Worth Reading: Trevor Pott's editorial on NSA PRISM and its real ramifications

[Stoic Joker]

Slippery slope or not it still needs to be discussed while we're still legally allowed to do so. The technology we've come to depend on is being used politically to achieve a shot-less Coup as the US descends rapidly into a police state. And I think we owe it to each other as a community to have/achieve an understanding of how badly it is/has pervaded the lives of everyone on the web.

[mouser]

The thread is getting to the point where a move to the basement makes sense..  It does touch on issues of electronic privacy which is fair game for the Living Room, but as it comes to focus more on politics it belongs more and more to a basement thread.

As wraith says, that's not a punishment it's just a recognition that it's better categorized as a political-discussion thread than a technological thread.

[40hz]

Maybe instead of The Basement, we need a new section called "Head in the Sand" for isolating serious political topics that might disturb some people - and probably *should* disturb them?

[wraith808]

Maybe instead of The Basement, we need a new section called "Head in the Sand" for isolating serious political topics that might disturb some people - and probably *should* disturb them?

-40hz (June 12, 2013, 01:14 PM)

You're being tongue-in-cheek, but I actually like that.  It seems that there are two types of conversations that get taken to the basement.

1) Those that are heated and in the areas of politics/religion and are definitely off-topic.
2) Those that are on-topic... but are about touchy things that do turn people off that come here.

Those first type I try to stay away from (which was one of the reasons I ignored the basement for so long).  But I do enjoy the discourse of the second type.

[40hz]

^ Thx for understanding where I'm coming from and taking it in the spirit intended   

That's also the reason why I don't cruise the basement, let alone post anything there.

[Stoic Joker]

Werkz for me, as thanks to the idiots at the NSA the technology/politics line is now quite blurry. I actually sent zridlings earlier post to the company brass in an email as a heads up on what sort of reaction (pushback) to expect out of me regarding cloud solutions going forward.

Private Cloud solutions on our hardware? You betcha! 

Public Cloud solutions on public servers that are subject to nosey eyeballs? Well todays answer is brought to you by the letters F and O...

[Tinman57]

  Here's some more reading that's pretty scary....

STEPANOVICH: Can you hear me now?
The surveillance state must be reined in

The Constitution assures us that the government will not intrude on our
lives without probable cause. The NSA's collection of telephone metadata is
unprecedented, illegal and very likely unconstitutional. There is simply no
way the government could have demonstrated the requisite grounds to
establish that each of the millions, perhaps billions, of telephone records
of U.S. citizens were relevant to an ongoing investigation.

http://www.washingto...ar-me-now-361885657/

The Corporate Roots of the NSA Spying Controversy
By Robert Schlesinger

I wonder, though, whether this debate is too narrowly drawn: Is the nub of
the problem too much government surveillance or too much surveillance,
period? After all, the government wouldn't be able to so easily accumulate
all this data on private citizens if private companies weren't collecting it
first.

http://www.usnews.co...rporate-surveillance

[40hz]

I wonder if it's even possible to completely avoid politics and have a "purely technical" discussion about any technology of significance in today's world?

The "problem" with where the US has gone is the same as the "problem" was in the old Soviet Union. Or in modern day China. To wit: there is nothing in such societies that is ever totally divorced from political overtones or considerations. Because politics is everything to those who are currently in power.

As a friend of mine from Soviet Russia once said - politics was inescapable in the Soviet Union. To even say "I am not making a political statement" was seen as a political statement.

If history is anything to go by, once a battle for the control of the public mind breaks out, there's no quarter until one side or another attains complete victory.

 

[Tinman57]

Most all of this crap started from the G.W. Bushy era

-Tinman57 (June 09, 2013, 06:32 PM)

This is quite false. The problems with invasions of our private communications began under Clinton, at least

-CWuestefeld (June 12, 2013, 10:33 AM)

  I was actually talking about the government databases.  Either way, a good post.

[Stoic Joker]

I wonder if it's even possible to completely avoid politics and have a "purely technical" discussion about any technology of significance in today's world?

-40hz (June 12, 2013, 08:14 PM)

TBH ...I'll have to go with no...and a qualifier. You see unlike most political (debates?) discussions where there is a chance of galvanizing the participants into sides. Which then results in, the fur starts to fly as the saying goes...and that's best avoided. But, I'm really not seeing any chance of that here as the sides are already clearly defined as us (the people of all lands) against them the quickly becoming meddling oppressors.

