I personally find this all very tiring to hear about because nothing is going to change.
At the end of the day people will be hard-pressed to actually realize any harm from the possibility that someone at the NSA might've downloaded their cat pictures from their Gmail.
And, frankly, this has been an obvious danger since "the cloud" became a thing. It seems oddly hypocritical to be totally ok with Google parsing literally all your data in some cases, but then freaking out when the government does it for national security, in a world where that seems like something that's quite a good idea to do.
Last I checked, Google doesn't have the ability to imprison you based on what they might find in your data. Not that it isn't a problem there as well, as has been discussed in the privacy/Glass thread.
Yes they do. Google has no requirement, if they find anything illegal, to not report you to the government. You broke their agreement when you did something illegal and/or you weren't party to their agreement when someone else filmed you doing something illegal with their google glass.
In fact Google probably has an ethical, if not legal, obligation to report you if you do anything illegal and they find out about it.
Similarly the government doesn't have any power to obtain information on anyone that isn't suspected of doing anything illegal.
Google itself has no ability to imprison. They might have a moral obligation to inform the authorities if they have evidence of illegal action, but they cannot lock me up. The government can, but I have a ToS agreement with them in the form of constitutional rights.
And your last sentence there is the heart of the problem, if they are gathering data en mass, it is highly likely they are gathering data on someone without any suspicion, let alone evidence of wrong doing.
I am not sure how my last sentence implies what yours does.
I am also not sure what the difference is between google telling the govt and the govt locking you up and the govt locking you up.Your ToS with the govt does not cover google telling them you did something illegal.
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
I am way less concerned with the actual monitoring of American citizens and way more concerned with the total lack of judicial oversight that has slowly creeped into our system since the advent of the Patriot Act. I mean, these people, senators no less, are gag ordered to not talk about the thing that they oversee. It is secrecy upon secrecy and I think we have a very robust history regarding what happens when oversight and regulation are abolished.
Moreover, the idea that bad actors do not play a role in this is laughable. There are bad actors and there are bad actors that work in law enforcement and counter-intelligence.
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
The NSA is not going to be breaking literally billions of randomly generated session keys for SSL sessions. Of course, they could just subpoena the root CA private keys, and man-in-the-middle whatever they wanted.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
"National security purposes" is awfully vague. When the FBI was prying into MLK Jr's personal life, were they doing it for national security purposes? I think in J. Edgar Hoover's mind they were, although he might not have used those exact words. Hoover saw King as a destabilizing force in American life, and believed that the country would be a safer place if King were discredited. So the FBI kept tabs on MLK Jr's extramarital affairs. Do you think this was an appropriate use of the FBI's resources? If not, it should give you pause about giving the government broad surveillance powers.
+12
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I personally find this all very tiring to hear about because nothing is going to change.
At the end of the day people will be hard-pressed to actually realize any harm from the possibility that someone at the NSA might've downloaded their cat pictures from their Gmail.
And, frankly, this has been an obvious danger since "the cloud" became a thing. It seems oddly hypocritical to be totally ok with Google parsing literally all your data in some cases, but then freaking out when the government does it for national security, in a world where that seems like something that's quite a good idea to do.
Last I checked, Google doesn't have the ability to imprison you based on what they might find in your data. Not that it isn't a problem there as well, as has been discussed in the privacy/Glass thread.
Yes they do. Google has no requirement, if they find anything illegal, to not report you to the government. You broke their agreement when you did something illegal and/or you weren't party to their agreement when someone else filmed you doing something illegal with their google glass.
In fact Google probably has an ethical, if not legal, obligation to report you if you do anything illegal and they find out about it.
Similarly the government doesn't have any power to obtain information on anyone that isn't suspected of doing anything illegal.
Google itself has no ability to imprison. They might have a moral obligation to inform the authorities if they have evidence of illegal action, but they cannot lock me up. The government can, but I have a ToS agreement with them in the form of constitutional rights.
And your last sentence there is the heart of the problem, if they are gathering data en mass, it is highly likely they are gathering data on someone without any suspicion, let alone evidence of wrong doing.
I am not sure how my last sentence implies what yours does.
I am also not sure what the difference is between google telling the govt and the govt locking you up and the govt locking you up.Your ToS with the govt does not cover google telling them you did something illegal.
