Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?
from the just-wondering dept
We've already discussed how the usual surveillance state defenders quickly rushed into action following the Paris attacks to demand more surveillance -- and also noted that the two attacks in Paris in the past year happened despite that country expanding its own surveillance laws twice in the past year (once right before the Charlie Hebdo attack and once soon after). And all of that raises a simple question in my mind:If the intelligence community and its supporters will call for greater surveillance and less encryption even after the surveillance capabilities have been shown not to work at all -- is there any evidence at all that will convince them that maybe this is not the right idea? It's a strange kind of argument that repeatedly points to its own failures... and follows it up with "well, that proves we need more of that!"
Such an argument, by itself, seems self-refuting, because there is no other side. If things are working okay, call for more surveillance. If the surveillance doesn't work, just call for more surveillance. It's the default answer to anything, and thus these calls should be ignored. The fact that the surveillance community wants more power is not news and it's not surprising. It's not because of the Paris attacks -- they're always asking for this and they've mostly gotten it. And it didn't work.
A sober analysis would suggest that perhaps it's time to try something different. But that's not how these things tend to go apparently.
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: bulk collection, evidence, isis, mass surveillance, nsa, privacy, surveillance, surveillance state
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yea, that's some brilliant analysis there. Does Masnick have evidence that electronic surveillance has not resulted in beneficial intel for French law enforcement? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mass surveillance either isn't working or is actively being ignored. Given that GCHQ are claiming that they had the identities of the suspected attackers before the attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad, I'm suspecting that their surveillance wasn't passed on.
Which means that blood is on GCHQ's hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But someone needs to be watching the watchers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. It's called a history book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If people in general were smart enough to be convinced by the evidence of a history book, we wouldn't have a well-known maxim about people not learning from history and thus being doomed to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they could not, or because they would not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You provided me with inspiration, well and Dr. Seuss
Hi my name is Sam
Sam I am.
Do you like my data program?
I do not like the data program, sam I am.
Would you like it here or there?
I would not like it here to there
I would not like it anywhere
I do not like your data program
I do not like it sam I am.
Would you like them in your house?
Perhaps disguised as a mouse?
I do not like them in my house
Certianly not disguised as a mouse
I would not like it here or there
I would not like it anywhere
I do not like your data program
I do not like it sam I am.
........
.......
.......
Sam, if you let me be
I will try it you will see.
(Tries the data program)
Say! My neighbors gay!
Did not know that till today!
My fiance is cheating with some guy named bob
Time for me to contact the mob!
Thank you sam you changed my life
Now I won't be married to a cheating wife!
The data program is really great
I can even use it to find a date!
I like it I like it this data program
Thank you thank you sam I am
[ 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 ]
Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Hint: Of course not. They already know this but they continue to lie about it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How About
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How About
and their "enhanced interrogation" Verschärfte Vernehmung
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This same person was detained by authorities and then released after the attack.
IRL, those kinds of failures get you fired, not a budget and staffing increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EASY QUESTION
Ask me something hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
short answer? no.
long answer? noooo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is There Any Evidence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it is for control and power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*boss* Employee #426! Your performance is down, you haven't met a single company goal, and your last progress report was full of rumors about Jen from accounting!
*me* Well, clearly its because I'm not being paid enough. I'm sure if you just pay me more money... maybe a company car... time share at the executive condo... then my job performance will suddenly skyrocket to where you already expected it to be a before you gave me my last raise.
*Boss* The raise we gave you for lackluster performance a week ago?
*me, feet up on desk and picking nose* Yeah, yeah.
*Boss* I see. Good to see we have a pro-active thinker in the company. Here's another few million.
Seriously... the world would be a better place if EVERY job had these kinds of standards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No argument whatsoever
Finding no confirmation for its suspicions, the IS can, of course, hold closer surveillance on Abu in the future.
But one cannot go back and add surveillance in the past. Since the IS cannot, by its own lights, be wrong in its suspicions of Abu, paranoia concludes that past intelligence opportunities must have been missed. If only there had been total surveillance on Abu in the past.
But they didn't know Abu needed to be watched until suspicion flared: they never know anyone needs watched until suspicion flares. This in turn leads to the reasoning that everyone must be under total surveillance, for it is only by this means that the IS can ensure they will have all necessary surveillance on all future suspects.
Perhaps this sounds paranoid or stupid. But an IS is paranoid by definition, made stupid by its paranoia...and this is your answer: No argument whatsoever, will satisfy an IS of a need for less than total surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, see the NRA for another example of this
It never fails that after yet another tragic mass shooting by some nut with a gun that the NRA or other gun rights supporters will always say "this would have never happened if a good guy had a gun, that's why we need open-carry laws/easier access to guns".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Look back over the last few publicized incidents, college shootings, Sandy Hook, etc. The call was for stricter gun control laws. After Sandy Hook, NY and CT even passed them.
When the elementary school and then the was church was shot up gun control advocates cried out for universal background checks conveniently forgetting that the shooters who purchased their guns did so even after passing a background check.
So, just like the intelligence community, when surveillance didn't stop the last attack, that just means we need MORE surveillance.
Gun control advocates think that since background checks didn't stop the last criminal from getting his guns, even though he passed those background checks the answer is to have more people [mostly not criminals] undergo background checks that have already been proven not to work.
I think when you are standing in a glass house, the stones you throw only end up breaking your own windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Event and especially tragic events, are nothing more than an opportunity, a means, to advance their chosen cause or agenda.
They all try to scare us. When we are scared, we don't think straight. We think with our guts. We want to be protected. All they have to do is claim that their solution will protect us. Make the bad go away. Ca-ching instant sale.
