DescentBB

Ars Technica wrote:Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday, "I think what we're going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, this commercial encryption which is very difficult or nearly impossible for governments to break, and the producers of which don't produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages."

The use of encrypted communications by ISIS has prompted various former intelligence officials and media analysts to blame NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for tipping off terrorist organizations to intelligence agencies' surveillance capabilities and for their "going dark" with their communications. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said in multiple interviews that former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden "has blood on his hands," and the changes made by the Obama administration to surveillance as a result of the Snowden leaks and the changes that terrorists made in communicating with each other based on the leaks had led directly to the inability of the intelligence community in the US and in France to stop the Paris attacks from happening.

Link

Thoughts? Does Snowden have "blood on his hands?"

Should the government have the ability to read all communication? Are you willing to put up with terrorists having the ability to securely communicate if it means the government can't read your communications? I think that's a bit of a red herring since old school PGP can't be put back into the bottle, so something like mandated backdoors in commercial encryption will only effect those who don't seek out more secure methods.

What's lost in the quoted summary is that the changes the Obama administration made to domestic surveillance weren't a direct result of Snowden's whistleblowing efforts. They were a direct result of federal courts ruling that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

The rest of the quoted summary is unverifiable speculation from the same people who have already gone as far as to lie to the Senate under oath about what they were doing.

No encryption was necessary it appears. So effing simple too. Apparently these terrorists were texting each other in the PSN's party chat, or in various in-game texting, through their PlayStation 4's. Intelligence services weren't even looking at that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/v ... ion-4.html

It's easy to blame snowden for this sort of thing. He works as a good scapegoat.

Vander wrote:

Thoughts? Does Snowden have "blood on his hands?"

So during the Bush years when we were tracking terrorists via banking transaction and someone spilled the beans...did that person get accused of blood on their hands?

this illustrates why, although I've always been leery of a lot of the Patriot Act, I have always been reluctant to simply call for it to be rescinded. We, the average citizens, have NO CLUE what the experts are seeing and picking up, and if, as many have suggested, public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods.

callmeslick wrote:this illustrates why, although I've always been leery of a lot of the Patriot Act, I have always been reluctant to simply call for it to be rescinded. We, the average citizens, have NO CLUE what the experts are seeing and picking up

Calling them "experts" is rather generous of an honorific when they have yet to demonstrate any expertise. They may be as much experts at finding terrorist plans in emails as the TSA are at finding weapons in our luggage.

callmeslick wrote:and if, as many have suggested, public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods.

This is a question that has long been answered for us for hundreds of years now, and its answer is codified in our constitution in the form of the fourth amendment. The English used "general warrants," warrants allowing indiscriminate searches or seizures without giving probable cause or specificity of any subject. The fourth amendment was enacted to ensure that such warrants would be illegal in the United States. It's always been well known that if you cut a few corners when it comes to human rights then you can bring people to justice a little more efficiently, but we established long ago that the cost in liberty wasn't worth whatever small acquisition of security.

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:this illustrates why, although I've always been leery of a lot of the Patriot Act, I have always been reluctant to simply call for it to be rescinded. We, the average citizens, have NO CLUE what the experts are seeing and picking up

Calling them "experts" is rather generous of an honorific when they have yet to demonstrate any expertise. They may be as much experts at finding terrorist plans in emails as the TSA are at finding weapons in our luggage.

callmeslick wrote:and if, as many have suggested, public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods.

This is a question that has long been answered for us for hundreds of years now, and its answer is codified in our constitution in the form of the fourth amendment. The English used "general warrants," warrants allowing indiscriminate searches or seizures without giving probable cause or specificity of any subject. The fourth amendment was enacted to ensure that such warrants would be illegal in the United States. It's always been well known that if you cut a few corners when it comes to human rights then you can bring people to justice a little more efficiently, but we established long ago that the cost in liberty wasn't worth whatever small acquisition of security.

I have a couple questions:

1. How do you know how effective (or not) the NSA's efforts are? Consider that many of their successes are probably just as classified as their methods - how do you know that they aren't preventing terrorist attacks on a daily basis, when they can't tell you to remain effective?

2. Would you be okay with surveillance that was inadmissible in court? In the spectrum of "stakeout" (passive monitoring from a public location) to "search" (active intrusion into private property with a warrant) what the NSA is doing seems to me a lot more like the stakeout. I know there's a history relating to wiretaps... but I always perceived those as something planted within a private person's premises. Either way, why do we perceive someone "listening in" on our activities as an intrusion into our privacy? Do you expect your neighbour to stop their ears when they hear you arguing with your family members?

