U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[Michael Hardner]

Share your methodogy on that please.

We can only guess at/aggregate the risks involved but I don't see them as being significant, compared to the risk of attack. We had an attack that lost thousands of lives and immeasurable financial loss, but because it happened ten years agoy ou seem to be discounting it.

Weve already been over this... The medium being used to communicate speech has no bearing on which type of speech needs to be monitored. Private conversations are private conversations whether they happen in your living room, on the phone, in a letter, or using two tin cans with a string tied between them. And the government already has all the access they need. They can see anything they want, they just have to show a valid legal reason. Perfect!

You used the term unprecedented, referring to the powers to store metadata. They only make sense if you take into account the technology that those new powers have domain over. Now, you want to say the new medium has no bearing. You can't have one without the other.

Sweet! Share some... seems like it would highly relevant to this conversation.

This discussion...

Im not talking about a call for "extreme rationality" Im talking about the complete and total absense of meaningful analysis, rational thought, and critical thinking around a threat thats 71 times less likely than being struck by lightening.

You're already taking the human factor out of this by making that comparison, which I find quite trite.

Why when we talk about healthcare, do you go on and on about how important it is to gather and analyze data to determine if theres a problem and what the scope is, so we can determine a solution... But when we talk about terrorism you go directly from "911 happened" to "The government needs a searchable database of all our conversations".

The elephant in the room here is that you are placing a high value on privacy - much higher than mine. For that reason, it just can't be the same type of conversation as allocation of funds in another realm.

Make no mistake about it though Mike, you are going to get your searchable database!

I don't want it - you didn't respond to my Google analogy: am I out to lunch on that or... ?

[Michael Hardner]

If you understood the technology and how information is gathered, you would not be satisfied with your current risk assessment.

I put forward an analogy which I hope to get comment on. That will answer how much I understand this, in my own mind.

[Bonam]

Collective society can draw all the boundaries it wishes, but governments will always circumvent such policies when faced with a real or perceived existential threat, and the courts will back them up in most cases. Just ask the families of Japanese Americans or Canadians interned during WW2.

In times of existential threat, yes, extreme measures are sometimes required and justified. But there is no existential threat now, certainly not from terrorism. These measures simply are not needed to combat so small a threat. If your house is invaded by a burglar at night, maybe you'll ward them off with your gun and that action will be well worth it. But if there is a mosquito buzzing around your house, maybe you should employ other means rather than blasting away and having to deal with all the collateral damage. Dealing with the terrorist threat by a persistent nationwide surveillance network that destroys all notions of privacy and limitations on government power is like blasting away at the mosquito with a shotgun: wasteful, damaging, stupid. If WW3 was upon us and enemy infiltrators and spies were everywhere, maybe this measure would be worth it, but not for a few dumbass religious fanatics with homemade bombs.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If WW3 was upon us and enemy infiltrators and spies were everywhere, maybe this measure would be worth it, but not for a few dumbass religious fanatics with homemade bombs.

The political calculus is rather straightforward and favors continued data collection and analysis, perhaps with more oversight. Americans will tolerate a great deal more of such intrusions if their perception is reduced risk and FISA rules are being followed. U.S. federal and state emergency planners expect a major NBCR accident / attack as an eventuality, but the political difference between accident and attack is huge.

Getting virtually necked at airport security is now a routine process.

[dre]

We can only guess at/aggregate the risks involved but I don't see them as being significant, compared to the risk of attack. We had an attack that lost thousands of lives and immeasurable financial loss, but because it happened ten years agoy ou seem to be discounting it.

We suffered a temporary financial loss of about a trillion dollars that we have already recoverd from. But we spent 6 or 7 trillion on the GWOT and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

And Im not "discounting" it. What Im saying is that our response to that has not been rational or intelligent, and that in general the conversation about this topic seems to have an almost "religious" immunity to critical thinking, and emprirical analysis.

