NSA Apologist Says The NSA's Actions Are Fine Because 'Privacy Is Dead'
from the column-still-serves-as-useful-'how-NOT-to-argue-your-point'-guide dept
When we last discussed columnist Froma Harrop, she was acting as a surveillance state apologist. She took some of the usual paths (directing snark at "clueless" internet users, conjuring up the threat of terrorism) and some unusual ones (claiming those opposed to the surveillance state only did so because they "hate Obama"). All in all, it was the perfect storm of condescension and cluelessness that NSA apologists do all too well.
Harrop's back again, offering an unsolicited eulogy for privacy and some plaudits for the surveillance state. She lays this all out in seven easily refutable statements, which makes a point-by-point takedown a breeze. Kudos for that, Froma.
After telling us to "relax" because the government has the ability to "collect and recall our every keystroke," she opens up her Seven Point Plan by telling us to submit.
1. Admit that we are powerless to stop this new technology. (We don’t have to like it.)It's seldom a good idea to open your defense of something by utilizing arguments a rapist might use. "Relax." "You're powerless." Just submit to what's coming because you can't fight it.
All this argument means is the aggressor (the NSA and Harrop the Apologist) wants you to believe that fighting this is futile and will only make things worse. But it's not true. Fighting back does have an effect, but neither the NSA nor the conjured rapist want you to know that.
There are several ways to fight back, many of them underway as we speak. The discovery that some underlying encryption processes have been broken and that various tech companies have been compliant in allowing the NSA access to pre-encryption data and zero day exploits may be a kick in the teeth, but it hardly signifies the battle's not worth fighting.
Deciding you're powerless plays right into the hands of intelligence agencies. They want the path of least reistance. Even small steps taken to protect your privacy slows down its efforts. So, fight back. Anyone telling you to admit you're powerless in the face of government malfeasance cannot be trusted, whether it's a government agent or just a citizen who thinks the reaction to the NSA's tactics is overblown.
2. Stop confusing capabilities with actions. The U.S. government is capable of leveling Mount Rushmore. That does not mean it intends to launch drone attacks on South Dakota, no matter what your local tea party chapter says.Here Harrop does two things, both completely disingenuous.
First, she confuses capabilities with actions and decides only the "actions" matter. The NSA has repeatedly used this tactic itself. When queried about the capabilities of its systems, it always redirects the question towards its "authority," as if that distinction actually matters. This deferral ignores the ever-present desire for humans to abuse powerful systems.
Look at former NSA director Michael Hayden's own words: "Give me the box you will allow me to operate in. I’m going to play to the very edges of that box." Look at the NSA's own actions, where it repeatedly operated outside the court-ordered confines of the bulk records program. The NSA has plenty of capabilities and it appears willing to test the limits of its authority, if not exceed them completely.
The slam on the Tea Party is just Harrop being Harrop and thinking the opposition to the NSA's programs comes solely from extremists who hate Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it's a cheap way to score some ideological points with the ignorant, who might feel that opposing the NSA means becoming some sort of right-wing conspiracy theorist.
3. Recognize that this surveillance is key to national security.Some targeted surveillance programs are key to national security. The aspects that are receiving the most attention clearly aren't. Even the most ardent defenders of the NSA are hard pressed to find examples of how bulk, untargeted data collections have prevented any terrorist acts. The agency has made multiple attempts to reframe this argument as well, diluting the question by referring to "potential terrorist events," but even the NSAs deputy director, John C. Inglis, has admitted that the agency "could not identify a single case where the bulk phones records collection led to the prevention of a terrorist attack."
4. Appreciate that we do have safeguards. When the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court berates the NSA for violating the rules, that’s an example of checks and balances in action. China and Russia pass on such niceties as surveillance courts, and they want to do exactly what the National Security Agency does (if they don’t already).Let me respond with a few points of my own.
1. The safeguards don't work, as they are heavily reliant on program depictions provided by the most unreliable narrator of all, the NSA.