This is the badly skewed BS statistics point I was making to wraith earlier. Where are these people that believe PRISM (etc.) is a good and necessary thing?? If anyone reading this (lurker or otherwise) actually believes these programs are good. Then I would ask them to please state so (succinctly is most likely best) here. Should there be any supporters then the thread should be sent to the basement post haste (pun intended).

However if there truly are no supporters of that side (which I highly suspect - But have been wrong before) of the discussion ... Then A. we have in a microcosmic fashion proved my theory, and B. afforded some breathing room for the threads safety here.

Just a thought.


P.S. Should anyone come forward in support of PRISM etc.. Then they should of course be afforded the respect and consideration that DC is known for.

(Pardon the Captain Obvious bit - But I thought it needed said.)

[40hz]

...the respect and consideration that DC is known for.

-Stoic Joker (June 13, 2013, 06:52 AM)

It all comes down to the tool chosen for the task at hand.

I see genuine political discussion as nothing more than an intelligent attempt to identify and question the underlying motivations behind our public actions and behaviors. I never saw it as attempting to sway or convince since most people "believe what they believe" with scant rationale behind it.

But the two key words in the above are "genuine" and "discussion." Those afford the possibility of reaching consensus.

When simply attempting to disprove or convince, the correct tool to use is argument.

I think we can discuss without needing to argue - while still firing off an occasional zinger or two to keep it all amusing. And hopefully without somebody taking the ball and running with it.

----------------------------------

(Pardon the Captain Obvious bit - But I thought it needed said.)

-Stoic Joker (June 13, 2013, 06:52 AM)

I think it does need to be said every so often. Even around here.

Thanks for saying it SJ.

[mouser]

Should anyone come forward in support of PRISM

Well this may surprise many of you but i'm not terribly troubled by the abstract *concept* of government scanning phone call "metadata" or website traffic patterns, etc.  Just as i don't get too concerned about the increased use of security cameras.

It's something i've (along with many people) long assumed they do (along with logging every actual piece of content that they can do without court approval, like irc conversations, forum posts, etc.), so there's nothing here being exposed that i didn't already assume they do and much worse.

I do agree that this kind of thing can have a stifling effect, I just put it low on my list of concerns about the world -- at least in the ABSTRACT.

However, I do have some outrage about this stuff -- but it's not about the abstract idea of doing this kind of thing -- it's about the culture of over-classifying all of this kind of stuff as top secret and then outright lying to the populace and hiding behind the secrecy to avoid proper oversight, supervision, and budget cost issues, when there are no operational reasons for this stuff not to be acknowledged.

If our government wants to record every phone call ever made, they need to make that case to the population, tell us how much it costs so we can assess the cost/benefits, have some very substantial oversight, and convince us that it's doing more good than harm and not being abused.

But it's just too tempting for them to classify something as top secret and then be able to hide the details, the cost, the oversight, the criticisms.  And that's what I find most troubling.

I also think that it increasing leads to a kind of schizophrenic existence, where the difference between what we say we do, and what we really do, grows further and further apart -- and that can't be good.

Just my 2 cents.

ps.
For those who *are* outraged about the abstract concept of spying/tracking of citizen data -- i will say in your defense that there is a long and not-so-distant history of such surveillance systems being abused by those in power, so it's understandable if you are concerned that these abilities would be abused.

[CWuestefeld]

If our government wants to record every phone call ever made, they need to make that case to the population, tell us how much it costs so we can assess the cost/benefits, have some very substantial oversight, and convince us that it's doing more good than harm and not being abused.

-mouser (June 13, 2013, 07:21 AM)

I'm vehemently opposed to PRISM-like operations. But I think that what Mouser outlines is really the most crucial aspect of this.

Pres. Obama has outlined a set of checks and balances that are intended to protect the data from misuse, and to be honest, what he outlines sounds pretty reasonable -- as far as it goes. But he's completely glossed over the most important check of all, that of the citizens [1]. Philosophically, we're the ones with the power: we have determined to allow the government to wield some powers that we've granted to it. But then it's quite impossible for the government to claim it has a power that it refuses to tell us about.

