5 ms·

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anythin

by scrrr 12y ago

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago, and there's just no way it will simply stop. All we can do is decide how we handle it personally and whom we trust to keep our data safe. And if we really need to create certain kinds of data in the first place (with many kinds we have no choice).

chippy 12y ago
I think there are parallels both in times and geography. In the west - Cold War / 60's Red Witch-hunts and in the east at roughly the same time - East Germany, KGB etc. Different technologies, but the actions changed and were addressed via politics mainly. Technologies might be here to stay, but we shouldn't expect that the way we use them as societies stay the same.
michaelt 12y ago
they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it It's true that even if the NSA stopped tapping undersea cables, that wouldn't stop China doing it. But there are plenty of other things they could do. Instead of weakening encryption standards, they could work to strengthen them. Instead of trying to get software vendors to install backdoors, they could get them to use deterministic builds with release checksum transparency. Instead of developing hardware backdoors, they could develop inspection systems to find them.
- snarfy 12y ago
  Strengthening encryption standards strengthens the enemy too, at least this seems to be how they think.
  - rapind 12y ago
    What enemy is that? Would it really be that horrible if everyone had access to strong encryption regardless of their beliefs. With sufficient know-how and sophistication you can keep your messages private anyways no? If that's the case, then isn't it really just the average joe using off the shelf tech that's screwed? Edit: That sounded combative, but it wasn't meant to be.
  - diafygi 12y ago
    It also prevents the enemy from hurting your economy. The United States has a lot more to lose from compromising information security than to gain from it. Before 9/11, most of the time the NSA would help make security better for the private sector. Now, the private sector is actively working against the NSA.
aros 12y ago
Surveillance isn't something that just manifested at the same time as "big" data collection. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and other alphabet soup agencies have been conducting surveillance and spying for many years prior to the Internet.
retrogradeorbit 12y ago
There's no need to give up on the offensive tactic (legal action) because we will implement a defensive tactic (encryption). Inevitable or not, we can do both.
florianletsch 12y ago
The "cyberwar" which you're undoubtedly referring to is one thing. Mass surveillance of the world's population is something else. Yes, the future is digital. And yes, there will be dangers from several global parties. But why does the NSA chose to effectively weaken public communication by discovering and using security issues in known protocols instead of making sure those get fixed (if the NSA can find it, who's to say no one else can?). With their proven effort to make everyone's communication interceptable (and effectively weakening crypto systems in all possible manners) they aren't protecting anyone, but instead putting US companies, US citizens and all global users of the web at an even higher risk. I haven't even started on the effects on civil rights and freedom of speech of a global surveillance apparatus that is acting in secret and not under democratic control. If it would be about an arms race, why not enforce secure crypto standards and help the industry in that regard? Clearly it's not about having more "cyber power" than China, North Korea and what have you. Instead, it's about having power on individuals, no matter where they're from.
frabcus 12y ago
This article by Eleanor Saitta (Dymaxion) is excellent on this stuff: "Ethics and Power in the Long War" https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-eleanor-saitta-dymaxion/ https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-ele... You're right that stopping it politically is hard: If you look at the historical record of surveillance structures, you have never, we’ve never seen a modern state without going through a revolution or something similar, roll back deployed and operational and technical capabilities. You can though tweak the economic cost (and I'd guess that legal process is part of that, technical measures are too): The economics of spying is the structure that controls whether or not spying is done. The notion of return of investment is very germane here. How much intelligence product are you going to get for a given investment. That is what determines which intelligence methods are used.
cryptoz 12y ago
On NSA stories, the top HN comment is always "too bad. whatever. let the NSA do its thing." NO. This is not about you. This is not about your data. This is about our society's collective ability to think and act for itself. Blanket acceptance of surveillance is a dangerous attitude and shockingly common. Political efforts, technological efforts, societal changes are all required to keep democracy alive. And that's what's at stake here, not your personal files. Nobody cares if you can keep those safe - I want my democracy to be safe, please.
- spot 12y ago
  well if you love democracy so much you need to recognize that the majority is against you on this point.
  - bhayden 12y ago
    Well as you're seeing with gay marriage bans being overturned, just because the majority want to strip the minority of their rights, they shouldn't be allowed to.
    - nickik 12y ago
      Then what you want is a republic or some system of anarchy, not a democracy.
      - xj9 12y ago
        The US is a republic.
        nickik 12y ago
        I know that. It was a general point. In a pure democracy, 51% has complet power. Also while the US is a formal republic, it does often emulate a democracy. Based on common belives the constitution is reinterpreted, or simply ignored. This has been well documented by legal scholars such as Richard Epstein.
Centreal 12y ago
Creative and alternative ways of realizing empathy for emotional-intelligence state security issues are at will of our ability to trust network. That is more an issue of unflagging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trust_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trust_network than worrying about who is the alpha agent. We can count fine against secret traumatic wars if we each log action, community action (with secure, stable, distributed tools like http://www.matrix.org/alpha http://www.matrix.org/alpha and https://www.getaether.net https://www.getaether.net), and begin to self-determine our social systems and safety issues.
danenania 12y ago
People undoubtedly once felt the same about slavery, women's rights, child labor, the divine favor of kings. Don't be an apologist for immorality just because it's accepted as the status quo. We can do better.
mathetic 12y ago
>> The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. I can't disagree more. Just a few centuries ago slavery was not only ubiquitous but it was widely regarded as a god given right. Free man power was also a massive boost to economy but we abolished that just fine. Naysayers will be proven wrong.
dataker 12y ago
If you think in terms of technology, most issues affecting average US citizens come from a somewhat "undeveloped" technology. If they had a better ML architecture and more computing capabilities, "average Joes" would more likely not be harassed.
patcon 12y ago
I can't understand how you can ignore for your personal analysis that the majority of people /disapprove/ of the current surveillance practices[1]. People on this thread keep alluding to the majority not caring, but even if there's apathy in actions, I'm optimistic that at least most people viscerally know it's not right. [1]: http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/10/29/survey-says-77-of-americans-reject-nsa-mass-electronic-surveillance-of-americans/ http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/10/29/survey-says-77-of-a...
zby 12y ago
The problem is not that they can do it - the problem is attribution. The governments can do a lot of bad things, and it is not ethics that stop them.