I do think the government should have some of these tools and abilities. My issue is oversight. I want people who have knowledge of the issues involved to have oversight in such a way that minimizes regulatory capture. I would think even some sort of jury duty type system, where ordinary citizens are drafted at random to provide some sort of oversight would be beneficial.

I want the software tools themselves to cease to function without proper authorization. These are very powerful tools, and I don't see why they shouldn't have very powerful protections. I don't know the best way to implement those protections, but it has to be more than simply developing the tools and using them secretly until they're exposed.

snoopy wrote:Either way, why do we perceive someone "listening in" on our activities as an intrusion into our privacy? Do you expect your neighbour to stop their ears when they hear you arguing with your family members?

If you're having a quiet conversation on a park bench and I get all up close so I can hear what you're talking about, you wouldn't find that an invasion of privacy? You wouldn't then take into consideration my presence before deciding what to say?

snoopy wrote:1. How do you know how effective (or not) the NSA's efforts are? Consider that many of their successes are probably just as classified as their methods - how do you know that they aren't preventing terrorist attacks on a daily basis, when they can't tell you to remain effective?

We actually have evidence that at least one of their programs is ineffective. Now that many of their programs are public knowledge, there isn't as much harm in talking about some of their historical successes in preventing attacks, and in fact there would be a large benefit to national security to do so because not defending such successes if they were to exist might lead to the programs being shut down. But I cannot be asked to prove a negative, and the burden of proof to demonstrate the efficacy of their program is on them. Moreover, I cannot be asked to trust them on blind faith when they have a demonstrated history of dishonesty.

snoopy wrote:2. Would you be okay with surveillance that was inadmissible in court?

There's no moral or legal difference.

snoopy wrote:In the spectrum of "stakeout" (passive monitoring from a public location) to "search" (active intrusion into private property with a warrant) what the NSA is doing seems to me a lot more like the stakeout. I know there's a history relating to wiretaps... but I always perceived those as something planted within a private person's premises. Either way, why do we perceive someone "listening in" on our activities as an intrusion into our privacy? Do you expect your neighbour to stop their ears when they hear you arguing with your family members?

When you're arguing loudly with a family member you have no expectation of privacy.

Vander wrote:I do think the government should have some of these tools and abilities. My issue is oversight. I want people who have knowledge of the issues involved to have oversight in such a way that minimizes regulatory capture. I would think even some sort of jury duty type system, where ordinary citizens are drafted at random to provide some sort of oversight would be beneficial.

I think that there's already such a regulatory system in place--it's getting a warrant!

Vander wrote:If you're having a quiet conversation on a park bench and I get all up close so I can hear what you're talking about, you wouldn't find that an invasion of privacy? You wouldn't then take into consideration my presence before deciding what to say?

This is an interesting example to bring up because it demonstrates how domestic surveillance not only violates the fourth amendment but also the first, insofar as surveillance creates a chilling effect on free speech.

Jeff250 wrote:I think that there's already such a regulatory system in place--it's getting a warrant!

And yet they were still able to implement and use the tools, and we had to rely on a whistleblower. Is a FISA warrant a rubber stamp? (I don't know) How can you use the court system to decide these things if secrecy nullifies standing? (I'm thinking of the Pacbell customer that sued the NSA over the collection at Pacbell in SF)

Anyways, I'm just spitballing ways I would be ok with bulk surveillance. Like allowing the capture of data, but strictly limiting access to the data might be ok with me. A db query would have to be digitally signed by a warrant otherwise access would be denied. I don't know if that would be better or worse than having companies as gatekeepers of the data, for which they are paid handsomely.

While I want the NSA out there doing what they can, I also accept that an open society has vulnerabilities that we must simply live with, lest we no longer be an open society.

Thanks for your contribution, Jeff250.

At times I have been almost indifferent about the scope of surveillance in the United States. I find myself agreeing with those who believe, as Slick nicely stated, "public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods." But perhaps I am making the "middle ground" fallacy? Maybe in my desire to be flexible I am setting myself to be easily pushed over?

I will have to think about this more. However, I also strongly advocate the "encrypt everything" philosophy. So maybe I'm not exactly sure what I think in this area?

Jeff250 wrote:When you're arguing loudly with a family member you have no expectation of privacy.

Why do we have an expectation of privacy in our internet activity? (At least our non-encrypted activity.) It's openly readable data passing through common-use pipes - how is it any different than yelling across the street to your neighbour?

Jeff250 wrote:I think that there's already such a regulatory system in place--it's getting a warrant!

But, how does law enforcement arrive to the point where it's time to get a warrant?