2. Yes, that is an example of checks and balances, but it occurred after three straight years of abuse. And there's no indication that these were isolated events, related solely to the bulk records collections. That's just the information that's been declassified by the NSA. The leaks released so far detail many more collection programs, most of which we have yet to see addressed with more than the usual "because national security" statements by the NSA. If the NSA steadily abused this one program, there's no doubt it's abused others.
Harrop (and the NSA's other defenders) needs to acknowledge the fact that the only reason this information has been made public was Ed Snowden's leaks and lawsuits filed against the government. That's not "checks and balances." The government is supposed to regulate itself with "checks and balances," not rely on whistleblowers and lawsuits brought by civil liberties groups to keep it "honest."
3. Congratulations to us! Not as bad as Russia and China! We used to be the world leader in freedom and now we're supposed to be pleased with simply not being as awful as two heavily censorious countries. If that's your standard of excellence, Froma, no wonder you're satisfied with the NSA's half-assed explanations and justifications. It doesn't take much to clear a bar set that low.
5. Admit that commercial spying is a privacy matter, as well. Retailers follow your cellphone around the mall. Amazon.com knows all about your interest in socialism and passion for manga cartoons. Of course, the telecom companies know whom you called and for how long. If the issue is privacy, what makes a business conglomerate more honorable than the government?I don't think anyone's making an argument to the contrary, but using one form of abuse to justify another is a rhetorical race for the bottom. Harrop has built a commanding lead in that race with this column and this sort of "pointing fingers" defense will only increase the gap between her and pundits who aren't prone to such lapses in logic.
What makes conglomerates more honorable? It's the fact that they're commercial entities. Their main goal is making money, not sacrificing constitutional rights in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. If you're seriously going to compare a spy agency's bulk records collection with an online retailer tracking your purchases in order to recommend products, then it's time to hand in your "high school freshmen debate team third alternate" credentials and go back to the rhetorical drawing board.
6. Call out media sources hurling thunderbolts at NSA spying while spying on you.Let's keep this short:
1. Ads and trackers can be blocked. Easily.
2. If someone exposes a particularly insidious tracking method (or, you know, Facebook), they rarely end up facing years of imprisonment for "leaking" the details.
3. Most social media, etc. have at minimum implied consent for the tracking (even if it's nothing more than an ultra-crappy browserwrap agreement). Even so, the option to use these services and sites is left up to the individual. There's no "do not track/opt out" feature for the NSA. (Nor is there for the companies the NSA "interacts" with.)
4. Stop using the "two wrongs make the NSA right" argument.
7. In assessing government surveillance activities, distinguish between a “who” and an “it.” A computer is an “it.” The fact that it is ruffling through all the metadata or even keeping the content of such communications in a vault for five years should not overly concern us. When an actual human being takes a look, then it’s time for questions. When the system works properly, the NSA still needs a warrant to look at content.I think US citizens can decide for themselves whether or not to be "overly concerned." Attempting to play this off as a neutral device sorting harvested data completely ignores the fact that humans build the algorithms, maintain the processes and provide the queries (which also include queries made before the data arrives at the "neutral" database). Implying the NSA needs warrants to search the database is simply incorrect. As was revealed last month, the NSA has a backdoor loophole letting it run searches on data collected on Americans without a warrant, so long as the original collection was a part of a "targeted" effort, even if the collected info has nothing to do with the "target." And, the NSA specifically asked for and received this ability. Even if that loophole wasn't in place there are still concerns. No matter what the rulebook might say, the NSA has full access to info stored on its servers at any time. These constitutional niceties might be occasionally respected, but more often than not, the agency will wave them aside with National Security Letters, overly broad court orders, "exigent circumstance" claims and, in many documented cases, simply ignoring the limitations altogether.