You said "the government doesn't have any power to obtain information on anyone that isn't suspected of doing anything illegal". I'm saying they are very likely doing just that, hence the problem. It's not reasonable to assume that they are hauling up that volume of data without some innocents getting caught in the net.
The difference is that Google might tell on me, but the Government doesn't get to jump the gun and just vacuum up all the data wholesale and then see what guilty people they caught after the fact. Also, generally speaking, not everyone arrested by the government is guilty. Things that aren't explicitly illegal, things that Google wouldn't report if they were aware of, might still leave you in a cell. Perhaps in Gitmo?
To be clear, I'm not advocating paranoid hysteria, but these sorts of things should at least elicit a little concern and due diligence on our part to make sure the government is toeing the line and not overstepping it's authority.
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
I don't feel threatened by seeing more ads.
I do feel threatened by a government that tracked members of my Meeting to antiwar rallies, and threatened to tell universities they were applying to they were 'un american' if they continued exercise their right of free association. I feel threatened by a government that thinks it is OK to torture people, just so long as we ship them out of outside the jurisdiction of our courts. I feel threatened when member of congress seek to label peaceful protesters as terrorists. I feel threatened when on this damned message board people called for people involved in denial of service attacks and web result manipulation to be considered terrorists. I feel absolutely terrified of these sort of powered and capabilities being accepted on the state level, where there would be fuck all for oversight.
I agree this is a pretty large problem.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+9
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
I don't feel threatened by seeing more ads.
I do feel threatened by a government that tracked members of my Meeting to antiwar rallies, and threatened to tell universities they were applying to they were 'un american' if they continued exercise their right of free association. I feel threatened by a government that thinks it is OK to torture people, just so long as we ship them out of outside the jurisdiction of our courts. I feel threatened when member of congress seek to label peaceful protesters as terrorists. I feel threatened when on this damned message board people called for people involved in denial of service attacks and web result manipulation to be considered terrorists. I feel absolutely terrified of these sort of powered and capabilities being accepted on the state level, where there would be fuck all for oversight.
I agree this is a pretty large problem.
I think that we are in agreement that for someone who trusts the government, this initiative should not really lose a problem and that for people who don't trust the government, that lack of trust IS the problem, not the data gathering, yes?
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
I don't feel threatened by seeing more ads.
I do feel threatened by a government that tracked members of my Meeting to antiwar rallies, and threatened to tell universities they were applying to they were 'un american' if they continued exercise their right of free association. I feel threatened by a government that thinks it is OK to torture people, just so long as we ship them out of outside the jurisdiction of our courts. I feel threatened when member of congress seek to label peaceful protesters as terrorists. I feel threatened when on this damned message board people called for people involved in denial of service attacks and web result manipulation to be considered terrorists. I feel absolutely terrified of these sort of powered and capabilities being accepted on the state level, where there would be fuck all for oversight.
I agree this is a pretty large problem.
I think that we are in agreement that for someone who trusts the government, this initiative should not really lose a problem and that for people who don't trust the government, that lack of trust IS the problem, not the data gathering, yes?
The data gathering gives them the capability to do things I which don't trust them with that they could not otherwise do(so easily).
I don't trust violent criminals. I don't want violent criminals to have easy access to guns. Therefor I am in favor of restricting the ability of violent criminals to purchase and own guns.
I can think, act and speak on both the government being untrustworthy and the untrustworthy government doing the data collection.
So, maybe, yes, but I don't understand why it matters when making the government trustworth is an unattainable goal.
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
Yes, yes, they will certainly just "crack common encryption standards"
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
+5
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I think that we are in agreement that for someone who trusts the government, this initiative should not really lose a problem and that for people who don't trust the government, that lack of trust IS the problem, not the data gathering, yes?
I would say that the distrust and the data gathering are two distinct problems.
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
Except when there is no oversight like in the case of this whole thing everyone is upset about. That is kind of the point. It took a series of leaks to "wield control".
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
If you don't think that you can trust your government, that is a much more serious problem than what data they can get on you. Assuming we can trust the government and corporations to both only use the data they have for their stated purposes, I am much more comfortable with the government using it for national security purposes (very unlikely that they will ever care about me) than google/MS (who will use it every day to make money by intruding into me life with ads).
I don't feel threatened by seeing more ads.