Vander wrote:If you're having a quiet conversation on a park bench and I get all up close so I can hear what you're talking about, you wouldn't find that an invasion of privacy? You wouldn't then take into consideration my presence before deciding what to say?

I don't think that's a good analogy - I'd say it's maybe more like you using a high power listening device to listen to my conversation discreetly from across the street, and the only reason I'm offended is because someone pointed out that you were listening in. If my communication passes through a public place, I don't expect privacy.

Jeff250 wrote:This is an interesting example to bring up because it demonstrates how domestic surveillance not only violates the fourth amendment but also the first, insofar as surveillance creates a chilling effect on free speech.

Why should it? If I trust the government not to go and get the warrant (intrusively investigate my activity) until I really am acting suspiciously, what do I have to hide? In a physical-wold analogy: does your dinner conversation change if a cop's sitting in the next booth over? Only if you're plotting a crime...

snoopy wrote:Why do we have an expectation of privacy in our internet activity? (At least our non-encrypted activity.) It's openly readable data passing through common-use pipes - how is it any different than yelling across the street to your neighbour?

The Internet doesn't work like yelling across the street to your neighbor. It's true that both your packets and mine might at some point go through the same pipe, but, unlike you overhearing my voice being shouted at someone across the street, you cannot read my packets and I cannot read yours even if they go through the same one. A better analogy would be you and I both putting envelopes into the same mailbox. Even though we both are using the same mailbox, neither you nor I can read each other's mail, and we would still have an expectation of privacy even if it's a common-use mailbox.

snoopy wrote:If I trust the government not to go and get the warrant (intrusively investigate my activity) until I really am acting suspiciously, what do I have to hide? In a physical-wold analogy: does your dinner conversation change if a cop's sitting in the next booth over? Only if you're plotting a crime...

People talk differently around cops for the same reason you talk differently at work when your boss enters the room. Your boss entering the room can have a chilling effect on conversation even if you weren't talking about anything inappropriate.

The chilling effect of domestic surveillance is additionally problematic because people no longer have the trust in the government that your premise assumes and because it is not clear what "acting suspiciously" actually consists of here, which causes people to over-censor themselves. Does googling "how to make a bomb" put me on a list? Does writing that phrase in this post put me on a list? Are you on a list for reading it?

snoopy wrote:Why do we have an expectation of privacy in our internet activity? (At least our non-encrypted activity.) It's openly readable data passing through common-use pipes - how is it any different than yelling across the street to your neighbour?

I generally agree in that I consider my WAN port public and act accordingly, but it's because of the lack of control of the data once it leaves my LAN rather than the data stream actually being public. Internet traffic isn't necessarily public. The expectation is that network providers will deliver my packets, not inspect and reconstruct the content. Since the ability to inspect packets is there, I protect some of my data with encryption. It also generally requires privileged access to do packet captures on internet traffic. I can't do captures on Gmail's SMTP traffic. You can't do captures of my internet traffic.

And I think all this is unknown/irrelevant to the average internet user, to which the internet is basically magic. I think they do have an expectation of privacy when they email someone, even if it is an incorrect assumption. (and this is probably why Apple would do something like encrypt by default)

I don't think that's a good analogy - I'd say it's maybe more like you using a high power listening device to listen to my conversation discreetly from across the street, and the only reason I'm offended is because someone pointed out that you were listening in.

It's only an invasion of privacy if you know about it?

does your dinner conversation change if a cop's sitting in the next booth over?

If it was a discussion about how much we hate cops...

Vander wrote:

I don't think that's a good analogy - I'd say it's maybe more like you using a high power listening device to listen to my conversation discreetly from across the street, and the only reason I'm offended is because someone pointed out that you were listening in.

It's only an invasion of privacy if you know about it?

It's only an offence when you know about it. My point is that when you're sitting in a public place talking, your conversation isn't private. We have a cultural expectation that those around us will act like they don't hear our conversation... but they do, it's just considered rude to act like you do.

In fact privacy is something other people afford (give) to you, and not something you can provide for yourself.

The entire issue impinges on the “expectation of privacy” if a person or people set up the proper conditions then everyone else is obligated to provide privacy.

Being in a public place does not automatically remove the expectation of privacy, as an example:

You set up camp on public land, the expectation of privacy is there in your campground, and especially in the tents.

Also in a public restroom…you would expect privacy there…right?

If I tell you I’m having a private conversation, even in a public place, I have the expectation of privacy, and you should respect that.

There is a difference between overhearing some loud speaking, and listening in, you may hear your neighbors arguing, but that doesn’t give you the right to put your ear to the wall.

snoopy wrote:It's only an offence when you know about it. My point is that when you're sitting in a public place talking, your conversation isn't private. We have a cultural expectation that those around us will act like they don't hear our conversation... but they do, it's just considered rude to act like you do.