You used the term unprecedented, referring to the powers to store metadata. They only make sense if you take into account the technology that those new powers have domain over. Now, you want to say the new medium has no bearing. You can't have one without the other.

Sure I can... Its pretty damn simple, and its backed up by many decades of jurisprudence. The government and its various security arms can monitor your communication in any way they see fit (whether they are analog or digital)... They just need a green light from the judiciary to make sure they arent breaking the law.

You're already taking the human factor out of this by making that comparison, which I find quite trite.

Im not really doing that. I understand the human/political element and thats why I already conceded that people like me are going to lose this argument. If you (or others) have fears and demons that are not supported by evidence or reality, or rational thought and critical thinking, then Its extremely unlikely I could change that with any kind of appeal to think critically or consider the real evidence.

The elephant in the room here is that you are placing a high value on privacy - much higher than mine. For that reason, it just can't be the same type of conversation as allocation of funds in another realm.

This is just not true... I have already conceded that privacy has to be limited, and that the government/police have a real reason to access this information sometimes. The only real difference here is I support a key legal pillar of western civilization which is the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of citizens... and you appear to think that the government can just be trusted to follow the rules.

I don't want it - you didn't respond to my Google analogy: am I out to lunch on that or... ?

I honestly just missed it. Ill go and find that post and comment on it.

Edited June 15, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

We suffered a temporary financial loss of about a trillion dollars that we have already recoverd from. But we spent 6 or 7 trillion on the GWOT and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Well, the cost/benefit analysis is indeed a deep, complicated and fascinating topic, which I think deserves its own thread as well.

Sure I can... Its pretty damn simple, and its backed up by many decades of jurisprudence.

I'm debating the logical dissonance of calling the powers to store metadata 'unprecedented' while refusing to acknowledge that technology comes into play in the discussion. "Monitor your communications..." is time dependent on how people communicate.

Imagine what the founding fathers would have said if you told them that Verizon was warehousing metadata !

(I know what they would have said. Something like "what ?")

So it has less to do with the matter of the discussion than advancing arguments which are unstuck in tiem.

If you (or others) have fears and demons that are not supported by evidence or reality, or rational thought and critical thinking, then Its extremely unlikely I could change that with any kind of appeal to think critically or consider the real evidence.

That's an honest way of looking at it. I suspect that there's a kind of dogged pride at play, too, on the part of at least some of those who refuse to give any quarter to the defense/security/espionage community on the basis of territoriality, pride of any number of personal factors that could be seen as rooted in irrationality.

Again - the risk assessment idea sounds like a great idea for another thread.

This is just not true... I have already conceded that privacy has to be limited, and that the government/police have a real reason to access this information sometimes. The only real difference here is I support a key legal pillar of western civilization which is the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of citizens... and you appear to think that the government can just be trusted to follow the rules.

No - I already said that I don't trust them. And - do you really think that you place the same value on privacy that I do ?

[GostHacked]

We can only guess at/aggregate the risks involved but I don't see them as being significant, compared to the risk of attack. We had an attack that lost thousands of lives and immeasurable financial loss, but because it happened ten years agoy ou seem to be discounting it.

Discounting it on the premise that all the snooping would have prevented such an attack. The US intelligence agencies already knew about the threats from Bin Laden and flying planes into buildings. Even when other countries had also raised concerns with the USA to say that they are also expecting it, because they picked up on the same information.

So, three scenarios come to mind. Was it that they did not have enough information? Or that they are incompetent, or that they allowed it to happen.

You used the term unprecedented, referring to the powers to store metadata. They only make sense if you take into account the technology that those new powers have domain over. Now, you want to say the new medium has no bearing. You can't have one without the other.

The medium has no bearing. You must apply the same types of checks and balances to the digital world as you do in the real world. You need a warrant to enter a house in order to gain evidence if the person does not willingly comply. Same thing with the digital world. Just because it makes it easier for them to snoop on you, does not mean they should. I would also raise a stink with the company that is willingly complying with the government without respecting the privacy of it's client base. But then again, you agreed to the EULA which means they can sell and do with your information (not just the metadata) to anyone willing to pay a few bucks for it. Facebook does it.

