8 ms·

Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... That's just wonderful. After 10 years of pervasive surveillance and no

by jobu 12y ago

Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... That's just wonderful. After 10 years of pervasive surveillance and not being able to catch a single terrorist I can't believe the NSA is trying to rationalize it as being a good thing. It's too bad the bill to defund the NSA didn't pass: http://defundthensa.com/ http://defundthensa.com/

duaneb 12y ago
> I can't believe the NSA is trying to rationalize it as being a good thing Is it really a surprise people in power wish to remain in power?
- Zelphyr 12y ago
  I wonder if the sentiment here is that the NSA used to be known for being a highly intelligent group of people trying to solve hard problems but now they seem like a bunch of D-level bureaucrats snooping through everything hoping they'll get lucky.
  - jobu 12y ago
    That's it exactly. There are some brilliant people working at the NSA and our country would be better off if they were working improve the security of utilities, local governments, and critical businesses.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Maybe there's just both kinds of people working at the NSA...
  - watwut 12y ago
    And maybe they are a highly intelligent group of bureaucrats trying to solve hard problems so they can snoop through everything and get lucky. Highly intelligent person solving hard problems is not necessary "good guy" nor "ethical guy" nor "law abiding guy".
- bsder 12y ago
  I would amend that to: "Is it any surprise the bureaucracy wishes to protect the bureaucracy?"
  - frostmatthew 12y ago
    "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." - Eugene McCarthy
    - sitkack 12y ago
      "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for." - Will Rogers
- ForrestN 12y ago
  http://people.bethel.edu/~steken/death%20and%20despair/holzerabuse.jpg http://people.bethel.edu/~steken/death%20and%20despair/holze...
Zak 12y ago
Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad The NSA does an awful lot of hiding things. It might therefore be reasonable to conclude that it is bad and should, at the very least have its funding cut.
- tking8924 12y ago
  Got to stop people from doing things that they themselves are doing... Anecdotally reminds of this guy that was key in setting up the British porn filter being arrested for child pornography: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10675601/David-Cameron-profoundly-shocked-after-Patrick-Rock-arrested-for-child-pornography-offences.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10675...
- deciplex 12y ago
  A person is not a government agency ostensibly accountable to a democratic government and, therefore, public oversight. The NSA is. To the extent a democracy keeps secrets from voters, it is not a democracy. The US government keeps a lot of secrets.
josefresco 12y ago
If we are to accept that some who seek privacy and security are good and innocent, we also need to accept that some who seek those same things can also be bad.
- bilalq 12y ago
  You can literally replace "seek privacy and security" with almost anything in that statement. I mean, out of all the people that prefer Coke over Pepsi, there are definitely some bad guys. While your statement is true, it doesn't really give any justification on targeted spying. That is, unless of course, we consider the desire to hide things to be a signal of being a bad actor. Thinking along those lines is a very slippery slope though. The erosion of freedoms is just another side-effect of policies and actions shaped by such thinking.
  - throwaway5752 12y ago
    That's nonsense. If a credible actor poses a threat, they will attempt to do a competent job hiding their communications and data. Those that don't are by definition less competent and less likely to pose a threat. Pardon the bluntless, but it seems like an a priori conclusion that only people taking pains to hide their data/communications should be targeted. That is not because the vast majority of those people are innocent (they are) but because that is the only group that contains a subset that poses a real & present threat. So, that ignores your slippery slope argument about personal liberties, which are totally valid. How do you balance national security and personal liberty in this case? That's the million dollar question. Please let me know if you question my reasoning. I'm purely looking at it as a 2x2 matrix of (highly encrypts personal data, does not ...) x (seeks to harm people/nation interests, does not ...) So only the people hiding their tracks that seek to harm are the ones to worry about. Those that don't hide their tracks are a lot less likely to be operationally successful</euphemism>. However, I assume that the 99.95% of people that highly encrypt personal do not seek to harm anyone, and are collateral damage here. Constitutional tradeoffs happen all over. Fire in a crowded theater, felons rights to vote, personal rights to own certain weapons, etc. This is another one that needs to be decided very carefully. But I think both sides have very valid concerns.
josu 12y ago
>Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... No, that's not the reasoning. People that do bad things try to hide them. Therefore, a good first filter to catch bad people is to target those who hide things. They can narrow the search field afterwards.
- SeanDav 12y ago
  Not sure why you were marked down for that comment. Logically it is an obvious low hanging fruit to target the people looking for privacy. It is cynical but certainly logical, like it or not.
- pyre 12y ago
  This is true, but saying "treat all people trying to hide things as potential terrorists" is a very wide net to cast (to the point of useless).
  - SeanDav 12y ago
    It is a vastly smaller space than "all people that use the internet". Also I think it makes sense to assume that the "privacy seekers" set would contain a higher proportion of "bad actors". I am not in any way supporting them, but I understand why they do it - even if I hate the idea.
    - euank 12y ago
      The fraction of terrorists in "all people that use the internet" is approximately equal to the fraction of terrorists in "privacy seekers" -- both are roughly zero. The NSA only was given such pervasive power to catch terrorists. The fact that privacy seekers are more likely to be "bad actors" is moot unless that means terrorists because regular "bad actors" are supposed to be innocent until guilty, handled by police/fbi, etc. NSA only is allowed to work essentially with no due process because it's for cathing "terrorists". Interestingly, now that terrorists know about the NSA, they no doubt will simply not use the internet (or phones) at all, thus making it so the NSA can't catch a terrorist by any of its methods. I definitely expect all terrorists are extremely careful about internet activity now that they know the NSA is so invasive, thus making the NSA's actions even less defensible (not that I thought they ever were).
stinos 12y ago
Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... Well that idea isn't exactly new, unfortunately, remember Eric Scmidt.. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
- Zarel 12y ago
  Well, in context, I believe that quote was intended to mean "as a US company, we can't stop the government from intruding upon your privacy", not "we don't value your privacy".
- dan_bk 12y ago
  Like we shouldn't get our privacy. Whereas he bought himself a specially isolated penthouse in order to live his open marriage in perfect privacy.
jacinda 12y ago
>not being able to catch a single terrorist Except, you know, this guy named Osama Bin Laden. http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-cell-phone-tracking-used-osama-bin-laden-raid-1401736 http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-c...
- bitchypat 12y ago
  I think he meant before they wreak havoc.
- gdewilde 12y ago
  No, he had already died in 2001, people only get to die one time.
anigbrowl 12y ago
On the other hand, anyone who is up to something bad is going to try to keep it as secret as possible, no? After 10 years of pervasive surveillance and not being able to catch a single terrorist Questionable. I wouldn't expect the NSA to put out a press release every time someone is nabbed on the back of their information-gathering, that wouldn't be very smart.
cbsmith 12y ago
No, because anyone trying to hide something is highly likely to be trying to keep things private and secure. Ignoring the moral, ethical, and legal concerns, it is a perfectly reasonable course of action. The moral, ethical & legal concerns are of course terrible.