Is a phone conversation private? Or is it taking place in public?

Vander wrote:Is a phone conversation private? Or is it taking place in public?

In the vein of what I'm arguing, the transmission of the phone conversation over public lines isn't private. I know that flies in the face of precedent, but it would be the consistent position.

Spidey wrote:Being in a public place does not automatically remove the expectation of privacy, as an example:

You set up camp on public land, the expectation of privacy is there in your campground, and especially in the tents.

Also in a public restroom…you would expect privacy there…right?

If I tell you I’m having a private conversation, even in a public place, I have the expectation of privacy, and you should respect that.

There is a difference between overhearing some loud speaking, and listening in, you may hear your neighbors arguing, but that doesn’t give you the right to put your ear to the wall.

But, in a camp don't you hear plenty from your neighbours? Do they expect you to not hear the noises coming out of their tent? At the restroom, aren't you aware when the guy next to you is peeing? If you tell me that you're having a private conversation in a public it's polite for me to respect that... but am I legally obligated to do so? Same thing with the neighbours: if I put my ear to the door [in a public hallway] it's rude... but is it illegal?

Now, take it to the level of public safety: If you hear your camp neighbours, and you hear something about building a bomb, doesn't that make you listen harder and consider getting involved? If you're in a restroom and you hear what sounds like a struggle, or someone getting hurt in the stall next door, don't you pay more attention and consider getting involved?

At the end of the day I think we'll just disagree - but I think we in the US have too high of a "privacy" expectation - we culturally go around ignoring each others activities, and tell ourselves that this concept of privacy should reign supreme, when in reality it's just a myth. What you do on your property is your business - but the moment that "it" leaves your property, it becomes public business at some level... whether "it" be sound, electronic signals, bullets, pollution, or whatever else.

As I said before, hearing someone fart is not the same thing as putting a mirror on the floor so you can see in the other stall.

Things that reach you such as sound and sight are not the same thing as eavesdropping.

snoopy wrote:At the end of the day I think we'll just disagree - but I think we in the US have too high of a "privacy" expectation - we culturally go around ignoring each others activities, and tell ourselves that this concept of privacy should reign supreme, when in reality it's just a myth. What you do on your property is your business - but the moment that "it" leaves your property, it becomes public business at some level... whether "it" be sound, electronic signals, bullets, pollution, or whatever else.

1) Using what other people can do as an intuition for what the government can do is misleading. The government has different rights than we do, in many ways more, in many ways fewer. For instance, just because my neighbor can financially support a religion doesn't mean the government can. So showing that my neighbor can legally do something is inadequate for showing that the government can do it.

2) If my neighbor were to perform the surveillance on me that we now know the NSA is performing, he actually would be breaking the law in numerous ways anyways. He would be charged with violating the Wiretap Act among others.

3) Your argument, at best, would seem to only demonstrate how my email could become Comcast's business once it leaves my home and enters Comcast's network. It doesn't seem to have any way of showing how it could become the government's business once I hand it over to Comcast's network.

You want privacy? First thing to do is disconnect from the internet. Second thing is get rid of your cell phone. Write letters to communicate or actually go visit people you want to talk to. That's the way we used to do it.

woodchip wrote:You want privacy? First thing to do is disconnect from the internet. Second thing is get rid of your cell phone. Write letters to communicate or actually go visit people you want to talk to. That's the way we used to do it.

Isn't that just giving up?

Write letters

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/mo ... -mail.html

I read my Verizon privacy statement the other day, and all I have to say is they could have condensed it to ….we own your ass.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:You want privacy? First thing to do is disconnect from the internet. Second thing is get rid of your cell phone. Write letters to communicate or actually go visit people you want to talk to. That's the way we used to do it.

Isn't that just giving up?

As a famous marine general said in Korea, " We're not retreating, just attacking in another direction"

Write letters

Jeff250 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/mo ... -mail.html

They can track the outside information but need a warrant to actually read the mail.

woodchip wrote:They can track the outside information but need a warrant to actually read the mail.

It would be trivial to read the insides without opening the envelope and they almost certainly do that already.

Jeff250 wrote:1) Using what other people can do as an intuition for what the government can do is misleading. The government has different rights than we do, in many ways more, in many ways fewer. For instance, just because my neighbor can financially support a religion doesn't mean the government can. So showing that my neighbor can legally do something is inadequate for showing that the government can do it.