Got a Google email account? Gmail? There are content readers that scan the content of your emails in order to put ads relevant to your content. The meta data includes what was scanned in order to index key words from the email. In essence it reads and archives the whole email.

And with most of these cloud systems, you cannot ever really delete anything. An example with a UK ISP that switched from Google to Yahoo for mail (or vice versa) and everyone was inundated with old deleted emails.

You're already taking the human factor out of this by making that comparison, which I find quite trite.

You don't want it to be emotional, but you want the human factor left in ...... ok.

The elephant in the room here is that you are placing a high value on privacy - much higher than mine. For that reason, it just can't be the same type of conversation as allocation of funds in another realm.

You don't trust them while having a lower tolerance for privacy. This is exactly the mentality they want general population to be in. And this is why we will see bigger issues with online privacy in the near future.

[Michael Hardner]

Discounting it on the premise that all the snooping would have prevented such an attack.

I think you meant to say "wouldn't". The quality of the knowledge is, to me, key to assessing the threat.

The medium has no bearing.

You're misunderstanding me, which I can tell by your parsing of the content of argument with regards to rights, etc.

Got a Google email account? Gmail? There are content readers that scan the content of your emails in order to put ads relevant to your content. The meta data includes what was scanned in order to index key words from the email. In essence it reads and archives the whole email.

Ok - this seems to support my assumption that Google could serve up the results of internal searches without providing the full database.

You don't want it to be emotional, but you want the human factor left in ...... ok.

On the contrary, I don't think the emotional can be taken out of it. I'm criticizing the idea that we can, as an example, go to the public with the knowledge that terrorist attacks are unlikely and expect that to facilitate a change in policy.

This is exactly the mentality they want general population to be in.

What do "they" really want ? Tell me.

[GostHacked]

I think you meant to say "wouldn't". The quality of the knowledge is, to me, key to assessing the threat.

You're misunderstanding me, which I can tell by your parsing of the content of argument with regards to rights, etc.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you, I am under the notion that you don't understand the technology and how they are using it to gather information. If you have not seen the progression of Internet surveillance since the Internet started to get popular around 1995, then you may not see what is taking place today.

Ok - this seems to support my assumption that Google could serve up the results of internal searches without providing the full database.

On the contrary, I don't think the emotional can be taken out of it.

Then why tell others not to get emotional? Helps to be consistent in order to present a logical argument.

I'm criticizing the idea that we can, as an example, go to the public with the knowledge that terrorist attacks are unlikely and expect that to facilitate a change in policy.

It should demand a change in the policy. Massive amounts of money are being spent on a program that is used on the same citizens that pay for it.

What do "they" really want ? Tell me.

I thought I had an answer some years ago, but not exactly sure now. I just know the more they demand the citizens to be open, the government is getting more closed and secretive.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think I am misunderstanding you, I am under the notion that you don't understand the technology and how they are using it to gather information. If you have not seen the progression of Internet surveillance since the Internet started to get popular around 1995, then you may not see what is taking place today.

Yes, you're misunderstanding me. My issue is only with the use of the word "unprecedented" in isolation in this argument - not about the matter of the argument at all. By referring to the progression of Internet surveillance you're talking about something else entirely.

Then why tell others not to get emotional? Helps to be consistent in order to present a logical argument.

We should try not to get emotional in our discussion, but we can't deny the emotional nature of the subject matter itself. Can you see the difference ?

Like this: Don't get upset with me as we discuss topics that are volatile and controversial but also don't assume that the public can subvert the emotional nature of such arguments in general.

It should demand a change in the policy. Massive amounts of money are being spent on a program that is used on the same citizens that pay for it.