So, to recap: NSA defender opens her defense of the agency by deploying rapist logic and wraps it up by appealing to authority, with stops along the way to state that the agency is a) not as bad as China or Russia and b) no worse than the tracking software deployed by various web entities. At no point does she bring up a single affirmative argument. (The "surveillance stops terrorism" argument comes close, but is completely undercut by the evidence to the contrary.) Everything else is comparative or dismissive.
Defending the indefensible agency severely cripples logic. Apologists like Harrop should just give it up. Every time more evidence of wrongdoing is revealed, the defenders look even worse. A powerful intelligence agency that has been protected by two consecutive administrations really doesn't need any outside help.
[Hat tip again to silverscarcat, who is the apparent bane of Harrop's existence.]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: froma harrop, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
This is actually really simple to do in a number of ways. My favorite is by adding a couple of lines in my hosts file. You could also use your firewall to accomplish this, or if you're only worried about web-based tracking, then use one of the several plugins that will do it. A quick search will reveal tons of options. Pick one.
You know what you don't have to do? Ask or trust Google to do anything at all.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too big to fail.
Occupy movement.
Companies don't need guns, they have the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be of great concern, because anyone who gets the keys and wishes to use the data has it readily available. This data probably includes enough information to derail, or at least seriously inconvenience any who decides to stand against existing party candidates, or worse, to run on a platform to limit the governments spying abilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/14/google_cloud_users_have_no_legitimate_expectatio n_of_privacy/
Google's Eric Schmidt says government spying is 'the nature of our society'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/eric-schmidt-google-nsa-surveillance
And so on. You ALL know that Google is a SPY AGENCY, but resolutely ignore the facts and implications of what just that one mega-corporation means for the future.
"The new Google privacy policy is: You have no privacy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
You can opt out of using google if you don't like how they use your data. You can't opt out of the NSA.
Sheer baloney. FIRST tell me EXACTLY what Google does with "my data", and how you know that. Inquiring minds want to know! Then tell me EXACTLY how to avoid being tracked all over the web, how I can avoid EVERY bit of Google on EVERY site. I bet you don't even grasp how extensive Google is on the web or what "services" it provides. -- Just look at the HTML for this Techdirt page and COUNT the number of Google urls. In fact do that FIRST and state it here, just to prove that you're minimum competent and aware.
And if you say that I just go to Google and tell it not to track me, SHEESH! How could it possibly comply unless can identifies me by some prior knowledge, and HOW can I KNOW whether they actually do? -- In fact, "opting out" just tells Google / NSA that you're of higher than normal interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
How could it possibly comply unless can identifies me by some prior knowledge, and HOW can I KNOW whether they actually do?
You don't have to ask them not to track you. The add-on mentioned does the trick. If you are that paranoid you can block Google via other means such as your hosts file, a firewall and others. The NSA doesn't need Google to track you if they have taps in the infra-structure itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
http://mashable.com/2012/03/01/google-privacy-data- policy/#_
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/google-keeps-your-data-to-learn-from-good-guys -fight-off-bad-guys/
Then tell me EXACTLY how to avoid being tracked all over the web, how I can avoid EVERY bit of Google on EVERY site.
https://duckduckgo.com/
http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.bing.com/
need a plug-in to help? if you have Chrome, here are a few links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=chrome+anonymous+addon
+N - new untrackable window
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
Ixquick needs some love:
https://ixquick.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
roll your own services. But remember - if you encrypt your data and Google can't read it - so what. they have a data stream that they can't use. But...if the NSA can't read it - well, then you may violate US Export Laws, US Encryption laws, etc - and get thrown in jail. Please - in the spirit of YOUR email - show me where I am not correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
This is actually really simple to do in a number of ways. My favorite is by adding a couple of lines in my hosts file. You could also use your firewall to accomplish this, or if you're only worried about web-based tracking, then use one of the several plugins that will do it. A quick search will reveal tons of options. Pick one.
You know what you don't have to do? Ask or trust Google to do anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
How could Google, or any other ad company for that matter, identify you without prior knowledge? Cookies on your computer. Specifically ones that tell them not to track you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
Here's a thought: compare your moronic post that was reported into invisibility against the one that was voted repeatedly as Insightful several posts above.