2) If my neighbor were to perform the surveillance on me that we now know the NSA is performing, he actually would be breaking the law in numerous ways anyways. He would be charged with violating the Wiretap Act among others.

3) Your argument, at best, would seem to only demonstrate how my email could become Comcast's business once it leaves my home and enters Comcast's network. It doesn't seem to have any way of showing how it could become the government's business once I hand it over to Comcast's network.

Be aware that I'm not particularly arguing that what the NSA is doing is or isn't illegal... I'm arguing that I think it's silly to be incensed over it as if it really where significantly changing our level of "privacy" in this world. Consider that you probably give away just as much of your privacy to Google and the likes. To 1) ...but am I wrong to draw parallels in this case? 2) Indeed - and I'm not convinced about the wiretap act. 3) I'm running on the assumption that somewhere in the tangled path from your computer to its destination, it crosses a server that's the government's (or at least acting as a listening proxy for the government.)

Jeff250 wrote:People talk differently around cops for the same reason you talk differently at work when your boss enters the room. Your boss entering the room can have a chilling effect on conversation even if you weren't talking about anything inappropriate.

The chilling effect of domestic surveillance is additionally problematic because people no longer have the trust in the government that your premise assumes and because it is not clear what "acting suspiciously" actually consists of here, which causes people to over-censor themselves. Does googling "how to make a bomb" put me on a list? Does writing that phrase in this post put me on a list? Are you on a list for reading it?

You opened the topic of chilling effect on speech as an argument for why this surveillance constitutes a violation of the first amendment. Now, you give more examples of a chilling effect on speech (expanding chilling effect to generally mean thinking before you communicate when an authority is around) - is your argument that all actions that have a chilling effect on speech (all of our examples included) are a violation of the first amendment? By adding in the "we don't trust the agent (government) and don't have a rigorous definition of suspicious action" are you trying to add in a qualifier that defines survalence that violates the first amendment? I'm confused, please explain to me exactly what sort of surveillance constitutes a violation of one's right to free speech.

snoopy wrote:Consider that you probably give away just as much of your privacy to Google and the likes.

Google has a privacy policy telling me what information of mine they collect and how they use it, allowing me to make an informed decision as to what information I choose to give them. If they mishandle my information, I can bring suit against them, and a whistleblower could reveal this to me without committing espionage. Conversely, the NSA has no privacy policy, they involuntarily collect my information against my will, and the abusers of my information are protected by espionage laws used to stifle whistleblowers and protect government misconduct.

snoopy wrote:I'm running on the assumption that somewhere in the tangled path from your computer to its destination, it crosses a server that's the government's (or at least acting as a listening proxy for the government.)

What servers are you referring to?

snoopy wrote:You opened the topic of chilling effect on speech as an argument for why this surveillance constitutes a violation of the first amendment. Now, you give more examples of a chilling effect on speech (expanding chilling effect to generally mean thinking before you communicate when an authority is around)

Chilling effects are empirically observable effects on speech. For instance, when your boss enters the room, you can observe the conversation change. We can observe chilling effects on the Internet too via (e.g.) Google Trends or Wikipedia page view statistics and how they change (e.g., before and after the Snowden revelations).

snoopy wrote:is your argument that all actions that have a chilling effect on speech (all of our examples included) are a violation of the first amendment?

No, the Bill of Rights are protections against the government. Unless I have somehow violated a law, you have no first amendment protection against any chilling effects I might have on your speech.

snoopy wrote:By adding in the "we don't trust the agent (government) and don't have a rigorous definition of suspicious action" are you trying to add in a qualifier that defines survalence that violates the first amendment?

No, these are factors that make the chilling effect even worse.

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Consider that you probably give away just as much of your privacy to Google and the likes.

Google has a privacy policy telling me what information of mine they collect and how they use it, allowing me to make an informed decision as to what information I choose to give them. If they mishandle my information, I can bring suit against them, and a whistleblower could reveal this to me without committing espionage. Conversely, the NSA has no privacy policy, they involuntarily collect my information against my will, and the abusers of my information are protected by espionage laws used to stifle whistleblowers and protect government misconduct.

Okay, I'll give you most of that. How would (do) material abuses play out, and how would those actions be protected against judicial action? (By material abuses, I mean instances that cause you a quantifiable harm.)

Jeff250 wrote:What servers are you referring to?

I assume that data collection requires some sort of servers... no?

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:is your argument that all actions that have a chilling effect on speech (all of our examples included) are a violation of the first amendment?

No, the Bill of Rights are protections against the government. Unless I have somehow violated a law, you have no first amendment protection against any chilling effects I might have on your speech.