This is different from other policies how ?

thought I had an answer some years ago, but not exactly sure now. I just know the more they demand the citizens to be open, the government is getting more closed and secretive.

We can't deny the tension between what the government wants us to do, and what politicians resist from the public. I want government to be more open, however there is a certain amount of secrecy demanded in certain areas of activity. Security is one.

[dre]

We can't deny the tension between what the government wants us to do, and what politicians resist from the public. I want government to be more open, however there is a certain amount of secrecy demanded in certain areas of activity. Security is one.

Thats a piece of conventional wisdom that needs to be revisited. Its the governments ability to act and make policy in secret in the name of security that actually spawned the current threat. They got together in their little back rooms, and decided to overthrow foreign governments, support tyrants and dictators against their own people, and help arm and train the very fundamentalists that are attacking us now. The current threat of terrorism is blowback that resulted from all that secret security activity.

I know it feels right for you to say that, and governments have been using that argument to allow them to do virtually anything they want without telling us a damn thing for hundreds of years... But that doesnt mean its true.

I would actually argue the opposite... that citizens of a country WITHOUT a huge powerfull intelligence/security apparatus, that cruises around the world propping up dictators, toppling governments, sponsoring terrorism, and arming various different militant groups, and picking sides in civil wars would actually be SAFER and MORE SECURE. Those institutions get into a lot of mischief and get a lot of people mad at us.

That's an honest way of looking at it. I suspect that there's a kind of dogged pride at play, too, on the part of at least some of those who refuse to give any quarter to the defense/security/espionage community on the basis of territoriality, pride of any number of personal factors that could be seen as rooted in irrationality.

I dont think so... I think its rooted in reality. I think the whole liberty for security tradeoff argument is false to begin with. When I look around the world, it seems to me that people that have the most freedom and strong legal protection of individual rights are ALSO the most safe!

Also... you seem to be suggesting that even though the threat of terrorism is a complete and total statistical non-factor, that we have to do all this stuff because of the emotional/political stuff... But how much of the publics histeria around this issue is actually engineered by government in the first place? We have this constant rush of material and speech from government about how dangerous the world is, and how dangerous and formidable these fundamentalist dorks are. But in my opinion based on the data Iv been able to find, we have never been safer, and the risk of being the target of a terrorist attack is statistically about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats a piece of conventional wisdom that needs to be revisited. Its the governments ability to act and make policy in secret in the name of security that actually spawned the current threat. They got together in their little back rooms, and decided to overthrow foreign governments, support tyrants and dictators against their own people, and help arm and train the very fundamentalists that are attacking us now. The current threat of terrorism is blowback that resulted from all that secret security activity.

Interesting - but a complete reworking of how governments keep secrets definitely needs its own thread, IMO. It's a pretty fundamental change to how the world works. I would imagine that secrecy and privacy both incur overhead costs that could be scaled back in someway.

Those institutions get into a lot of mischief and get a lot of people mad at us.

At whom ?

I dont think so... I think its rooted in reality. I think the whole liberty for security tradeoff argument is false to begin with. When I look around the world, it seems to me that people that have the most freedom and strong legal protection of individual rights are ALSO the most safe!

Like who ?

Also... you seem to be suggesting that even though the threat of terrorism is a complete and total statistical non-factor, that we have to do all this stuff because of the emotional/political stuff... But how much of the publics histeria around this issue is actually engineered by government in the first place? We have this constant rush of material and speech from government about how dangerous the world is, and how dangerous and formidable these fundamentalist dorks are. But in my opinion based on the data Iv been able to find, we have never been safer, and the risk of being the target of a terrorist attack is statistically about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

I don't know how much is engineered by the government, or how much it has to be sustained. As long as we have the current system, though, we will really only have incremental changes - be they incremental losses of freedom, creeping changes to how we're tracked etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know how much is engineered by the government, or how much it has to be sustained. As long as we have the current system, though, we will really only have incremental changes - be they incremental losses of freedom, creeping changes to how we're tracked etc.