If there isn't a tragedy, no problem, simply make one up.
The US has been in the longest continuous state of war in its history. It's a war against an idea not an enemy, and so it can go on for as long as those in power find it useful.... or until we wake up, shake off the shackles of fear and declare it over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Since guns are a technology that will never go away, you're stuck with them. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Thank goodness they weren't able to defend themselves, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Switzerland!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Restricting gun ownership only reduces ownership by law abiding citizens. The criminals don't give a crap about laws, that's what makes them criminals.
Besides if guns are hard to get I hear Walmart sells pressure cookers and marbles. Let's ban those too. Better ban household chemicals too, and gasoline, kerosene and fertilizer. Don't forget pipes, those make good bomb casings. Terrorists hide bombs in vehicles, so lets ban those too. Beer kegs would make nice bombs too, better ban those. Someone might distill beeer from bottles to get concentrated alcohol, put it in bottles and make Molotov cocktails, better ban all alcoholic beverages. I hear flint can make sparks and start fires and that wood burns, better ban flint and wood before some terrorist goes on an arson spree.
I'm sure you will be OK without transportation other then your feet, nothing to disinfect the surgery room, no running water and all the other items that are dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
Criminals never obey gun laws, yet law abiding citizens do. I would think you would want the people following the laws to outnumber the criminals when it comes to owning a gun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, see the NRA for another example of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More surveillance is the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More surveillance is the answer
how bout the power to blackmail or incarcerate anyone on the planet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence That Will Convince
Let me get my checkbook out . . . . now how much evidence would you be needing today?
If it works for the Congress, why wouldn't it work for the bosses of congress: the intelligence community?
This kind of evidence always convinces. For example.
Smoking does not cause cancer.
Global warming is a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there any evidence that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Emporer's new clothes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faith based reasoning
When you don't, no evidence is enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to get a dead horse to win....
is to beat him harder.
The beatings will continue...
until moral improves.
The only way to prevent terrorists from turning our society into a rigid, ideologically pure, police state....
is to do it ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're trying to change their minds, you need to convince them that they don't actually enjoy the ways they personally benefit from expanded surveillance, and good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this are the same old nazis
it has just been translated to english
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the right orwellian idea to control the world.
-what makes you think they want to stop unimportant terror attacks they sponsor themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
26: 51 https://youtu.be/lWFDVqQIJbo?t=26m51s
there you go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say they should put it to the test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say they should put it to the test
Every politician, every government agency, every individual who pushes for the idea of 'backdoored encryption' has their pay/budget/personal account pooled together in one account, protected by the very same 'golden key' that they insist would work. The account is publicly known, they can defend it however they want within reason, but the encryption hole/'golden key' system must remain, and it has to be accessible in the same manner that other major systems are.
I'd give it a week, at most, before every last one of them was completely broke, with the account drained dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to convince wrong people. . .
And they need to be shown that most Americans still believe in: "Give me liberty or give me death". But, maybe they need a minute to stop pissing down both legs before we can make our point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is much precedence in what is currently happening in the world if one only knows the history behind how most dictators rose to power.
step 1: create a threat
Step 2: use said threat to convince your citizens they need to transfer their rights and power to said individual to combat the threat.
Repeat step two until those that dissent are vastly outnumbered by those that will become slaves for the promise of safety and security.
Step 3: outlaw any groups that you deem undesirable, make sure to couch it in terms that it's for the betterment of society if these groups are no longer allowed.
Step 4: imprison and arrest anyone that still speaks against you.
Step 5: congratulations you turned another wealthy former democratic country into a 3rd world nation with a petty dictator at it's head that holds 99% of the nation's wealth and resources to play King with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May I Sell You a Hammer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surveillance is what they do. That's their performance metric. That's how they get appropriations.
As they see it, they're doing the job they were created, authorized, and funded to do. And even in the government, there are people who still try to do the best job they can.
To limit what they do, you first have to unequivocably define the limits of what they're allowed to do. In the US, anyway, the Fed and Supremes that haven't done that for some things, or have conspicuously ignored violations of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you are just asking the wrong question, think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is everybody more predictable if we know everything about them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let's all make a test
What is the question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, turn it against them
See if politicians still support surveillance when the job calls for 24/7 public livestreaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i first read that as when you opiate on faith. i think that works, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misunderstanding Mass Surveillance.
1) Terrorist organizations must devote resources to implementing organizational communication security.
2) Mass surveillance makes it more difficult and risky to coordinate large scale, complex attacks. For all its bloodiness, the Paris attacks were far simpler than 9/11.
Net-centric warfare has been a staple strategy for decades and this is one implementation.
Mass surveillance should be understood as a risk reduction strategy to avoid 9/11 scale attacks by making it harder and more expensive for terrorist organizations to organize rather than a panacea to every threat.
https://medium.com/@JohnLaprise/what-do-barad-d%C3%BBr-and-prism-have-in-common-934b8241f78a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misunderstanding Mass Surveillance.
mass surveillance is to control the massess
and WE CREATED, TRAINED, SUPPLY, FEED and PAY those "trrrrist" remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misunderstanding Mass Surveillance.
Then why are the surveillance supporters pointing to it as an intelligence failure and asking for more powers? Although maybe that has died down now that we know they weren't using encryption. If what you say is true, they should be talking about what a great success the Paris attacks were because they were on a much smaller scale than 9/11. Of course, even then they would go on to say "so we need even more money and power so the next attacks will be even smaller". There is no path that doesn't end with them asking for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different Question
For them the question is not how can we make things safer? The question they are trying to answer is how can I/we get more power and a bigger budget?
More surveillance most definitely answers the second question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]