We possess an ultimate check on the power of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government by way of the ballot box. And we possess an ultimate check on the power of the Courts by way of jury nullification. But what the Bush and Obama administrations seem to have set up is a monolith of power that none of us can check at all, most fundamentally because we're not even allowed to know of its existence.

[1] To slip into more controversial territory, I believe that his omission is very telling of his real political philosophy. He doesn't subscribe to the "Common Sense" theory I've outlined before, where the power of gov't derives from the people. He believes (like Mayor Bloomberg and his war against beverages) that in the end, he is the daddy that should be running our lives.

[40hz]

I do agree that this kind of thing can have a stifling effect, I just put it low on my list of concerns about the world -- at least in the ABSTRACT.

-mouser (June 13, 2013, 07:21 AM)

I think it's gone far beyond the abstract in many places. Even in my own peer groups I've noticed a much greater reluctance to engage in certain wordplay and widespread self-censoring of certain words or phrases precisely because there's concern about something said being taken out of context. I can't speak for everybody, but I find myself already half-consciously doing that. The real danger is I might eventually become unconsciously aware that I'm doing it at all.

In a telling scene in the movie adaptation of Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being, a woman is talking to her boyfriend. He makes an anti-government remark and she, in a somewhat frightened voice, tells him to not say things like that because "Somebody might hear you."

At that point he stops and looks at her and shakes his head. He tells her that if that's how she truly feels, than the battle has already been lost. Because when you've become so afraid that you're no longer willing to speak you own mind out of fear that somebody else might be listening, then censorship has become both universal and absolute. And the forces of darkness have triumphed.

some more from Milan Kundera

“The moment someone keeps an eye on what we do, we involuntarily make allowances for that eye, and nothing we do is truthful. Having a public, keeping a public in mind, means living in lies…”

-------------------

“A man who loses his privacy loses everything. And a man who gives it up of his own free will is a monster.”

-------------------

“Even though the sewer pipelines reach far into our houses with their tentacles, they are carefully hidden from view and we are happily ignorant of the invisible Venice of shit underlying our bathrooms, bedrooms, dance halls, and parliaments.”

-------------------

“Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: The criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers. ”

-------------------

“A year or two after emigrating, she happened to be in Paris on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of her country. A protest march had been scheduled, and she felt driven to take part. Fists raised high, the young Frenchmen shouted out slogans condemning Soviet imperialism. She liked the slogans, but to her surprise she found herself unable to shout along with them. She lasted only a few minutes in the parade.

When she told her French friends about it, they were amazed. “You mean you don't want to fight the occupation of your country?” She would have liked to tell them that behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil and that the image of that evil was a parade of people marching with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unison. But she knew she would never be able to make them understand. Embarrassed, she changed the subject. ”

-------------------

“He who gives himself up like a prisoner of war must give up his weapons as well. And deprived in advance of defense against a possible blow, he cannot help wondering when the blow will fall.”

[/size][/font]  ― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being [/quote]

[mouser]

Even in my own peer groups I've noticed a much greater reluctance to engage in certain wordplay and widespread self-censoring of certain words or phrases precisely because there's concern about something said being taken out of context.

I may be contradicting my earlier post but i think you have a great point here, and it's really worse than you describe.

I have reasonable confidence that someone overhearing my conversations/emails/irc chats would ultimately conclude, after careful analysis, that i was not involved in anything nefarious.

Nevertheless, I have found myself often over the last decade, keenly aware that online conversations i participate in and people i talk to (especially if they are outside the US), are very likely being scanned for keywords or geographic patterns, and that an AUTOMATED system that found too many "flags" could very easily trigger and push me onto some list that would make life more *inconvenient* for me (additional airport screening, etc.) -- and that could easily lead to self censoring.

[mouser]

This would be a good time to recommend a great movie about life in a surveillance state:

"The Lives of Others"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

[CWuestefeld]

Even in my own peer groups I've noticed a much greater reluctance to engage in certain wordplay and widespread self-censoring of certain words or phrases precisely because there's concern about something said being taken out of context.

-40hz (June 13, 2013, 08:31 AM)

Yes, but this isn't usually regarding subversive speech, but misunderstandings about "slurs". For example, a coworker recently told me that one of her first memories of me was when I was discussing something in a meeting and used the word "niggardly".

In airports, though, the need to self-censor seems to be quite extreme. When going through the security check in particular, I've been conditioned to believe that I'd better keep my mouth shut, as any possible misinterpretation of my words will be used against me.