It's the same thing I've said to you over and over and you can't get it through your thick skull: Google et. al. can't put anyone in jail or "murder" them "legally". That's the EXACT difference in what they're doing with your data compared to the gov't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
First, why don't you tell us what you think Google does with your data (which you've just admitted to voluntarily providing them). Inquiring minds want to know! It'll be good for a laugh id nothing else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OotB being an idiot again
What laws does Google enforce?
What laws does Google write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "silverscarcat" shilling for Google again.
Tell me how much data Google gathers and how they collate it to track persons all across the net, all without explicit permission, it's just technically possible so they do it. Tell me why that's okay when people do NOT want to be spied on.
Tell me how many billions Google is keeping offshore without paying taxes on it. Tell me the effective tax rate Google pays. Tell me how many lobbyists Google has in DC.
Where Mike sez: "Any system that involves spying on the activities of users is going to be a non-starter. Creeping the hell out of people isn't a way of encouraging them to buy. It's a way of encouraging them to want nothing to do with you." -- So why doesn't that apply to The Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "silverscarcat" shilling for Google again.
Tell me how many billions Google is keeping offshore without paying taxes on it. Tell me the effective tax rate Google pays. Tell me how many lobbyists Google has in DC.
Irrelevant to this discussion. Every major company does the same. In fact Google is lobbying harder because the MAFIAA and the likes made them aware of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OotB being an idiot again
Way to avoid my questions, blue.
And you prove yourself to be an idiot too.
BTW, the amount of lobbyists google has is FAR less than the MAFIAA has.
The only thing I will defend is that I can choose to use a browser that doesn't have google, choose not to use google's android phone, choose not to use gmail, choose not to use google's search engine.
Can I choose to not let the NSA have my data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "silverscarcat" shilling for Google again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
sure they'd spy on their users for themselves too just to know what ads to show you and what not but they are spying FOR someone OTHER than themselves.
they're big shit compared to us, because of us. but they're still PEE ONS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA's 7 Step Program for accepting your new Police State
1. Accept you are powerless.
2. Know that just because the government can destroy you it probably won't.
3. The government spying on you is in your best interest and will make you safe.
4. Realize that other countries have worse oversight to their spying programs than we do.
5. You trust corporations with your personal information you should trust the government with your information.
6. The media is spying on you so you should accept that the government is spying on you also.
7. Don't be concerned -- the government is only gathering your meta-data and then it's only for five years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA's 7 Step Program for accepting your new Police State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA's 7 Step Program for accepting your new Police State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, minion, you argue FOR "business conglomerate".
Then you go right into your numbered points arguing to the contrary, mostly the laughable notions that one can avoid commercial tracking on the internet without losing its function -- a trend that will only increase as more sites use google-analytics or Google's API suite. I run into that often, finding some sites simply unusable due to Google spying on me without permission, and incredible amounts of javascript: up to a megabyte per page! The spying goes on in every way possible: every browser header sent includes last date visited, and other identifying information. Users have no effective way of controlling that, nor of limiting what sites do with it, since, as the minion claims, it's given "voluntarily". The internet is made for spying: it's the main "business model".
Now, I've been arguing against ALL forms of spying by ALL types of spies. Big difference: I'm not trying to justify either one, but trying to wake people up to the corporate spying. But both Harrop and the minion ARE arguing FOR one type of spying, saying that the bottom should be dug lower.
No form of spying can be reconciled with a free society. It may be necessary for gov't purposes, but it's always an evil that puts us at risk. Commercial spies will at best continue to invade the last areas of privacy for their profit, until we "natural" persons are completely monetized. -- Is that what corporations are for? To solely serve moneyed interests without regard to humanity? Or are they just legal fictions meant to serve the common good?