Okay... back to the uniformed police in the adjacent booth - I think you've said that does yield a chilling effect, and it would be caused by a government agent - does that represent a violation of the first amendment?

I'll take silence as having proven my point.

Here's my bigger take on this: I think we created a new "wild wild west" in the internet - a place where the law had minimal reach... I draw this conclusion by watching warez servers, then Napster, then Bit torrent, then tor and the "dark net" rise - people are using the internet to break the law basically with imputiy. All of these services have their legal merits... But then I see snarky comments like "if you're not using torrents to pirate, you're doing doing it wrong" and it makes me think of the mafia's shell companies... There to give a veneer of validity to something that is primarily used to (and, if we're honest, invented to) break the law. Now, revelations come out that our secret lawlessness isn't quite so secret, and it scares us, because the techier we are, the more likely it is that we used all that tech to steal.

I don't like things like my security being compromised by back doors (and thus open to hackers/id thieves) because the NSA asked for them... But I do appreciate the need to keep law and order... Even on the internet.

Like I said previously, I want the NSA to have some of these tools. My problems are oversight and a more general lack of understanding I see in users. It's a bit like being sold drug without the disclosure of side effects. Now we're hooked on the drug, but only just finding out about the side effects. The convenience of the internet is undeniable, but I think the power accrued in the aggregation of vast amounts of data is poorly understood. And that power can be very dangerous with a little imagination and nefarious intent.

snoopy wrote:. Now, revelations come out that our secret lawlessness isn't quite so secret, and it scares us, because the techier we are, the more likely it is that we used all that tech to steal.

What scares me is that the metadata of all my email and phone calls are being aggregated by my government for whatever purpose they may come up with, not that I pirate Downton Abbey from the UK to send to my parents so they can watch it a few months early. I don't live my life with the expectation that my government won't overreach, or that the growth of power the vast aggregation of data provides for won't corrupt.

Dissent or agitation against the government can be considered patriotic. But it can also be considered dangerous by way of perspective. I want oversight of this growing power from multiple perspectives, not a small group of like minded people.

What if Joe McCarthy had the ability to cherry pick from such a vast swath of data?

Vander wrote:And that power can be very dangerous with a little imagination and nefarious intent.

snoopy wrote:. Now, revelations come out that our secret lawlessness isn't quite so secret, and it scares us, because the techier we are, the more likely it is that we used all that tech to steal.

What scares me is that the metadata of all my email and phone calls are being aggregated by my government for whatever purpose they may come up with, not that I pirate Downton Abbey from the UK to send to my parents so they can watch it a few months early. I don't live my life with the expectation that my government won't overreach, or that the growth of power the vast aggregation of data provides for won't corrupt.

Is -- and has proven to be -- very dangerous. See: doxxing; swatting.

snoopy wrote:Okay, I'll give you most of that. How would (do) material abuses play out, and how would those actions be protected against judicial action? (By material abuses, I mean instances that cause you a quantifiable harm.)

NSA employees are, for instance, known to spy on former, current, and fantastical lovers. But when even the existence of the programs that the agents are abusing are classified, they are protected against whistleblowing by federal laws such as the Espionage Act that make it illegal to divulge classified information. (These laws have no exceptions for if the revelation is of government abuse, an unconstitutional program, etc.)

snoopy wrote:I assume that data collection requires some sort of servers... no?

You're confusing the tap with the wire. I'm asking you if the information flows through government wires, and all you've stated is that it flows through government taps.

snoopy wrote:Okay... back to the uniformed police in the adjacent booth - I think you've said that does yield a chilling effect, and it would be caused by a government agent - does that represent a violation of the first amendment?

It would depend greatly on context. For instance, if he were off duty and we just happened to be seated next to each other, then no. However, if he were on duty and intentionally sat next to me every day because he knew I came there to discuss my views on a controversial topic, then yes.

snoopy wrote:Here's my bigger take on this: I think we created a new "wild wild west" in the internet - a place where the law had minimal reach... I draw this conclusion by watching warez servers, then Napster, then Bit torrent, then tor and the "dark net" rise - people are using the internet to break the law basically with imputiy. All of these services have their legal merits... But then I see snarky comments like "if you're not using torrents to pirate, you're doing doing it wrong" and it makes me think of the mafia's shell companies... There to give a veneer of validity to something that is primarily used to (and, if we're honest, invented to) break the law. Now, revelations come out that our secret lawlessness isn't quite so secret, and it scares us, because the techier we are, the more likely it is that we used all that tech to steal.

I don't understand this angle at all. Out of everything that Snowden revealed, none of it had to do with the NSA using their capabilities to track down copyright violators, nor did the NSA ever use this as a justification for their capabilities. In any case, accusing people who support Internet privacy of having some secret motivation like protecting their copyright violations is pretty shameful of you.

