Government Spying

[Mr. White]

!?!?

[YimYodd]

     JIM JAMES  FOR PRESIDENT!!!  :happy:

[Jaimoe]

I don't find any of this news shocking. I've always assumed that the government on both sides of the border are watching in an Orwellian Big Brother sort of way. Canada recently eliminated analog television signals, so we the citizens can no longer watch (non-HD) channels with rabbit-ears. It's a way of monitoring and control, although the government hasn't fessed up to this.

[Ruckus]

I fall in line with Jaimoe on this one.  Call it apathy paired with tacit understanding that personal privacy inversely relates to technological advancement.  I'm quite OK that Google knows more about me than my wife and that Verizon knows where I am at all times.  I'll applaud the rights groups that fight on behalf of preserving privacy but I long ago accepted Big Brother.  As long as transactions and communications don't altogether become the same thing, I'm cool.  Going off the grid is always an option as well.

[LeanneP]

I realise this is a slippery slope kind of thing, but with regards to wireless signals, it's not as if they can listen in to any conversation they wish to in a random kind of way. They are not archiving every conversation you have. And even with electronic communication, they are not reading in on your boring conversations about how you hate your boss, have to pick up pizza on the way home, have a dentist appointment next Thursday, etc. 

They have algorithms that look for particular information patterns.  Much like uttering the term "bomb" in an airport, they are looking for these patterns that could indicate whether you might warrant further investigation.

I think of this kind of "surveillance" as the "old lady at the window" type of surveillance.   You know, every time the nosy old lady hears a car she checks the window and then after a few weeks she's complaining about how that weird guy in the house across the street leaves the house at night for a couple hours and then comes back - what is he doing?  Maybe he's having an affair! 

It's my understanding that if the algorithms turn up a potential candidate for further investigation, they'd have to have a warrant to examine the actual content of the email. In Canada that's probably harder to do than the US, but it's not like their is a guy in a dark room somewhere who just sort of chooses random gmail accounts to snoop around in.

Again, this is a slippery slope issue - as described above I don't have a lot of problems with this. Also, I don't do anything I'm ever worried about being caught communicating about, so I don't have any worries that my email or cell phone records would ever warrant an investigation. I do acknowledge that there are those who would abuse this kind of power, but I, possibly naively, feel that there is enough red tape in any government related anything that this kind of abuse is largely kept in check. 

[Tracy 2112]

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I may never vote again

[Mr. White]

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I may never vote again

"We won't get fooled again!"

I may go back to voting for Rick Pitino as a write-in like I did in 1996, or as Yim Yodd suggested...Jim James for President!!!

[YimYodd]

I may go back to voting for Rick Pitino as a write-in like I did in 1996, or as Yim Yodd suggested...Jim James for President!!!

The momentum begins to grow!
Sounds like a winning ticket, at least in Lville.   

Lots of good points from all posts so far.

"I think we're going to look back on the Internet in 50 to 100 years as a big mistake," said My Morning Jacket frontman Jim James at a SXSW Music Q&A with MTV Networks' Bill Flanagan. "It's like this horrible drug that we're all super addicted to."

James... pulled no punches when it came to the follies and distractions of some of the technology that is pervasive in society today. "It's definitely a good tool for spreading information, but at the same time it's helped and hurt," he continued. "It's blown into this giant world with so much information....."

[Fully]

It does bother me even though I've known that the data exists, I feel like it's a huge invasion of privacy and our govt is infringing on our civil liberties. It doesn't shock me that this is happening. Ever since the Patriot Act was passed, the govt has given themselves the right to gather this information. We were sheep for not speaking up then and if we tolerate this and accept it, we can only blame ourselves for tolerating it.

[Tracy 2112]

"I think we're going to look back on the Internet in 50 to 100 years as a big mistake," said My Morning Jacket frontman Jim James at a SXSW Music Q&A with MTV Networks' Bill Flanagan. "It's like this horrible drug that we're all super addicted to."

James... pulled no punches when it came to the follies and distractions of some of the technology that is pervasive in society today. "It's definitely a good tool for spreading information, but at the same time it's helped and hurt," he continued. "It's blown into this giant world with so much information....."

UUummmmmm, what? 

[ewiser]

Would you want to not save lives. That is the question. This has been going on forever.
The general public is not and most would not want to know all the efforts that go into keeping nuts from blowing up and killing people on a daily basis. If you knew what the presidents know your hair would turn grey and age you to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[SaraBananaBear]

Not all that surprised that it's happening/has been happening, but at the lack of outrage once it's a confirmed fact. The way to fight criminals/terrorism/bad guys/whatever can't be to take away freedom and human rights without reservation. I mean, it's literally an article of the universal declaration of human rights;

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his(/hers) privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his(/hers) honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

All of us might not have something criminal to hide (if anyone asks, I did not "steal" that meatball recipe, I simply borrowed it for a little while and intend to return it), but I'm pretty sure we all have things we'd rather not be known. And regardless, it's not really about what kind of information it is, it's your information and it should not be collected without clear limitations/restrictions. Governments and politicians can be and should be held accountable for things like this. Technology, just like everything else, can be limited. We just have to make it so.

Or in short; not a fan of this.

[Fully]

Absolutely, Sara. Ewiser raised the question of what's the greater good. Are we willing to give up our privacy completely in order to keep people from being killed? I think perhaps the question might also be raised: are we willing to give governments the right to know all our personal information or are we willing to fight to the death for it? I see privacy as one of our basic human liberties. Apparently so does Edward Snowdon who has just come forward as the whistleblower. Just like Bradley Manning the government will come after him, although he may have gone to the safest place possible -Hong Kong.