Edward Snowden: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and the rest of our internet titans must ask themselves why they aren't fighting for our interests the same way -- Ed, those soul-less amoral entities care only about the billions they get BEING snoops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, minion, you argue FOR "business conglomerate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, minion, you argue FOR "business conglomerate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I rather doubt that. A department store chain has better things to spend it's money on than setting up equipment capable of tracking you across the mall from the relatively small chunk of it they've leased, just so they can watch you go to their competitors and to stores entirely different from them, without ever going near you.
The mall itself might do so, but I rather doubt it could legally do more than get a count of how many people are going into which store. Which is of rather limited value, and the sort of thing they could just as easily track by other means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Chain stores have an appetite for data on what people are looking inside their stores, I read about one that was putting cameras in every corner so it could look at your eyes to see where you were gazing.
That data can be analyzed and they would know better than you what you like or dislike, this helps order the stuff that goes out, it also helps in planing how products should be placed.
Also, cellphones are goldmines for shops, depending on what you are looking at and where you are at, stores can send promotions directly to you without bugging you in person.
http://bizlex.com/2013/07/smartphone-sensing-technology-allows-businesses-to-track-custom ers-movements-inside-their-shops/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/03/27/149463201 /to-keep-customers-brick-and-mortar-stores-look-to-smartphones
https://www.consumerreports.org/cr o/2013/03/how-stores-spy-on-you/index.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do, actually, using your phone's WiFi. It a relatively new thing, and most retailers aren't doing it yet, but it's becoming increasingly popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no matter what, we will always be slaves until we stop spending their money, stop using their water, their electricity and stop paying for their land.
I mention land because you can't even own land without paying taxes on it because at best you get the deed to the land. that's not owning it. so we'll always be a slave and we'll always have to spend their money and we'll always be co-dependant.
the point I'm trying to make is:
even if you supplied your own electricity, grew your own food and depended 100% on no one except yourself you'd still have to pay for the land you live on. that's a huge problem right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the co-dependence you are talking about is a traditional part of history. If you lived 100 % without contact with the rest of the world I think you would reckon that the educational lack in such a parrallel society would be problematic. Therefore you need to define a way for education to be financed in that society too.
In the end, we are all part of a bigger scheme economists, legal scholars and philosophers barely understands.
The room between these opinions are where politicians have a fair place to fill.
Unfortunately we are slaves of the past (not serfs here, mind you :)). Modern democracy is build upon the ruins of feudalism and unfortunately that historic fact, makes a geographic limitation of power inevitable.
Those are some of the moral, historical and philosophical reasons for why a parrallel society is unlikely to succeed. The true rational behind who is in power has always been the a macho "who has the most powerful weapons and are not afraid to use them?". Unfortunately that rational still somewhat holds true today and makes these experiments at the mercy of the golden rule: He who controls the gold, makes the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The sheep running about in the former "Land of the Free" seem to just not get it.
The government, local or central, should only be allowed to collect taxes on sales.
Stop paying your taxes on income or land and find out quickly who owns YOU and YOUR property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missed the "joke"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed the "joke"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed the "joke"?
In light of this new, possibly true information, the rapist tangent seems a bit off... or it adds some really weird implications to AA's methods.
But, as you point out, basing this on the Twelve Steps isn't making her metaphor any better or any more coherent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed the "joke"?
If that's true, it makes her piece even more offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missed the "joke"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed the "joke"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA isn't even the main problem
If not for the secret gag orders, and the government secretly forcing service operators to subvert their services, we could all have private communications despite the NSA wiretapping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just trust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets take her argument to the extreme
Why we shouldn't care if the government decides to install hidden cameras in all our bathrooms and bedrooms, based on Harrop's own NSA defense.
1. Admit that we are powerless to stop the government from installing hidden cameras EVERYWHERE. (We don’t have to like it.)
2. Stop confusing capabilities with actions. The U.S. government is capable of blackmailing the entire US population with their Internet search history and by threatening to upload videos of you going to the bathroom and having sex with these cameras. That does not mean it intends to do so.
