3 ms·

I'm strongly opposed to sweeping surveillance, but not even a little bit torn on this story. I'm glad it's now public knowledge, but this is exactly the sort of

by iak8god 12y ago

I'm strongly opposed to sweeping surveillance, but not even a little bit torn on this story. I'm glad it's now public knowledge, but this is exactly the sort of thing our intelligence agencies should be doing. Edit to expand on "should be doing": at the very least, they ought to explore such vulnerabilities as a defensive measure since their counterparts in every other State are clearly doing the same thing whenever they have the capability.

bediger4000 12y ago
I really don't think that "Well, Russia's Doing It!" is a very good justification for clearly unethical, and probably illegal, actions. The reason for mass surveillance is control of the populace. Mass surveillance clearly doesn't prevent terrorism: most of this 4th-Amendment-violating dragnet surveillance was in place well before the Boston Bombing, and nobody caught the Tsarnaevs. So, I'm not a little torn, either: the CIA shouldn't be looking to crack iPhones, they should be looking to beef up iPhone security to keep those other nations from doing unethical stuff. Exploiting vulnerabilities for surveillance purposes is a bad thing all around. Close them holes!
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  > well before the Boston Bombing, and nobody caught the Tsarnaevs. They were on the radar but you really can't arrest someone until they do something.
  - leesalminen 12y ago
    That's not true in America anymore. The USG can detain anyone, for any period of time, for any reason without rights "because terrorism". https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa Edit:: link for more info
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Did you read your own link? That would not have applied to the Tsarnaevs.
      - leesalminen 12y ago
        Why would it not have applied to the Tsarnaevs? I did read that link, along with many other linked pages from the original link. See here: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs... And here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/ http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detent... There does seem to be a lot of debate on this topic regarding the wording of the bill and how it applies to US citizens. However, to me, the wording seems very vague and open to interpretation. Which was likely on purpose.
- iak8god 12y ago
  Do you think it is illegal or unethical for the CIA to just explore these capabilities, or to develop them and use them only in a targeted way, subject to appropriate oversight?
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    I'm not a Judge, I'm not even a lawyer (trained in the magical ways of USA law), but I doubt it's unethical for anyone to just explore the possible ways to subvert iOS or whatever. It might be illegal to explore those possibilities, if you're not one of the insiders (there's a difference in how David Petraeus was prosecuted, vs how Thomas Drake was prosecuted). Trying any particular method of subversion might end up unethical, or maybe even illegal, whether you're the CIA or Weev. I do not believe that the CIA, as it seems to exist today, is capable of doing that manner of subversion in a targeted way, they have gone rogue. I do not think that the CIA allows itself to be overseen. That part of the question is just not possible to answer.
    - iak8god 12y ago
      If I understand correctly, you believe that the entire CIA as it currently exists is unethical and illegal. That may be a defensible position but it's an obstacle to discussing any specific action: how could you then support any action by the CIA? If the CIA shouldn't do anything then of course they shouldn't do this.
      - bediger4000 12y ago
        you believe that the entire CIA as it currently exists is unethical and illegal. The CIA, as it appears now, does a huge number of unethical and apparently illegal things. It appears to be beyond oversight or control. I do find it really hard to support any action by them, just as I would find it hard to support FSB or MI6 actions. The CIA appears to be a threat to civil liberties and representative democracy in the US itself right now. But you're falling into a rhetorical trap: just because coffee is hot, you don't wait until the coffee is cold to drink it. You can judge relative degrees of hot, just as we can judge relative degrees of unethicality. It's pretty darn bad to assassinate US citizens without due process, and I'd say due process in public, whether the citizen is abroad or on homeland soil. It's pretty darn bad to torture anyone. It's less bad to attempt to crack iOS to spy on people, and it would be even less wrong to explore the exploitability of iOS. The latter may not be wrong at all. It's completely OK to analyze open source intelligence.

by iak8god 12y ago

bediger4000 12y ago

I really don't think that "Well, Russia's Doing It!" is a very good justification for clearly unethical, and probably illegal, actions. The reason for mass surveillance is control of the populace. Mass surveillance clearly doesn't prevent terrorism: most of this 4th-Amendment-violating dragnet surveillance was in place well before the Boston Bombing, and nobody caught the Tsarnaevs. So, I'm not a little torn, either: the CIA shouldn't be looking to crack iPhones, they should be looking to beef up iPhone security to keep those other nations from doing unethical stuff. Exploiting vulnerabilities for surveillance purposes is a bad thing all around. Close them holes!

happyscrappy 12y ago
> well before the Boston Bombing, and nobody caught the Tsarnaevs. They were on the radar but you really can't arrest someone until they do something.
- leesalminen 12y ago
  That's not true in America anymore. The USG can detain anyone, for any period of time, for any reason without rights "because terrorism". https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa Edit:: link for more info
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Did you read your own link? That would not have applied to the Tsarnaevs.
    - leesalminen 12y ago
      Why would it not have applied to the Tsarnaevs? I did read that link, along with many other linked pages from the original link. See here: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs... And here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/ http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detent... There does seem to be a lot of debate on this topic regarding the wording of the bill and how it applies to US citizens. However, to me, the wording seems very vague and open to interpretation. Which was likely on purpose.
iak8god 12y ago
Do you think it is illegal or unethical for the CIA to just explore these capabilities, or to develop them and use them only in a targeted way, subject to appropriate oversight?
- bediger4000 12y ago
  I'm not a Judge, I'm not even a lawyer (trained in the magical ways of USA law), but I doubt it's unethical for anyone to just explore the possible ways to subvert iOS or whatever. It might be illegal to explore those possibilities, if you're not one of the insiders (there's a difference in how David Petraeus was prosecuted, vs how Thomas Drake was prosecuted). Trying any particular method of subversion might end up unethical, or maybe even illegal, whether you're the CIA or Weev. I do not believe that the CIA, as it seems to exist today, is capable of doing that manner of subversion in a targeted way, they have gone rogue. I do not think that the CIA allows itself to be overseen. That part of the question is just not possible to answer.
  - iak8god 12y ago
    If I understand correctly, you believe that the entire CIA as it currently exists is unethical and illegal. That may be a defensible position but it's an obstacle to discussing any specific action: how could you then support any action by the CIA? If the CIA shouldn't do anything then of course they shouldn't do this.
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      you believe that the entire CIA as it currently exists is unethical and illegal. The CIA, as it appears now, does a huge number of unethical and apparently illegal things. It appears to be beyond oversight or control. I do find it really hard to support any action by them, just as I would find it hard to support FSB or MI6 actions. The CIA appears to be a threat to civil liberties and representative democracy in the US itself right now. But you're falling into a rhetorical trap: just because coffee is hot, you don't wait until the coffee is cold to drink it. You can judge relative degrees of hot, just as we can judge relative degrees of unethicality. It's pretty darn bad to assassinate US citizens without due process, and I'd say due process in public, whether the citizen is abroad or on homeland soil. It's pretty darn bad to torture anyone. It's less bad to attempt to crack iOS to spy on people, and it would be even less wrong to explore the exploitability of iOS. The latter may not be wrong at all. It's completely OK to analyze open source intelligence.