considered "metadata" and unprotected because you had to reveal that information to the third party for the mail to get routed, so had no expectation of privacy. This same reasoning applies perfectly well to the phone calls in the 1970's in Smith, or for that matter a cell phone call, and arguably TCP/IP headers, today.
  - throwawayaway 13y ago
    It's too much of a jump from one person being recorded without a warrant, to everyone being recorded without a warrant. That distinction hasn't changed at all.
  - shutupalready 13y ago
    My understanding is that the "Subject" line of emails are also considered metadata for the purpose of surveillance and warrantless information demands by police. Subject lines are clearly not needed for routing. There's feature creep (a.k.a. slippery slope) at work even for metadata.
    - chc 13y ago
      They're headers, which categorically tend to be viewed as metadata even by technologists. You're right that they aren't necessary for routing, but this is not exactly the government being slippery. Even where encryption is used, metadata — including the subject — tends to be sent in the clear.
      - bashinator 13y ago
        They're MUA headers, not MTA headers. That's an important distinction; those headers are generated directly by the end-users' systems, rather than by the systems responsible for routing the mail around.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- rayiner 13y ago
  Ad ignorantiam is to argue that something is true because it has not been proven false. Walk me through how that applies to what I said?
ameister14 13y ago
Personally, I was more disturbed by the Director of National Intelligence perjuring himself before Senate committees and getting away with it. This I actually expected, and I think Feinstein did too; she seems really upset at her staff being threatened.
throwwit 13y ago
'Congressmen' were once 'people' too, is the counter-point I'd make.

spikels 13y ago

Yes - Feinstein has been awful on the NSA spying issue. So far there have been only two narrow issues that have bothered her all all: spying on her and spying on friendly foreign leaders. She has been one of the ruling elite for so long that she has lost the ability to see this issue from any other perspective. She needs to retire and enjoy the roughly $100 million she has acquired in a life of "public service".

rhizome 13y ago
The explanation I've seen for Feinstein's apparent two-facedness is that one of her bugaboos is torture. She started her speech with reference to the CIA's destruction of the videotapes documenting torture, and the documents affected by the CIA's actions here are concerned with the SSCI torture report. It just so happens that the current Outside General Counsel for the CIA, Robert Eatinger, is the lawyer who approved the torture tape destruction, and apparently his name is mentioned in the Torture Report 1,600 times for things such as referring SSCI torture investigators to the DOJ for investigation as a method of intimidation.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Correction: OGC is actually "Office of General Counsel," not "Outside."
dllthomas 13y ago
Her husband is a wealthy investment banker. It's not inconceivable that he made more because of her connections, but $100m doesn't seem crazy unusual for a "Chairman and President of an equity investment management firm" (as he is described on Wikipedia) over the course of his career. Attributing all of the moneymaking to her is profoundly incorrect without an allegation that her husband would have been unsuccessful but for her profession - which is possible but it's a claim that hasn't been proved and certainly deserves to be made explicit.

SDGT 13y ago

Also the same woman who would happily remove your right to protect yourself, but not hers.

00rion 13y ago

Sounds like this would make for a great movie script.

pekk 13y ago

So it is OK for CIA to defeat its own oversight?