3. Recognize that this surveillance is key to saving lives! Think of grandma slipping and falling over in the shower and having no way of calling for help!
4. Appreciate that we do have safeguards. When the boss berates the people watching the cameras for watching videos of you having sex with your lover, that’s an example of checks and balances in action.
5. Admit that commercial spying is a privacy matter, as well. Sex toy and condom retailers already know what's going on in your bedroom.
6. In assessing government surveillance activities, distinguish between a “who” and an “it.” A computer is an “it.” The fact that it is ruffling through all the camera footage should not overly concern us. When an actual human being takes a look, then it’s time for questions. When the system works properly, the government still needs a warrant to look at content.
7. Remember, it's different when the government does it! If an individual spied on your Internet browsing it would be illegal and wiretapping, but not when the government does it for your own good! When an individual installs hidden cameras in your bedroom and bathroom without telling you they're a sexual pervert, when the government does it they're doing their patriotic duty to protect you from evil terrorists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that's a perfect example of the conditioning that we have been exposed to all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Froma makes a good point
Choicepoint's data aggregation in particular is used to gerrymander elections and was used to block democrat voters in Florida polls. The violation of privacy certainly does damage democracies.
Also the 'data retention directive' was pushed by Bush and Blair so the telcos would keep all the call data, and the NSA could grab that data without suspicion of any crime. Again a problem with privacy created by the spooks. It violates the freedom to associate principle.
And bank data was grabbed in violation of the banking secrecy act, on the claim (without any evidence submitted) that it might be proceeds of crime being sent, i.e. money laundering. That's a violation of search without warrant.
But it's good that she reminds us there is a big problem with corporate privacy invasions too. We need to tighten those laws aswell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Froma makes a good point
For example, I would classify the things you've cited (gerrymandering, data retention, bank data) as government spying, using corporations as their tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ex Stasi police appalled by NSA
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/26/195045/memories-of-stasi-color-germans.html
"Even Schmidt, 73, who headed one of the more infamous departments in the infamous Stasi, called himself appalled. The dark side to gathering such a broad, seemingly untargeted, amount of information is obvious, he said."
"It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used,” he said. “This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sadly
Denial of risk is the luxury that people have when they don't want to address the risk. When driving: accident happen to others. With the governmens spying: I have nothing to hide.
Only in prison we do not have that luxury. You know when you're inside and you'll have to cope with that.
Now with the Snowden/Greenwald revelations, people are robbed of this luxury. Where do you think the anger comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accept that things are far worse than you imagine. Prepare to get whipped like a puppy and shamed in public for not towing the line.
There's a lot more to find out. It seems that Snowden does not have the real dirt. Don't set yourself up for failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the Borg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: According to the Borg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welp
Recognize that killing people is the key to winning a war, so don't object when we kill you, ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK
Here we have almost entirely obliterated the middle class, completely stymied upward mobility, on ongoing assault bent on eradicating any social safety programs, an accommodation of the engorgement of banking via mortgage fraud, legal gambling with other peoples money, market manipulation of, for and by some weird 1% ruling class subordination, gross expenditures on the products of military defense, EXTREME incarceration rates for .. mostly doing something to yourself and two entire generations of children completely and irrevocably future fucked. For icing you get 30 years and counting of a profound enrichment of the rich couched in some sort of socially grotesque "fairness" doctrine.
Aaand we have the venerable NSA, CIA and FBI's establishing all but complete control (yes, information equates to a distinct advantage in any endeavor) over your past, present and future presence on the face of the planet. (and, to me, it would not be any stretch of the imagination to follow the paths of money, information and access to the clearly upward direction of monies for the last several decades into the pockets of Military/Policing Industrial Complexes and Corporate Shareholders with fees invariably sucking dry any "trickle down" pocket change via interest and exploitative industries.)
Aaand we have corporate ownership of information creeping its way into untenable institutions of information control priming the government of the public to work directly against the interests of the public.