However if there truly are no supporters of that side (which I highly suspect - But have been wrong before) of the discussion ... Then A. we have in a microcosmic fashion proved my theory, and B. afforded some breathing room for the threads safety here.

-Stoic Joker (June 13, 2013, 06:52 AM)

Unfortunately, I have some evidence refuting your theory. It appears that public opinion overall is much less clear than within this community.

More than half of Americans approve of a former intelligence contractor’s decision to leak classified details of sprawling government surveillance programs, according to the results of a new TIME poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said the leaker, Edward Snowden, 29, did a “good thing” in releasing information about the government programs, which collect phone, email, and Internet search records in an effort, officials say, to prevent terrorist attacks. Just 30 percent disagreed.

But an almost identical number of Americans —  53 percent —  still said he should be prosecuted for the leak, compared to 28% who said he should not. Americans aged 18 to 34 break from older generations in showing far more support for Snowden’s actions. Just 41 percent of that cohort say he should face charges, while 43 percent say he should not. Just 19 percent of that age group say the leak was a “bad thing.”

Overall, Americans are sharply divided over the government’s use of surveillance programs to prevent terrorist attacks, according to the results of the poll. Forty-eight percent of Americans approve of the surveillance programs, while 44 percent disapprove, a statistical tie given the poll’s four-point margin of error.

Read more: http://swampland.tim...ution/#ixzz2W6bGw8xe

[40hz]

Yes, but this isn't usually regarding subversive speech,

-CWuestefeld (June 13, 2013, 09:12 AM)

I'm not talking about subversive anything. I'm talking about even joking references to hacking, weapon or military terminology. Or references to Wikileaks, Anonymous, torrents and filesharing, etc. It's getting to be like Fight Club where the first rule is: You don't talk about Fight Club.

Some of the companies I deal with are now doing keyword scanning of email. And not because they're siding with any government sponsored initiative. It's because they're worried about THEIR legal exposure if "certain words" show up or are shown originating from their network.

I've also done a presentation recently where I said that a certain approach to fixing a server issue was "more in that nature of a hack" than a real fix - and was immediately interrupted and told in no uncertain terms "We don't ever use a term like 'hack' in this company."

And while participating in a career day with high school students just a few weeks ago, I was not allowed to answer the question when a student asked: "What exactly is 'peer-to-peer' anyway?" The faculty host said that it was "not an acceptable topic for a question" and immediately took another question from the group.

So I think - at least from what I'm seeing - that more and more people are becoming progressively more paranoid about what they're saying about a lot of things.

Which never used to be the case. At least not in the America I grew up in.

And I don't think such low-key paranoia is entirely unjustified either. Especially when you consider some kid's rap lyrics wound up getting him arrested and held without bond for making a "terrorist threat."

Or did until it went before a grand jury. That charge was so ridiculous that even a grand jury had to call BS and refuse to indict since the case was such an obvious attempt at grandstanding by an opportunistic police chief.

 

[CWuestefeld]

I don't like it any more than you do. But I do understand why people are being more guarded in their speech.

Today, much of our speech is instantly accessible from anywhere on the planet. And the artifacts of the speech are permanent.

Back when we were kids, it was virtually impossible for somebody to say something that could be heard outside his immediate vicinity. Some national newspapers (NYTimes), or regional TV and radio, had broad audiences, but they weren't broadcasting our speech. Today, I have trivial access to a multitude of channels for disbursing my thoughts globally, and indeed, much of my communications are through these channels.

And if I slip up and say something bone-headed, the evidence is there for everyone to see. Back in the day, speech evaporated into the air. But today there's a permanent record.

So it used to be safe to assume that there would be no repercussions. But today, the way we communicate has created ample means for those in opposition to hear what we say, and it's easier for them to find as well.

[40hz]

@CU Yeah. I don't really see any way to put that genie back in the bottle. Even the police are getting to be afraid of video cameras and audio recordings. So much so that they'll routinely break the law trying to prevent people from recording them. And, many times, it's with good reason too.

But even if they shut down PRISM tomorrow (which they won't) you can never be sure something like that will ever be completely gone. Because experience teaches us it won't be.

Like in the Bourne movie when they said "We'll just wrap it up, hang it around Landry's neck, and restart someplace else."
 