I do feel threatened by a government that tracked members of my Meeting to antiwar rallies, and threatened to tell universities they were applying to they were 'un american' if they continued exercise their right of free association. I feel threatened by a government that thinks it is OK to torture people, just so long as we ship them out of outside the jurisdiction of our courts. I feel threatened when member of congress seek to label peaceful protesters as terrorists. I feel threatened when on this damned message board people called for people involved in denial of service attacks and web result manipulation to be considered terrorists. I feel absolutely terrified of these sort of powered and capabilities being accepted on the state level, where there would be fuck all for oversight.
I agree this is a pretty large problem.
I think that we are in agreement that for someone who trusts the government, this initiative should not really lose a problem and that for people who don't trust the government, that lack of trust IS the problem, not the data gathering, yes?
I think it much more problematic that people can wholeheartedly trust the government, just because. People are worthy of trust, sometimes. Governments are untrustworthy, fickle things which are only as safe as the most corrupt people in them. And for the modern US government, "corruption" is getting to be the theme song, and that's been happening for a long while.
Lack of trust isn't a problem; there should be a natural, inherent skepticism of the goodwill of government bodies from anybody who looks at the history of the world, or even a US citizen just looking at the actions of our government in the last 50 years, and sees what governments do if they aren't properly constrained. The US government is doing shitty things right now that we just don't know about because of all the safeguards corrupt and power-hungry individuals have put in place or abused, and that's a system you just want to roll over for and say they can do whatever they want because they must know what they're doing?
On the opposite side, we can pay attention and ask questions, with the potential for putting laws in place to stop a potentially far-reaching abuse of rights. If the whole thing is a farce, what have we lost? Nothing, except some time making sure a government isn't going somewhere it shouldn't.
Ninja Snarl P on
+5
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
Except when there is no oversight like in the case of this whole thing everyone is upset about. That is kind of the point. It took a series of leaks to "wield control".
But there was oversight. Congress knew this was happening. That's your oversight of the executive. We don't have oversight of literally any other aspect of the government outside of elections and what limited recall powers we have over local authorities.
This is a question of the law not keeping pace with technology, hopefully now that it's out in the light that will change, but I wager we're in for at least a decade of wait first.
+1
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
But there was oversight. Congress knew this was happening. That's your oversight of the executive. We don't have oversight of literally any other aspect of the government outside of elections and what limited recall powers we have over local authorities.
This is a question of the law not keeping pace with technology, hopefully now that it's out in the light that will change, but I wager we're in for at least a decade of wait first.
Multiple congressfolk involved in NSA oversight have expressed annoyance that the NSA has not been cooperative, and part of Glenn Gleenwald's reporting included evidence that the NSA straight-up lied to Congress about the scope and nature of its activities on multiple occasions.
This problem is not the law catching up with technology. This is a problem of deliberate circumvention of constitutional protections.
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
Yes, yes, they will certainly just "crack common encryption standards"
Because that is really easy
Well, when you have a few hundred examples of the use of someone's public key(statistical analysis rather than brute force approaches), and lots and lots of horsepower, it actually becomes doable for selected keys. Not "easy" but when they find something worth investing the resources in it is generally possible, on an extremely limited basis. Like, with what they are building, and with the brightest minds in the world, it is meaningfully within the realm of possibility.
Stuff like very involved modeling of metadata, voice and speech recognition, simple keyword analysis and basically anything else you can think of is a hell of a lot easier.
But there was oversight. Congress knew this was happening. That's your oversight of the executive. We don't have oversight of literally any other aspect of the government outside of elections and what limited recall powers we have over local authorities.
This is a question of the law not keeping pace with technology, hopefully now that it's out in the light that will change, but I wager we're in for at least a decade of wait first.
Multiple congressfolk involved in NSA oversight have expressed annoyance that the NSA has not been cooperative, and part of Glenn Gleenwald's reporting included evidence that the NSA straight-up lied to Congress about the scope and nature of its activities on multiple occasions.
This problem is not the law catching up with technology. This is a problem of deliberate circumvention of constitutional protections.
And as others have pointed out, those Congressmembers who have been briefed in can't talk about it without talking about classified information and thus committing a crime, which seems somewhat required to actually change it.