Fucking awesome, cunts. Fuck the NSA and the five living presidents' horses they rode in on. Congress? Yeah, right. How's my stock doing? How's my reelection coffer doing? HOW ARE MY FUCKING PEOPLE DOING? Tits up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RGJ has an ethics page.... LOL!!!
http://www.rgj.com/viewart/99999999/NEWS/130524002/RGJ-journalists-principles-ethical-cond uct
* We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news.
* We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public, fighting to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in public.
* We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing in order to effect change for the good in the communities we serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Observation
The amount of data readily available once an actual human being decides to take a look actually makes a huge difference. We could, for instance, install cameras and microphones inside people's homes and stream video and audio to government computers nobody can access without a warrant. According Harrop's logic, we shouldn't have a problem with it, since it doesn't really matter until somebody takes a look at it, but I think we all know better.
The problem with having all that data is in what it enables once a person does take a look at it: lots of data that wouldn't have been collected under normal circumstances is now available for mining and perusal, so that everything you've said and done in the past can suddenly be used against you by an adversary. All it takes is a warrant (or an unauthorized search) to hold your entire life up to scrutiny. That is the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let's look at actions:
1) Redefined language and words so as to create specialized interpretations of laws. Interpretations that are kept secret and confidential (one has to assume because if they were made public the vast majority of the people would cry foul and buillshit).
2) Created a set of "checks and balances" in such a way that they do neither. Not even close.
3) Repeatedly violated and broken even your own special interpretations of the laws. So much so that you even have special classifications for those violations (LoveInt) - and that's just the ones you know about.
4) Created a system where literally hundreds, if not thousands of people could access data the is supposedly "secure" without any real way to trace or audit it. Not only can't they tell us what, where, or how Snowden took what he did, but they have no way to know if he was the first (and one can fairly reasonably assume from Putin's statement while Snowden was confined to the airport - that "Snowden can't tell us anything we don't already know" - that Snowden was NOT in fact the first person to collect such information, and at LEAST one other person had accessed that data previously and provided it to Russia, and most probably other countries like China as well).
5)Not only deceived and obfuscated, but outright lied, even to the highest levels of authority, and even under oath.
I could add several more but that is more than enough to start. So no, sir, madame, or whomever, we are NOT judging you on your capabilities, and ARE judging you on your actions. And your actions are illegal, unjustifiable, and intolerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had to stop at "National Security"
For the sake of us all, I plead to all that is rational that we give up the military imperialism, the secrets, the lies, and the spying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further argument against point 3
Even if true this point is invalid because it fails to consider whether some effective tool or another is not only effective, but acceptable in a Constitutional democracy. Lets take, for instance, torture. Even if we grant that torture is effective--or even "key", is this the kind of thing we want for our country? Not I. Not our founding fathers, who by putting in place a Bill of Rights rejected tactics like these while facing perils far greater than we will ever face. So effectiveness alone is no argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I believe they're called anime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Trust Us" doesn't work
The only real solution is to get a private cloud, like a Cloudlocker (www.cloudlocker.it) that works like a cloud service but stays at home where they still need a warrant to look inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree except for the bit about privacy
But that's not the same as countering the statement that privacy is dead. It is. Stone cold. Welcome back to living in the village http://www.itskeptic.org/node/439
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree except for the bit about privacy
It's like someone passed you the facebook ball and you fucking ran with it. Towards the wrong end of the field.
Don't roll over and expect me to pat your belly. We have hunting to do, get the fuck up.
This is not some mamby-pamby question about IT morality, rather, it is a question of how much control you're actually willing to submit to, for how long and how intimate (fantasy, one-sided freak show style) the details that you would allow access to for an an effective means of begin controlled.
We're getting the surveillance that's been forced down our fucking throats - No, we're not getting the surveillance that we deserve, nor are we getting access to the available means to make our lives better. I'm about done sacrificing for some ridiculous safety fantasy.
I've got a 21st century bet placed alright, but my horse is not going to run on your track. Not now, not ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]