by jobu 12y ago

duaneb 12y ago

> I can't believe the NSA is trying to rationalize it as being a good thing Is it really a surprise people in power wish to remain in power?

Zelphyr 12y ago
I wonder if the sentiment here is that the NSA used to be known for being a highly intelligent group of people trying to solve hard problems but now they seem like a bunch of D-level bureaucrats snooping through everything hoping they'll get lucky.
- jobu 12y ago
  That's it exactly. There are some brilliant people working at the NSA and our country would be better off if they were working improve the security of utilities, local governments, and critical businesses.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Maybe there's just both kinds of people working at the NSA...
- watwut 12y ago
  And maybe they are a highly intelligent group of bureaucrats trying to solve hard problems so they can snoop through everything and get lucky. Highly intelligent person solving hard problems is not necessary "good guy" nor "ethical guy" nor "law abiding guy".
bsder 12y ago
I would amend that to: "Is it any surprise the bureaucracy wishes to protect the bureaucracy?"
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." - Eugene McCarthy
  - sitkack 12y ago
    "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for." - Will Rogers
ForrestN 12y ago
http://people.bethel.edu/~steken/death%20and%20despair/holzerabuse.jpg http://people.bethel.edu/~steken/death%20and%20despair/holze...

Zak 12y ago

Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad The NSA does an awful lot of hiding things. It might therefore be reasonable to conclude that it is bad and should, at the very least have its funding cut.

tking8924 12y ago
Got to stop people from doing things that they themselves are doing... Anecdotally reminds of this guy that was key in setting up the British porn filter being arrested for child pornography: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10675601/David-Cameron-profoundly-shocked-after-Patrick-Rock-arrested-for-child-pornography-offences.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10675...
deciplex 12y ago
A person is not a government agency ostensibly accountable to a democratic government and, therefore, public oversight. The NSA is. To the extent a democracy keeps secrets from voters, it is not a democracy. The US government keeps a lot of secrets.

josefresco 12y ago

If we are to accept that some who seek privacy and security are good and innocent, we also need to accept that some who seek those same things can also be bad.