[TaoPhoenix]

I wonder if it's even possible to completely avoid politics and have a "purely technical" discussion about any technology of significance in today's world?

-40hz (June 12, 2013, 08:14 PM)

It might not be possible anymore.

For example, one aspect of the damage this "mind war" has had on me is that I have real trouble believing news stories are "just stories" without instinctively thinking of vicious angles.

Let's try Google Glass for a moment. That's the fore-runner of a signature piece of SciFi tech that's been part of Near Future stories for half a century. (Heads up type displays and data systems etc.)

But now it's got Google and remote server uploading and stuff all mixed up in the story. Our privacy has been eroded almost irreparably, but a few people with an IQ of 180 did a brilliant job of making us Like it! (Pun!) But at least a phone pic was just artificial enough so that in the seven seconds it took you to set it up, someone could object. But with "Always On" live filming, that could make us really nervous just to live our lives. Because forget Google per se - they're just the Apple analogy to the mp3 player. It's the Chinese knockoffs (here assumed to actually work, just maybe not as well, but 10 times cheaper!) that will spread, and then everyone will have the tech "automatically on".

I've worn "really heavy glasses" for years now as the "symbolic image" of these types of glasses. One day if I were to get a "new pair of glasses", people who know me might just give me a compliment/insult and forget about them ... and not even THINK to ask if they are data glasses!

Meanwhile half the time I see "innocent" news stories about interesting discoveries, I start seeing really nasty side effect uses of them.

[wraith808]

Taking a Devil's Advocate stance, in principle, I see what they're doing.  You can only get a tap at the time of the court order.  The necessary data might be gone.  What they're doing is aggregating the data.  It is indexed by minimally identifying information- not the content.

If later, they find a person of interest, they can get a warrant for the period in time to check the database and see what the content of the intercept was.

The problem isn't in that.  The problem is in the policing, i.e. who watches the watchers?  How can we know that they can't get access without a court order.  The court order isn't an encryption key- it's a standard court order.  So they *always* have access... we just have to trust them not to use it unless due process has been followed.

...

I got nothing.  I don't trust human nature that much.  And once you do have oversight to that extent, more people have access. I just don't trust the checks and balances.

[Tinman57]

  If so many people are for our gov't spying on us, and if our gov't isn't doing mass spying as accused, then why did they make it top secret and deny (lie) everything up til the end?  The reason is because they know it has become Orwellian.  They know it is wrong constitutionally and morally.  They know the majority WOULD NOT approve of this communistic tactic.
  As for all the people they claim support it, it just proves the theory of American sheeple.  Our forefathers would be ashamed as I am.....

[wraith808]

why did they make it top secret and deny (lie) everything up til the end? 

-Tinman57 (June 13, 2013, 05:37 PM)

I can answer that one- even without agreeing.  It's because someone who knows that their conversations are possibly compromised acts differently than someone who knows their conversations are surely compromised.

The thing is, looking at the intent objectively, without regard for the harm or rightness or wrongness, I think everyone can see the purpose and use behind it.  It's more the manner that it was done, and the lack of communication of intent that is arguable.. especially the fact that it was done fait accompli rather than through the normal process that such would need to be done through.

[Stoic Joker]

Sorry about chopping this up so much. I just wanted to share what went through my head as I read it.

You can only get a tap at the time of the court order.

-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)

The original intent of this was to keep the law honest

The necessary data might be gone.

-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)

Yes, but nobody said the job was easy... Unless you're the lucky LEO that gets FaceBook duty.

What they're doing is aggregating the data.

-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)

Honestly I've always been a bit sketchy in the definition of that term...But if by aggregate you mean to play peek-A-boo with then yes I'm with you there.

It is indexed by minimally identifying information- not the content.

-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)

Here lies the rub ... They're only admitting to the metadata...but there is no spoon (er...) content.

If later, they find a person of interest, they can get a warrant for the period in time to check the database and see what the content of the intercept was.

-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)

...Now all of a sudden this (allegedly) non-existent content just magically appears out of thin air. Which of course they have pinky sworn not to have looked at with out a proper warrant. ROFL

What was it the 40s when you had to be manually connected to the party called by the operator that sat in front of a switchboard of wires and jacks?

Best source of reliable gossip back then came from ... The operator.

...But the cops of the time never ever talked to the operators did they? ...Because that would be (Um...) wrong?


Absolute power corrupts absolutely.