In the end, "we" are government, so any engineering is ultimately traceable to citizens, voting or not. The perceptions and actions concerning the risk of terrorism is not unlike the perception for murders (and gun crime), which is at a 50 year low in the U.S. Nevertheless, there have been very high profile reaction(s) to the combination of the two.....mass shootings.

[GostHacked]

Yes, you're misunderstanding me. My issue is only with the use of the word "unprecedented" in isolation in this argument - not about the matter of the argument at all. By referring to the progression of Internet surveillance you're talking about something else entirely.

Actually the progression of Internet technology plays key role in the ability to have this massive data collecting system that has been created. Understand the technology and how they are using it is very very important.

Like this: Don't get upset with me as we discuss topics that are volatile and controversial but also don't assume that the public can subvert the emotional nature of such arguments in general.

Well, emotions are going to come into it. People kind of get uppity when their government constantly lies to them. As

the saying goes, 'If you are not pissed, then you have not been paying attention'.

So what I suspected (backed by evidence along the way) years ago, is actually happening now. The Internet is simply another weapons system for the US military. This time the sites are on Americans. Sure Obama said they are not listening and no Americans are targeted..... how can anyone believe that?

This is different from other policies how ?

This one is being used to monitor us, not the so called enemy. Maybe Verizon should change their motto to 'Yes we can hear you, all the time!!'

We can't deny the tension between what the government wants us to do, and what politicians resist from the public. I want government to be more open, however there is a certain amount of secrecy demanded in certain areas of activity. Security is one.

I agree with some secrecy, however this blanket measure does not offer any security at all, it's an infringement on US citizens rights, first and foremost. And the only way someone can argue the legality of this program is because the government changed the laws to make their pactions legal. If they had not changed the laws, then this would be illegal.

If the rules don't allow you to do what you want, then the option is to change the rules. That is what has happened.

[GostHacked]

I don't know how much is engineered by the government, or how much it has to be sustained. As long as we have the current system, though, we will really only have incremental changes - be they incremental losses of freedom, creeping changes to how we're tracked etc.

The incremental losses of freedom and creeping changes have been going on for years. This program is a result of that.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually the progression of Internet technology plays key role in the ability to have this massive data collecting system that has been created. Understand the technology and how they are using it is very very important.

Moving on...

Well, emotions are going to come into it. People kind of get uppity when their government constantly lies to them. As

the saying goes, 'If you are not pissed, then you have not been paying attention'.

So what I suspected (backed by evidence along the way) years ago, is actually happening now. The Internet is simply another weapons system for the US military. This time the sites are on Americans. Sure Obama said they are not listening and no Americans are targeted..... how can anyone believe that?

If evidence comes out, we can deal with it then.

I agree with some secrecy, however this blanket measure does not offer any security at all, it's an infringement on US citizens rights, first and foremost. And the only way someone can argue the legality of this program is because the government changed the laws to make their pactions legal. If they had not changed the laws, then this would be illegal.

If the rules don't allow you to do what you want, then the option is to change the rules. That is what has happened.

We seem to have reached the understanding point of our discussion here.

[GostHacked]

Moving on...

For the technically declined, this is usually the response. It's not meant as an insult, just a reality.

If evidence comes out, we can deal with it then.

The evidence already came out. How are you dealing with it?

We seem to have reached the understanding point of our discussion here.

If you look back, this understanding was there from the start of this thread. That point you agree on is also something dre has been expressing all along.

And that is also part of this. The ability to change the rules when they get in the way.

Edited June 16, 2013 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

So can we go back to the point that this is not Orwellian at all, but rather Kafkaesque, in particular from his novel The Trial (German: Der Process)? The government collects, stores, and most importantly analyzes data on its citizens without warrants and, the key point, without the accused party's knowledge. In the novel Josef K. goes on trial but is never told what he's on trial for, is never allowed to analyze the evidence, and through the story is never given complete information about what is going on (ie, he's told the address to the court, but not given the time. When he arrives it's a large apartment building, looking nothing like a court, forcing him to search for the court in this multi-floored building). I think the analogy is apt here.

