Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Worth Reading: Trevor Pott's editorial on NSA PRISM and its real ramifications
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
The original intent of this was to keep the law honest
The necessary data might be gone.-wraith808 (June 13, 2013, 12:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
...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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version