Secret actions are sometimes necessary while conducting legitimate affairs of the government. Secret law is unjust. And that's what the lack of transparency in the FISA courts and other related parts of the national security state has created.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
I would think a current look at congress would indicate just what little power the public has over government in comparison to powerful, connected and moneyed interests who desire the opposite or, at the least, conflicting interests
+4
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Seriously AMFE it's astonishing that someone who has been so plugged in to the wonderful world of congressional incompetence over the last decade would point to those guys and say, "Don't worry, they've got our backs."
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Seriously AMFE it's astonishing that someone who has been so plugged in to the wonderful world of congressional incompetence over the last decade would point to those guys and say, "Don't worry, they've got our backs."
Almost like that's not what I said, huh?
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Seriously AMFE it's astonishing that someone who has been so plugged in to the wonderful world of congressional incompetence over the last decade would point to those guys and say, "Don't worry, they've got our backs."
Almost like that's not what I said, huh?
You have a pattern of disavowing other people's interpretations of your arguments without bothering to clarify your intent. It comes off as evasive.
You expressed the opinion that it was preferential for a government to have access to data instead of a corporation, because people can control governments. The method of control you cited was congressional oversight of the executive. A couple posters including myself point out that Congress is frequently unwilling or incapable of exercising that oversight. Where exactly is my misapprehension?
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Again, if you guys are so concerned about government, then this is just a blip. The real problem is that you are lining in a country where you literally believe that your leaders are not responsive to the concerns of the people and may act out unfairly against you in ways that you cannot defend yourself against. I do not believe that any of these concerns are credible, but if you do, then information gathering should be ths least of your concerns.
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
Yes, yes, they will certainly just "crack common encryption standards"
Because that is really easy
Well, when you have a few hundred examples of the use of someone's public key(statistical analysis rather than brute force approaches), and lots and lots of horsepower, it actually becomes doable for selected keys. Not "easy" but when they find something worth investing the resources in it is generally possible, on an extremely limited basis. Like, with what they are building, and with the brightest minds in the world, it is meaningfully within the realm of possibility.
Stuff like very involved modeling of metadata, voice and speech recognition, simple keyword analysis and basically anything else you can think of is a hell of a lot easier.
I'm not saying easy, I'm saying with a facility of that size it becomes a task that is capable of being accomplished.
Additionally, the specter of these agencies obtaining prime number lists and other relevant information used by RSA could vastly improve the efficiency of this task.
Again, if you guys are so concerned about government, then this is just a blip. The real problem is that you are lining in a country where you literally believe that your leaders are not responsive to the concerns of the people and may act out unfairly against you in ways that you cannot defend yourself against. I do not believe that any of these concerns are credible, but if you do, then information gathering should be ths least of your concerns.
We have discussed your privilege many, many, many times before SKFM. Can you just accept that most people don't feel the same way you do and move on?
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Again, if you guys are so concerned about government, then this is just a blip. The real problem is that you are lining in a country where you literally believe that your leaders are not responsive to the concerns of the people and may act out unfairly against you in ways that you cannot defend yourself against. I do not believe that any of these concerns are credible, but if you do, then information gathering should be ths least of your concerns.
Each and every one of those concerns is manifest fact for many, many people in this country.
Hachface on
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Again, if you guys are so concerned about government, then this is just a blip. The real problem is that you are lining in a country where you literally believe that your leaders are not responsive to the concerns of the people and may act out unfairly against you in ways that you cannot defend yourself against. I do not believe that any of these concerns are credible, but if you do, then information gathering should be ths least of your concerns.
We have discussed your privilege many, many, many times before SKFM. Can you just accept that most people don't feel the same way you do and move on?
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
I think that there is a legitimate process question here regarding what should be needed for companies to hand information to the government, but these companies are already not subject to oversight in the use of your data, and the EULA you signed up in connection with literally any service you use (gmail, Facebook, etc.) has already basically ceded all expectations of privacy or control over your data. You choose to opt into the world of services that are "free" but use your data extensively, and that is the price you pay.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Seriously AMFE it's astonishing that someone who has been so plugged in to the wonderful world of congressional incompetence over the last decade would point to those guys and say, "Don't worry, they've got our backs."
Almost like that's not what I said, huh?
You have a pattern of disavowing other people's interpretations of your arguments without bothering to clarify your intent. It comes off as evasive.
You expressed the opinion that it was preferential for a government to have access to data instead of a corporation, because people can control governments. The method of control you cited was congressional oversight of the executive. A couple posters including myself point out that Congress is frequently unwilling or incapable of exercising that oversight. Where exactly is my misapprehension?