What this is not about: Surveillance.

What this is about: An imbalance of information.

Argus's points are absolutely correct. The government is not watching you as a specific individual. They don't have the time, manpower, or money to do such a thing. They're just collecting data on everyone. The problem is this: The government can retroactively retrieve that information, analyze it, and come to conclusions about you and your guilt/innocence without you even knowing about it. With the seemingly dynamic use of the term "terrorism" since 9/11 and the fact that Guantanamo is still allowed to operate (stripping people of due process and their legal rights), this should make everyone sick to their stomach. The government could try you via data analysis without due process, without you being able to put up a defence, and without your knowledge. The problem is not just that they are gathering information on you, but that they're gathering this information and you're not allowed to know what information they have or how they intend on using it. We can all accept that the government needs to gather information, but we ought to have every right to know what information they're gathering on us and how they're gathering that information.

Otherwise, we may as well be living under the Stasi. Excessive analogy? Right now it is. But given that kind of power, it's not very hard to see how unchecked it could lead to the "liberties" taken by the Stasi. The imbalance of information will lead to psychological warfare by the state against its citizens. Not intentionally of course. Nobody is sitting down in an office saying, "hey! Let's conduct psychological warfare." This is just the progression that this kind of imbalance is likely to take, unless there are powerful checks and balances put into place. The government doesn't want those checks and balances because it makes things more efficient for them, not because they want to harm the citizenry. But if there are no assurances put into place that these kinds of programs won't get out of hand and harm us, then we may as well expect that it will happen because the government is not going to reel them in on their own. It's not in their interests to make these programs inefficient.

So this is what we need to guard against. The surveillance is just the window dressing on the problem. The actual problem is more Kafkaesque in nature than Orwellian.

[Michael Hardner]

For the technically declined, this is usually the response. It's not meant as an insult, just a reality.

No. You're changing the subject from what I was talking about, and saying 'understanding the technology is very important'. I didn't see the need to respond to that obvious point, and I am sure that I understand the technology better than most citizens.

The evidence already came out. How are you dealing with it?

The evidence came out that they actually are listening ? I missed that. Did it really ?

[GostHacked]

Cybercoma, overall great post, only going to point out one thing that was incorrect.

Not intentionally of course. Nobody is sitting down in an office saying, "hey! Let's conduct psychological warfare."

Actually they are saying and doing just that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

So this is what we need to guard against. The surveillance is just the window dressing on the problem. The actual problem is more Kafkaesque in nature than Orwellian.

Quite familiar with Orwell, I'll have to look more into Kafka.

[ReeferMadness]

Canadians are being spied on too:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/12/f-communication-security-establishment-canada.html

With the Republican-wannabe's running the country, that's no surprise at all.

[Guest Derek L]

With the Republican-wannabe's running the country, that's no surprise at all.

Funny that CSEC's rapid expansion in terms of capability, scope (including the ability to intercept in or outbound communications to Canada) and budget came about under the Post 9/11 Liberal Government....

[Shady]

Barack Obama owes George Bush and Dick Cheney a HUGE apology. Massive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Barack Obama owes George Bush and Dick Cheney a HUGE apology. Massive.

President Bush is getting his mojo back...after all, he does have the highest approval rating of any president since such polls were taken. I'll bet that even President Obama now has a new found respect for his predecessor as he deals with the same issues from the Oval Office.

[GostHacked]

Barack Obama owes George Bush and Dick Cheney a HUGE apology. Massive.

Obama is only continuing a policy that was built upon by the previous administration. They don't need the apology because I would suspect Bush/Cheney supports everything he is currently doing.

You can picture it now George makes the ass slap sayin 'Heckuva job Barrack!'