bilalq 12y ago
You can literally replace "seek privacy and security" with almost anything in that statement. I mean, out of all the people that prefer Coke over Pepsi, there are definitely some bad guys. While your statement is true, it doesn't really give any justification on targeted spying. That is, unless of course, we consider the desire to hide things to be a signal of being a bad actor. Thinking along those lines is a very slippery slope though. The erosion of freedoms is just another side-effect of policies and actions shaped by such thinking.
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  That's nonsense. If a credible actor poses a threat, they will attempt to do a competent job hiding their communications and data. Those that don't are by definition less competent and less likely to pose a threat. Pardon the bluntless, but it seems like an a priori conclusion that only people taking pains to hide their data/communications should be targeted. That is not because the vast majority of those people are innocent (they are) but because that is the only group that contains a subset that poses a real & present threat. So, that ignores your slippery slope argument about personal liberties, which are totally valid. How do you balance national security and personal liberty in this case? That's the million dollar question. Please let me know if you question my reasoning. I'm purely looking at it as a 2x2 matrix of (highly encrypts personal data, does not ...) x (seeks to harm people/nation interests, does not ...) So only the people hiding their tracks that seek to harm are the ones to worry about. Those that don't hide their tracks are a lot less likely to be operationally successful</euphemism>. However, I assume that the 99.95% of people that highly encrypt personal do not seek to harm anyone, and are collateral damage here. Constitutional tradeoffs happen all over. Fire in a crowded theater, felons rights to vote, personal rights to own certain weapons, etc. This is another one that needs to be decided very carefully. But I think both sides have very valid concerns.

josu 12y ago

>Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... No, that's not the reasoning. People that do bad things try to hide them. Therefore, a good first filter to catch bad people is to target those who hide things. They can narrow the search field afterwards.

SeanDav 12y ago
Not sure why you were marked down for that comment. Logically it is an obvious low hanging fruit to target the people looking for privacy. It is cynical but certainly logical, like it or not.
pyre 12y ago
This is true, but saying "treat all people trying to hide things as potential terrorists" is a very wide net to cast (to the point of useless).
- SeanDav 12y ago
  It is a vastly smaller space than "all people that use the internet". Also I think it makes sense to assume that the "privacy seekers" set would contain a higher proportion of "bad actors". I am not in any way supporting them, but I understand why they do it - even if I hate the idea.
  - euank 12y ago
    The fraction of terrorists in "all people that use the internet" is approximately equal to the fraction of terrorists in "privacy seekers" -- both are roughly zero. The NSA only was given such pervasive power to catch terrorists. The fact that privacy seekers are more likely to be "bad actors" is moot unless that means terrorists because regular "bad actors" are supposed to be innocent until guilty, handled by police/fbi, etc. NSA only is allowed to work essentially with no due process because it's for cathing "terrorists". Interestingly, now that terrorists know about the NSA, they no doubt will simply not use the internet (or phones) at all, thus making it so the NSA can't catch a terrorist by any of its methods. I definitely expect all terrorists are extremely careful about internet activity now that they know the NSA is so invasive, thus making the NSA's actions even less defensible (not that I thought they ever were).

stinos 12y ago

Because anyone trying to keep anything private or secure must be hiding something bad... Well that idea isn't exactly new, unfortunately, remember Eric Scmidt.. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Zarel 12y ago
Well, in context, I believe that quote was intended to mean "as a US company, we can't stop the government from intruding upon your privacy", not "we don't value your privacy".
dan_bk 12y ago
Like we shouldn't get our privacy. Whereas he bought himself a specially isolated penthouse in order to live his open marriage in perfect privacy.

jacinda 12y ago

>not being able to catch a single terrorist Except, you know, this guy named Osama Bin Laden. http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-cell-phone-tracking-used-osama-bin-laden-raid-1401736 http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-snowden-leaks-satellites-drones-c...

bitchypat 12y ago
I think he meant before they wreak havoc.
gdewilde 12y ago
No, he had already died in 2001, people only get to die one time.

anigbrowl 12y ago

On the other hand, anyone who is up to something bad is going to try to keep it as secret as possible, no? After 10 years of pervasive surveillance and not being able to catch a single terrorist Questionable. I wouldn't expect the NSA to put out a press release every time someone is nabbed on the back of their information-gathering, that wouldn't be very smart.

cbsmith 12y ago

No, because anyone trying to hide something is highly likely to be trying to keep things private and secure. Ignoring the moral, ethical, and legal concerns, it is a perfectly reasonable course of action. The moral, ethical & legal concerns are of course terrible.