Go ahead and find the part where I say "don't worry, they've got our backs". Particularly that don't worry bit.
I think you might just have some trouble there.
During this conversation, in both threads, you and other people have had a bad habit of either interpreting posts in the worst possible light or conflating conversation points.
If we want to talk oversight, there is a way oversight works and there is a way it doesn't. Shyrke posted that "local man passionately argues for things he thinks the constitution stands for" onion link in the other thread and I think it is very apt here.
The assumption you all seem to be working on is that one has to agree with or not care about the collection of this data if they don't toe the PA party line and get outraged and shouty and proclaiming the government broken and powerless and empty.
If we're talking about the merits of a government vs a corporation then yes, the citizen's power over their government (particularly in the American form) makes a pretty strong case in favor of USGOV vs Google. That is, and I think that this would be clear to anyone not looking for a fight, a separate issue to This Specific Instance.
If you care to go back, my throughline in this thread has been "why is this a big deal now that the government has looked at this when companies have been trading, swapping, selling, and storing this shit for years" and "why is the problem WHO is looking at this and not that it exists in a form for people to collect without consequence AT ALL".
These are right there in quote trees for anyone with eyes to see and yet we circle back around to bad faith arguments using dodgy logic to connect posts into something that some find distasteful.
I am sorry that I'm not grabbing a pitchfork with the rest of the forum on this issue, but it's a way bigger problem than just PRISM. As privacy concerns in the year 2013 go, PRISM is the fucking least of our worries.
+3
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
Walk down the streets of Detroit or Camden, NJ sometime and ask how many people there feel like their leaders are responsive to their needs. Ask black and Latino youths who have been stopped and frisked in New York City if they feel like the authorities sometimes act out unfairly against them in ways they cannot defend against.
Distrust in the government is rampant in this country and it is not baseless. The surveillance state is just one more sin on the pile, although this one actually affects everyone so you should probably pay attention. I bet in your line of work you cross path with a lot of government officials. Who knows which ones might hold a grudge?
Hachface on
+4
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
I would think a current look at congress would indicate just what little power the public has over government in comparison to powerful, connected and moneyed interests who desire the opposite or, at the least, conflicting interests
Yup, when the public abdicates its responsibilities to go vote, or pay attention to who they're voting for (this really shouldn't be a shock if you've listend to any of these people in the last 11 years) that sure does happen.
Seriously AMFE it's astonishing that someone who has been so plugged in to the wonderful world of congressional incompetence over the last decade would point to those guys and say, "Don't worry, they've got our backs."
If you think the government's completely corrupt, then any contract you sign is largely meaningless. As you're relying on the government to enforce and penalise (even if just with future restrictions on government business).
If you trust corporations, but not government, then you're an idiot as the latter is the only reason the former honours it's consumer agreements. Reputation is not all that when set against a marketing department of a multinational and the victim isn't amongst the majority of customers.
If Marmite is still in business, then clearly being popularly considered as good is just not enough.
+1
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
On the topic of "there's no hardware available to process that much information": there very well might be. Take a crapton of processing power to crack common encryption standards, toss in a dash of one of the best analysis machines in the world (or something like it), and you have a serious amount of capability sitting right there.
Yes, yes, they will certainly just "crack common encryption standards"
Because that is really easy
Well, when you have a few hundred examples of the use of someone's public key(statistical analysis rather than brute force approaches), and lots and lots of horsepower, it actually becomes doable for selected keys. Not "easy" but when they find something worth investing the resources in it is generally possible, on an extremely limited basis. Like, with what they are building, and with the brightest minds in the world, it is meaningfully within the realm of possibility.
Do you have any links to discussions on this in depth? My understanding is that differential cryptanalysis attacks on modern algorithms requires huge numbers of plaintexts (in the ballpark of 2^60 or whatever) to work, which is far more than the number of cyphertexts generated by any key in practice.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
Walk down the streets of Detroit or Camden, NJ sometime and ask how many people there feel like their leaders are responsive to their needs. Ask black and Latino youths who have been stopped and frisked in New York City if they feel like the authorities sometimes act out unfairly against them in ways they cannot defend against.
Distrust in the government is rampant in this country and it is not baseless.