by scrrr 12y ago

chippy 12y ago

I think there are parallels both in times and geography. In the west - Cold War / 60's Red Witch-hunts and in the east at roughly the same time - East Germany, KGB etc. Different technologies, but the actions changed and were addressed via politics mainly. Technologies might be here to stay, but we shouldn't expect that the way we use them as societies stay the same.

michaelt 12y ago

they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it It's true that even if the NSA stopped tapping undersea cables, that wouldn't stop China doing it. But there are plenty of other things they could do. Instead of weakening encryption standards, they could work to strengthen them. Instead of trying to get software vendors to install backdoors, they could get them to use deterministic builds with release checksum transparency. Instead of developing hardware backdoors, they could develop inspection systems to find them.

snarfy 12y ago
Strengthening encryption standards strengthens the enemy too, at least this seems to be how they think.
- rapind 12y ago
  What enemy is that? Would it really be that horrible if everyone had access to strong encryption regardless of their beliefs. With sufficient know-how and sophistication you can keep your messages private anyways no? If that's the case, then isn't it really just the average joe using off the shelf tech that's screwed? Edit: That sounded combative, but it wasn't meant to be.
- diafygi 12y ago
  It also prevents the enemy from hurting your economy. The United States has a lot more to lose from compromising information security than to gain from it. Before 9/11, most of the time the NSA would help make security better for the private sector. Now, the private sector is actively working against the NSA.

aros 12y ago

Surveillance isn't something that just manifested at the same time as "big" data collection. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and other alphabet soup agencies have been conducting surveillance and spying for many years prior to the Internet.

retrogradeorbit 12y ago

There's no need to give up on the offensive tactic (legal action) because we will implement a defensive tactic (encryption). Inevitable or not, we can do both.