How far does the government have to go before they go too far? With no restrictions and no transparency, they can go as far as they wish. Orwell's 1984 has been here since the dawn of the signing of The Patriot Act. (I always loved how Bush and Co bastardized that word) I don't want to live in an Orwellian society. I applaud Snowdon and Manning for having the courage to stand up and sacrifice themselves for our liberty. They are true patriots. This makes me think of the the words Patrick Henry used when convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to send troops to support the Revolutionary War: "Give me liberty or give me death." Some things are worth fighting for.

[LeanneP]

Ultimately, I think it's an incredibly ineffective strategy of information gathering.  I'm pretty certain, in order to gain positive PR for supporting Patriot Act privacy intrusions, the government would be letting us know about all the bombings/shootings/terrorist activities thwarted by such info gathering and yet we've never heard the first word about how this kind of institutionalized snooping has allowed any law enforcement agency anywhere to head off tragedies. 

It's entirely possible the info gathering is done for an entirely different reason and "terror prevention" is just the label its given because your average American will smoke that dope happily.

[manonthemoon]

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I may never vote again

That's prett much been the case for years now, there really isn't any difference in the two parties which is why two party systems never work, ie douche or turd sandwich debate.  They both serve themselves and try and promote a stronger gov't overall, nothing about the people.

[parkervb]

Ultimately, I think it's an incredibly ineffective strategy of information gathering.  I'm pretty certain, in order to gain positive PR for supporting Patriot Act privacy intrusions, the government would be letting us know about all the bombings/shootings/terrorist activities thwarted by such info gathering and yet we've never heard the first word about how this kind of institutionalized snooping has allowed any law enforcement agency anywhere to head off tragedies. 

It's entirely possible the info gathering is done for an entirely different reason and "terror prevention" is just the label its given because your average American will smoke that dope happily.

here ya go: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/prism-najibullah-zazi-subway-nsa.html

[parkervb]

I also gained some insight into this issue with some of the posts and subsequent comments from David Simon's blog.

http://davidsimon.com/

The posts dated the 7th and 8th in particular. 

[el_chode]

I am going to chime in here as soon as I figure out how to take off my employee hat and put on my chode hat.


Edit: ok chode hat is on. I'll be somewhat artful and self promoting but I think the gist should come through.


I have a paper that is supposed to be published any minute. In fact, I need to contact th else journal and find out what's up. Anyway, it's about digital surveillance, both short an Delong term, and what we can expect from the law on privacy. Basically, the law should work to protect it and not eviscerate it. Specifically, the government should need a warrant (or more, e.g. A wiretap) when seeking anything that can be considered a content communication or that is prospective in nature. Until now, that's been the case.


Here are the tiers of govt requirements:


- Public info has no threshold and is fair game. That is stuff you've knowingly exposed to the public. A standard tweet, if you will. Or maybe tax records.
- a Subpoena will get you non-content communications. Cell tower data, header info, IP address registrants - everything that the govt has here. "But chode!", you say, "the govt got approval from a FISA court!" And "hogwash", I tell you! Subpoenas are not prospective. THAT IS A WIRETAP, REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATION. Subpoenas require some reasonable belief the information sought is evidence of or pertaining to a felony/indictable offense. See below.
- A warrant will get you access to communications/content. For all intents and purposes, lets take that to mean, "recorded thoughts". RECORDED. THOUGHTS. Break it down in reverse: we should be free from govt interference in our thoughts, no matter how devious, perverted, or despicable. However, recorded thoughts are not criminal, but may evidence a crime. A warrant is a constitutional mandate, and must be specific and based on probable cause.
- A wiretap gets you access to unrecorded communications because THEY HAVE NOT HAPPENED YET. You cannot use a warrant because you cannot be specific with what you are looking for because what you are looking for does not yet exist. This is dangerous, so we up the ante. They must be extremely limited in duration, they must meet heightened judicial scrutiny, AND they are only available for certain specific heinous offenses. We've all seen the Wire.


The issue here is that the government has a rubber stamp in the FISA court which does not deny anything, throwing judicial oversight into serious doubt. The orders are prospective, going into July. Thats wiretap territory for a crime we cannot specify. The net cast is large, with the claim we can better ferret out the terrorists this way because we see who is calling terrorists. But to know who is calling a terrorist requires some prior knowledge the number belongs to a terrorist. That's how you target the number. So we aren't learning anything because the predicate for the search is the knowledge we seek to learn. That just wrinkles the brain. So it's just surveillance; broad, non-specific, not based on anything surveillance. That is illegal, immoral, and North Korean.


Ok maybe not Best Korean. But still.


Back to my paper. There is a concept known as the Mosaic theory. This says that many small, non-intrusive tidbits of data can add up to a very personal detailed portrait. Is the stuff we know Target uses to figure out if you're pregnant. It was used in Watergate to disparate leaks and reporters. It was also vehemently objected to BY THE CIA in a case called CIA v SIMS if I remember correctly, saying it'd basically out their spies if disclosed. It was punted by the Supreme Court in their Jones decision last year, with Sotomayor saying it should require a warrant in her separate opinion. It's what is going on here as well. Innocuous bits of info add up to a lot.


The gray areas here are browser history, search terms, and other things that aren't raw numbers but very specific insights into our thoughts. There's a reason google can predict flu outbreaks. I think that info is sacred and it is a violation. So did Robert Bork when he was Borked back in the 80s over his porn habits. And such it became illegal to get ones video rentals. So should be library rentals, search terms, and browser history (except with a warrant).


But most troubling is the false security we believe we have. PRISM didn't stop Boston. It won't stop anything. But it will make us second guess our thoughts. And that is what is scary.


chode out [throws mic]