You think that PRISM makes it materially more likely that, for example, the government will classify you (a US citizen on US soil) as an enemy combatant and ship you to Guantanamo where they will water board you? I don't know to even respond to a concern like that. It is so far out and minuscule in probability. That's why I say I am much more worried about Google using my data for marketing purposes, passing my information to god knows who without my knowledge.
I don't really enjoy having that much information about people floating around in the first place, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick the government before a company anytime.
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
I would think a current look at congress would indicate just what little power the public has over government in comparison to powerful, connected and moneyed interests who desire the opposite or, at the least, conflicting interests
Yup, when the public abdicates its responsibilities to go vote, or pay attention to who they're voting for (this really shouldn't be a shock if you've listend to any of these people in the last 11 years) that sure does happen.
The mitigating force of democracy can only do so much when it is based off the common person. That isn't the common person's fault. We have implicit values that are being destroyed on the regular by bad actors, regardless of voter informancy.
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
Walk down the streets of Detroit or Camden, NJ sometime and ask how many people there feel like their leaders are responsive to their needs. Ask black and Latino youths who have been stopped and frisked in New York City if they feel like the authorities sometimes act out unfairly against them in ways they cannot defend against.
Distrust in the government is rampant in this country and it is not baseless.
You think that PRISM makes it materially more likely that, for example, the government will classify you (a US citizen on US soil) as an enemy combatant and ship you to Guantanamo where they will water board you? I don't know to even respond to a concern like that. It is so far out and minuscule in probability. That's why I say I am much more worried about Google using my data for marketing purposes, passing my information to god knows who without my knowledge.
No, that is not what I think. I don't really think that I am personally in any danger from NSA surveillance. But I'm actually thinking of people other than myself here. The government has inappropriately extended its investigative capabilities to suppress political dissent in the past (FBI and MLK Jr for example) so we should be careful about any new capabilities that we allow them.
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
Walk down the streets of Detroit or Camden, NJ sometime and ask how many people there feel like their leaders are responsive to their needs. Ask black and Latino youths who have been stopped and frisked in New York City if they feel like the authorities sometimes act out unfairly against them in ways they cannot defend against.
Distrust in the government is rampant in this country and it is not baseless.
You think that PRISM makes it materially more likely that, for example, the government will classify you (a US citizen on US soil) as an enemy combatant and ship you to Guantanamo where they will water board you? I don't know to even respond to a concern like that. It is so far out and minuscule in probability. That's why I say I am much more worried about Google using my data for marketing purposes, passing my information to god knows who without my knowledge.
He did not say this.
You have the same concern but from a different source (google vs. government).
Posts
I am not sure how my last sentence implies what yours does.
I am also not sure what the difference is between google telling the govt and the govt locking you up and the govt locking you up.Your ToS with the govt does not cover google telling them you did something illegal.
The NSA is not going to be breaking literally billions of randomly generated session keys for SSL sessions. Of course, they could just subpoena the root CA private keys, and man-in-the-middle whatever they wanted.
less watson, more
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/06/06/nsa-to-build-860-million-hpc-center-in-maryland/
it's basically to data processing what the thing in Utah is to storage, and they have a couple other very large data processing facilities as well.
"National security purposes" is awfully vague. When the FBI was prying into MLK Jr's personal life, were they doing it for national security purposes? I think in J. Edgar Hoover's mind they were, although he might not have used those exact words. Hoover saw King as a destabilizing force in American life, and believed that the country would be a safer place if King were discredited. So the FBI kept tabs on MLK Jr's extramarital affairs. Do you think this was an appropriate use of the FBI's resources? If not, it should give you pause about giving the government broad surveillance powers.
You said "the government doesn't have any power to obtain information on anyone that isn't suspected of doing anything illegal". I'm saying they are very likely doing just that, hence the problem. It's not reasonable to assume that they are hauling up that volume of data without some innocents getting caught in the net.
The difference is that Google might tell on me, but the Government doesn't get to jump the gun and just vacuum up all the data wholesale and then see what guilty people they caught after the fact. Also, generally speaking, not everyone arrested by the government is guilty. Things that aren't explicitly illegal, things that Google wouldn't report if they were aware of, might still leave you in a cell. Perhaps in Gitmo?
To be clear, I'm not advocating paranoid hysteria, but these sorts of things should at least elicit a little concern and due diligence on our part to make sure the government is toeing the line and not overstepping it's authority.