florianletsch 12y ago

The "cyberwar" which you're undoubtedly referring to is one thing. Mass surveillance of the world's population is something else. Yes, the future is digital. And yes, there will be dangers from several global parties. But why does the NSA chose to effectively weaken public communication by discovering and using security issues in known protocols instead of making sure those get fixed (if the NSA can find it, who's to say no one else can?). With their proven effort to make everyone's communication interceptable (and effectively weakening crypto systems in all possible manners) they aren't protecting anyone, but instead putting US companies, US citizens and all global users of the web at an even higher risk. I haven't even started on the effects on civil rights and freedom of speech of a global surveillance apparatus that is acting in secret and not under democratic control. If it would be about an arms race, why not enforce secure crypto standards and help the industry in that regard? Clearly it's not about having more "cyber power" than China, North Korea and what have you. Instead, it's about having power on individuals, no matter where they're from.

frabcus 12y ago

This article by Eleanor Saitta (Dymaxion) is excellent on this stuff: "Ethics and Power in the Long War" https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-eleanor-saitta-dymaxion/ https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-ele... You're right that stopping it politically is hard: If you look at the historical record of surveillance structures, you have never, we’ve never seen a modern state without going through a revolution or something similar, roll back deployed and operational and technical capabilities. You can though tweak the economic cost (and I'd guess that legal process is part of that, technical measures are too): The economics of spying is the structure that controls whether or not spying is done. The notion of return of investment is very germane here. How much intelligence product are you going to get for a given investment. That is what determines which intelligence methods are used.

cryptoz 12y ago

On NSA stories, the top HN comment is always "too bad. whatever. let the NSA do its thing." NO. This is not about you. This is not about your data. This is about our society's collective ability to think and act for itself. Blanket acceptance of surveillance is a dangerous attitude and shockingly common. Political efforts, technological efforts, societal changes are all required to keep democracy alive. And that's what's at stake here, not your personal files. Nobody cares if you can keep those safe - I want my democracy to be safe, please.

spot 12y ago
well if you love democracy so much you need to recognize that the majority is against you on this point.
- bhayden 12y ago
  Well as you're seeing with gay marriage bans being overturned, just because the majority want to strip the minority of their rights, they shouldn't be allowed to.
  - nickik 12y ago
    Then what you want is a republic or some system of anarchy, not a democracy.
    - xj9 12y ago
      The US is a republic.
      - nickik 12y ago
        I know that. It was a general point. In a pure democracy, 51% has complet power. Also while the US is a formal republic, it does often emulate a democracy. Based on common belives the constitution is reinterpreted, or simply ignored. This has been well documented by legal scholars such as Richard Epstein.

Centreal 12y ago

Creative and alternative ways of realizing empathy for emotional-intelligence state security issues are at will of our ability to trust network. That is more an issue of unflagging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trust_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trust_network than worrying about who is the alpha agent. We can count fine against secret traumatic wars if we each log action, community action (with secure, stable, distributed tools like http://www.matrix.org/alpha http://www.matrix.org/alpha and https://www.getaether.net https://www.getaether.net), and begin to self-determine our social systems and safety issues.

danenania 12y ago

People undoubtedly once felt the same about slavery, women's rights, child labor, the divine favor of kings. Don't be an apologist for immorality just because it's accepted as the status quo. We can do better.

mathetic 12y ago

>> The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. I can't disagree more. Just a few centuries ago slavery was not only ubiquitous but it was widely regarded as a god given right. Free man power was also a massive boost to economy but we abolished that just fine. Naysayers will be proven wrong.

dataker 12y ago

If you think in terms of technology, most issues affecting average US citizens come from a somewhat "undeveloped" technology. If they had a better ML architecture and more computing capabilities, "average Joes" would more likely not be harassed.

patcon 12y ago

I can't understand how you can ignore for your personal analysis that the majority of people /disapprove/ of the current surveillance practices[1]. People on this thread keep alluding to the majority not caring, but even if there's apathy in actions, I'm optimistic that at least most people viscerally know it's not right. [1]: http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/10/29/survey-says-77-of-americans-reject-nsa-mass-electronic-surveillance-of-americans/ http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/10/29/survey-says-77-of-a...

zby 12y ago

The problem is not that they can do it - the problem is attribution. The governments can do a lot of bad things, and it is not ethics that stop them.