The Internet isn't so radically different from technologies that came before it that it requires abandoning all established precedence for privacy. And in fact, for most kinds of communication, it is surprisingly similar. Making a Skype call isn't unlike making a phone call. In both cases, my voice goes from my phone to a telecommunications network such as AT&T, is relayed at different switches/routers/hubs, possibly even switching between networks, before going out the phone of the person I'm talking to. And perhaps more importantly, in each case, people have the same expectations of privacy concerning the call. Our current laws are more than up to the task.

P.S. it's not as though there aren't also analogs for your example of neighbors shouting at each other across the street on the Internet. For instance, that's what we're doing right now. It's just not representative *every* kind of communication on the Internet, particularly the ones where we have an expectation of privacy and where the technology would otherwise provide it.

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Okay... back to the uniformed police in the adjacent booth - I think you've said that does yield a chilling effect, and it would be caused by a government agent - does that represent a violation of the first amendment?

It would depend greatly on context. For instance, if he were off duty and we just happened to be seated next to each other, then no. However, if he were on duty and intentionally sat next to me every day because he knew I came there to discuss my views on a controversial topic, then yes.

I disagree. Even if they are staking you out, if it's a public place, I don't think it's a violation of the first amendment. Either way, chilling effects that constitute a violation of the first amendment are now getting very qualified. I see the first amendment being about blocking laws that stifle speech... not about situations where you voluntarily censor your speech. It seems to be that there are plenty of situations where we even make a point to allow people to refrain from self-incriminating by holding their speech. (the Miranda rights, the Fifth amendment) It just doesn't pass the smell test for me...

Jeff250 wrote:You're confusing the tap with the wire. I'm asking you if the information flows through government wires, and all you've stated is that it flows through government taps.

If I do a tracert to www.google.com, it tells me about a bunch of servers through which the signal hops... suppose one of those servers is operated by the government (or, operated by some communications company that's contracted by the government to record everything that goes through it) - is that a tap or a wire? I don't know exactly... but I do know that that server has access to my data on its way to google.

snoopy wrote:Either way, chilling effects that constitute a violation of the first amendment are now getting very qualified. I see the first amendment being about blocking laws that stifle speech... not about situations where you voluntarily censor your speech.

I'm sorry that you don't think chilling effects can be First Amendment violations, and I would like to convince you otherwise, but first I would like to have you acknowledge that your opinion is in stark contrast to the one belonging to the Supreme Court, who has ruled for over 50 years that chilling effects can and do constitute violations of the First Amendment. See (e.g.) Shelton v. Tucker (1960) or NAACP v. Alabama (1958).

snoopy wrote:If I do a tracert to http://www.google.com, it tells me about a bunch of servers through which the signal hops... suppose one of those servers is operated by the government

You should do the traceroute. You won't find any government routers in it. You will find different privately owned networks (at least in the USA).

snoopy wrote:(or, operated by some communications company that's contracted by the government to record everything that goes through it) - is that a tap or a wire? I don't know exactly... but I do know that that server has access to my data on its way to google.

If the telecommunications company does it voluntarily, then you're right that there's no Fourth Amendment violation. However, since the Snowden revelations, at least one company (AT&T) has revealed that their cooperation with the NSA was involuntary. That makes it a tap.

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Either way, chilling effects that constitute a violation of the first amendment are now getting very qualified. I see the first amendment being about blocking laws that stifle speech... not about situations where you voluntarily censor your speech.

I'm sorry that you don't think chilling effects can be First Amendment violations, and I would like to convince you otherwise, but first I would like to have you acknowledge that your opinion is in stark contrast to the one belonging to the Supreme Court, who has ruled for over 50 years that chilling effects can and do constitute violations of the First Amendment. See (e.g.) Shelton v. Tucker (1960) or NAACP v. Alabama (1958).

Quick skim on both cases: they both seem to be cases where the states attempted to (essentially) subpoena information from the people... It doesn't read to me like the issue was the government's desire for the information, or the person's desire to withhold it... the problem was the government's action to try to compel the people to give the information in a targeted way. That's why both decisions are based in due process (the fourteenth amendment or the fifth)... not freedom of speech. Again, I'm operating on the axiom of information freely given by individuals in a public setting, and a government agent passively collecting the information without taking action to compel the giving of said information. Have any more examples?

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:If I do a tracert to http://www.google.com, it tells me about a bunch of servers through which the signal hops... suppose one of those servers is operated by the government

You should do the traceroute. You won't find any government routers in it. You will find different privately owned networks (at least in the USA).