I don't feel threatened by seeing more ads.
I do feel threatened by a government that tracked members of my Meeting to antiwar rallies, and threatened to tell universities they were applying to they were 'un american' if they continued exercise their right of free association. I feel threatened by a government that thinks it is OK to torture people, just so long as we ship them out of outside the jurisdiction of our courts. I feel threatened when member of congress seek to label peaceful protesters as terrorists. I feel threatened when on this damned message board people called for people involved in denial of service attacks and web result manipulation to be considered terrorists. I feel absolutely terrified of these sort of powered and capabilities being accepted on the state level, where there would be fuck all for oversight.
I agree this is a pretty large problem.
I think that we are in agreement that for someone who trusts the government, this initiative should not really lose a problem and that for people who don't trust the government, that lack of trust IS the problem, not the data gathering, yes?
The data gathering gives them the capability to do things I which don't trust them with that they could not otherwise do(so easily).
I don't trust violent criminals. I don't want violent criminals to have easy access to guns. Therefor I am in favor of restricting the ability of violent criminals to purchase and own guns.
I can think, act and speak on both the government being untrustworthy and the untrustworthy government doing the data collection.
So, maybe, yes, but I don't understand why it matters when making the government trustworth is an unattainable goal.
Yes, yes, they will certainly just "crack common encryption standards"
Because that is really easy
We can wield control over the government, the same cannot be said of a company, contracts be damned.
I would say that the distrust and the data gathering are two distinct problems.
I think it much more problematic that people can wholeheartedly trust the government, just because. People are worthy of trust, sometimes. Governments are untrustworthy, fickle things which are only as safe as the most corrupt people in them. And for the modern US government, "corruption" is getting to be the theme song, and that's been happening for a long while.
Lack of trust isn't a problem; there should be a natural, inherent skepticism of the goodwill of government bodies from anybody who looks at the history of the world, or even a US citizen just looking at the actions of our government in the last 50 years, and sees what governments do if they aren't properly constrained. The US government is doing shitty things right now that we just don't know about because of all the safeguards corrupt and power-hungry individuals have put in place or abused, and that's a system you just want to roll over for and say they can do whatever they want because they must know what they're doing?
On the opposite side, we can pay attention and ask questions, with the potential for putting laws in place to stop a potentially far-reaching abuse of rights. If the whole thing is a farce, what have we lost? Nothing, except some time making sure a government isn't going somewhere it shouldn't.
But there was oversight. Congress knew this was happening. That's your oversight of the executive. We don't have oversight of literally any other aspect of the government outside of elections and what limited recall powers we have over local authorities.
This is a question of the law not keeping pace with technology, hopefully now that it's out in the light that will change, but I wager we're in for at least a decade of wait first.
Multiple congressfolk involved in NSA oversight have expressed annoyance that the NSA has not been cooperative, and part of Glenn Gleenwald's reporting included evidence that the NSA straight-up lied to Congress about the scope and nature of its activities on multiple occasions.
This problem is not the law catching up with technology. This is a problem of deliberate circumvention of constitutional protections.
Well, when you have a few hundred examples of the use of someone's public key(statistical analysis rather than brute force approaches), and lots and lots of horsepower, it actually becomes doable for selected keys. Not "easy" but when they find something worth investing the resources in it is generally possible, on an extremely limited basis. Like, with what they are building, and with the brightest minds in the world, it is meaningfully within the realm of possibility.
Stuff like very involved modeling of metadata, voice and speech recognition, simple keyword analysis and basically anything else you can think of is a hell of a lot easier.
And as others have pointed out, those Congressmembers who have been briefed in can't talk about it without talking about classified information and thus committing a crime, which seems somewhat required to actually change it.
Secret actions are sometimes necessary while conducting legitimate affairs of the government. Secret law is unjust. And that's what the lack of transparency in the FISA courts and other related parts of the national security state has created.
I would think a current look at congress would indicate just what little power the public has over government in comparison to powerful, connected and moneyed interests who desire the opposite or, at the least, conflicting interests
Almost like that's not what I said, huh?
You have a pattern of disavowing other people's interpretations of your arguments without bothering to clarify your intent. It comes off as evasive.
You expressed the opinion that it was preferential for a government to have access to data instead of a corporation, because people can control governments. The method of control you cited was congressional oversight of the executive. A couple posters including myself point out that Congress is frequently unwilling or incapable of exercising that oversight. Where exactly is my misapprehension?
I'm not saying easy, I'm saying with a facility of that size it becomes a task that is capable of being accomplished.
Additionally, the specter of these agencies obtaining prime number lists and other relevant information used by RSA could vastly improve the efficiency of this task.
We have discussed your privilege many, many, many times before SKFM. Can you just accept that most people don't feel the same way you do and move on?
Each and every one of those concerns is manifest fact for many, many people in this country.
I'm sorry, but these concerns seem awfully tinfoilly to me, so no, I will not accept, without evidence, that exotic conspiracy theories or fears about government action in the US are legitimate.
I think that there is a legitimate process question here regarding what should be needed for companies to hand information to the government, but these companies are already not subject to oversight in the use of your data, and the EULA you signed up in connection with literally any service you use (gmail, Facebook, etc.) has already basically ceded all expectations of privacy or control over your data. You choose to opt into the world of services that are "free" but use your data extensively, and that is the price you pay.
Go ahead and find the part where I say "don't worry, they've got our backs". Particularly that don't worry bit.
I think you might just have some trouble there.
During this conversation, in both threads, you and other people have had a bad habit of either interpreting posts in the worst possible light or conflating conversation points.
If we want to talk oversight, there is a way oversight works and there is a way it doesn't. Shyrke posted that "local man passionately argues for things he thinks the constitution stands for" onion link in the other thread and I think it is very apt here.
The assumption you all seem to be working on is that one has to agree with or not care about the collection of this data if they don't toe the PA party line and get outraged and shouty and proclaiming the government broken and powerless and empty.
If we're talking about the merits of a government vs a corporation then yes, the citizen's power over their government (particularly in the American form) makes a pretty strong case in favor of USGOV vs Google. That is, and I think that this would be clear to anyone not looking for a fight, a separate issue to This Specific Instance.
If you care to go back, my throughline in this thread has been "why is this a big deal now that the government has looked at this when companies have been trading, swapping, selling, and storing this shit for years" and "why is the problem WHO is looking at this and not that it exists in a form for people to collect without consequence AT ALL".
These are right there in quote trees for anyone with eyes to see and yet we circle back around to bad faith arguments using dodgy logic to connect posts into something that some find distasteful.
I am sorry that I'm not grabbing a pitchfork with the rest of the forum on this issue, but it's a way bigger problem than just PRISM. As privacy concerns in the year 2013 go, PRISM is the fucking least of our worries.
Walk down the streets of Detroit or Camden, NJ sometime and ask how many people there feel like their leaders are responsive to their needs. Ask black and Latino youths who have been stopped and frisked in New York City if they feel like the authorities sometimes act out unfairly against them in ways they cannot defend against.
Distrust in the government is rampant in this country and it is not baseless. The surveillance state is just one more sin on the pile, although this one actually affects everyone so you should probably pay attention. I bet in your line of work you cross path with a lot of government officials. Who knows which ones might hold a grudge?
Yup, when the public abdicates its responsibilities to go vote, or pay attention to who they're voting for (this really shouldn't be a shock if you've listend to any of these people in the last 11 years) that sure does happen.
If you think the government's completely corrupt, then any contract you sign is largely meaningless. As you're relying on the government to enforce and penalise (even if just with future restrictions on government business).
If you trust corporations, but not government, then you're an idiot as the latter is the only reason the former honours it's consumer agreements. Reputation is not all that when set against a marketing department of a multinational and the victim isn't amongst the majority of customers.
If Marmite is still in business, then clearly being popularly considered as good is just not enough.
You think that PRISM makes it materially more likely that, for example, the government will classify you (a US citizen on US soil) as an enemy combatant and ship you to Guantanamo where they will water board you? I don't know to even respond to a concern like that. It is so far out and minuscule in probability. That's why I say I am much more worried about Google using my data for marketing purposes, passing my information to god knows who without my knowledge.
No, that is not what I think. I don't really think that I am personally in any danger from NSA surveillance. But I'm actually thinking of people other than myself here. The government has inappropriately extended its investigative capabilities to suppress political dissent in the past (FBI and MLK Jr for example) so we should be careful about any new capabilities that we allow them.
You have the same concern but from a different source (google vs. government).