Hence why I qualified: (Also, how do you really know? Based on some database information about the servers, or how they self-report?)

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:(or, operated by some communications company that's contracted by the government to record everything that goes through it) - is that a tap or a wire? I don't know exactly... but I do know that that server has access to my data on its way to google.

If the telecommunications company does it voluntarily, then you're right that there's no Fourth Amendment violation. However, since the Snowden revelations, at least one company (AT&T) has revealed that their cooperation with the NSA was involuntary. That makes it a tap.

I'm not happy about the abuses either... I just think it's not quite so clear cut as "everything I do on the internet is my private business." Maybe back to the OP... the bottom line is if you want privacy (from the government, the guy giving you free wifi, or the privately owned networks that are carrying my data) you need to use encryption... which is why I'm absolutely against the idea of making encryption illegal, which some countries have tried.

snoopy wrote:Quick skim on both cases: they both seem to be cases where the states attempted to (essentially) subpoena information from the people... It doesn't read to me like the issue was the government's desire for the information, or the person's desire to withhold it... the problem was the government's action to try to compel the people to give the information in a targeted way. That's why both decisions are based in due process (the fourteenth amendment or the fifth)... not freedom of speech.

I don't see any reference to the fifth amendment in these decisions. The reason why the fourteenth amendment is invoked instead of the first is because the suits are against state governments, not the federal government. The first amendment does not restrict state governments directly except through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

If you read the decisions, you'll see that the governments' actions in each case weren't found to be unconstitutional for the reason that you describe. For instance, in Shelton v. Tucker, the court found no problem with the state compelling teachers to be required to answer questions about their qualifications per se. However, they found that "[t]o compel a teacher to disclose his every associational tie is to impair his right of free association, a right closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society." Moreover, as further justification, they recite,

By limiting the power of the States to interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry and freedom of association, the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons, no matter what their calling. But, in view of the nature of the teacher's relation to the effective exercise of the rights which are safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and by the Fourteenth Amendment, inhibition of freedom of thought, and of action upon thought, in the case of teachers brings the safeguards of those amendments vividly into operation. Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers . . . has an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers.

In other words, these requirements were unconstitutional because of the chilling effect they would have on the teachers' right to free speech, right to free association, and other first amendment rights.

snoopy wrote:Again, I'm operating on the axiom of information freely given by individuals in a public setting, and a government agent passively collecting the information without taking action to compel the giving of said information.

You can state that you're operating under that axiom, but that's just not how wires work. A wire is owned by someone, and it is designed such that only the sender and the receiver have access to the information being sent across it. If the information were really public, then why are you tapping someone else's wire to get it?

snoopy wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:You should do the traceroute. You won't find any government routers in it. You will find different privately owned networks (at least in the USA).

Hence why I qualified: (Also, how do you really know? Based on some database information about the servers, or how they self-report?)

If your contention is that telecommunications companies are voluntarily talking to government servers, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. However, all of the evidence thus far is that the extent to which they cooperated with the NSA was involuntary.

I just hastily replied to request from the White House regarding a petition I signed. They were looking for additional comments and I sent them this without thinking or checking my spelling and grammar. I hope it is coherent, haha. I really should have spent more time on this, but who has time these days?

When speaking of what makes a strong nation there are many elements; social policy, management of natural resources, industry and commerce, the list goes on. However, the greatest strength comes from trust in the legal contract between citizens and the government they create. Trust is the binding agent that brings unity and allows the population to be greater than the sum of it's parts. Strong encryption is essential to maintaining that trust in Era of Dig Data. Citizens need the freedom to discuss ideas, all ideas, even those that challenge established traditions, without fear of repercussion. Strong encryption compliments our constitutional right to do these things. I can imagine no scenario where compromising that trust is the best solution.

The problem as I see it is the fact that you have to sign away your rights when you hire an ISP, UPS has the right to inspect a package they deliver…but they don’t have the right to KEEP it, or deliver to someone else. (or make copies of it)

This all goes back to what I have been saying for years…that being…the complete absence of consumer information.

Example: when two companies do business, they are both usually involved in the contract negotiations, and the final contract must be accepted by both parties, but the consumer has virtually no ability to amend the contracts they enter into, mostly because a business can simply refuse to serve you rather than negotiate a contract, and not because you don’t actually have that right. (certain businesses such as utilities do not have the right to refuse to provide services, but those contracts are all standard as required by law)

All parties should know their rights when entering into any contract. Once a company has 8 million customers signed up using a standard contract, there is very little incentive to make changes for little ole you.