Re: "the ability of the government to go back to taps collected years earlier to look for material with which to influence potential witnesses in the present"
At 09:14 AM 1/19/2014, coderman wrote:
(2) threats to the United States and its interests from terrorism; Terrorism was the previous justification for the bulk collection and for the 3-degrees-of-separation "rule", so no change.
(3) threats to the United States and its interests from the development, possession, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; When Dubya Bush was trying to justify invading Iraq, he talked about WMDs as "nuculur bombs" and chemical and biological weapons. But when some angry young zealot tried to car-bomb Times Square using "explosives" he'd gotten from an FBI informant, they also charged him with making "weapons of mass destruction", the Boston Marathon bombers got charged with that, and I think even pipe bombs have been called WMDs recently.
So WMDs might be any random young resident calling his brother or cousin, and the NSA still gets to Tap All The Phones.
(4) cybersecurity threats; [ED: WTF???] Hey, the guy might be using Skype to call his cousin instead of minutes. And people are constantly trying to hack the computers at military facilities, banks, and civilian government agencies, either with deliberate targeting or just because it's easier not to program your botnet to use whitelists, and maybe that defense contractor's supercomputer can mine Litecoins fast.
So no, I don't see the situation improving soon, and certainly not before they repeal Moore's Law.
(2) threats to the United States and its interests from terrorism;
Not only is the action not well defined 'terrorism', nor is the resultant 'threat' from it, nor is the source and sink of that action. So not only is Muhammad flying his private 747 from Arabia into the Empire State subject to general warrants in bulk... so is Joe Midwest Farmer marching on Congress pitchfork in hand or burning his fields to stop up the just in time food flow in protest of some subsidy issue. Same loose interpretation could be applied to most of those stanzas. Weasel words and mission creep, a year from now and everything will be the same, unless Joe and Corp do in fact continue to get up and act up about it. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
At 09:14 AM 1/19/2014, coderman wrote:
(2) threats to the United States and its interests from terrorism;
Terrorism was the previous justification for the bulk collection and for the 3-degrees-of-separation "rule", so no change.
(3) threats to the United States and its interests from the development, possession, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction;
When Dubya Bush was trying to justify invading Iraq, he talked about WMDs as "nuculur bombs" and chemical and biological weapons. But when some angry young zealot tried to car-bomb Times Square using "explosives" he'd gotten from an FBI informant, they also charged him with making "weapons of mass destruction", the Boston Marathon bombers got charged with that, and I think even pipe bombs have been called WMDs recently.
So WMDs might be any random young resident calling his brother or cousin, and the NSA still gets to Tap All The Phones.
(4) cybersecurity threats; [ED: WTF???]
Hey, the guy might be using Skype to call his cousin instead of minutes. And people are constantly trying to hack the computers at military facilities, banks, and civilian government agencies, either with deliberate targeting or just because it's easier not to program your botnet to use whitelists, and maybe that defense contractor's supercomputer can mine Litecoins fast.
So no, I don't see the situation improving soon, and certainly not before they repeal Moore's Law.
Dnia niedziela, 19 stycznia 2014 23:25:24 grarpamp pisze:
Weasel words and mission creep,
I expected nothing less.
a year from now and everything will be the same, unless Joe and Corp do in fact continue to get up and act up about it.
Corp? Are you implying that corporations are on "our" side of this? That's cute. Once corporations get 1. plausible deniability; 2. legal indemnification, they'll be happy to provide any and all data to any government that asks. I hope we're all clear on that. -- Pozdr rysiek
On 20 Jan 2014, at 19:52 , rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Corp? Are you implying that corporations are on "our" side of this? That's cute.
Once corporations get 1. plausible deniability; 2. legal indemnification, they'll be happy to provide any and all data to any government that asks. I hope we're all clear on that.
That varies from corp to corp - pure ISPs (as opposed to companies which are also involved in other areas of the media business), for example, are generally quite strongly opposed to filtering, wiretap and data retention laws, because they are a significant cost to them which makes their core product no better for their customers (and will often make things worse), without any useful benefit to them. Sure, they are only really interested in their own advantage, but their advantage coincides with the desires of privacy advocates, so an alliance of convenience is suitable. OTOH, in the US many ISPs are also either content producers, TV companies, or POTS companies, and so have a strong interest in preventing their internet activities from harming those (often more profitable) areas of their business. Because they are themselves often beneficiaries of attempts to preserve traditional distribution channels and business methods, they are strong advocates for anti-privacy measures which they believe (rightly or wrongly) will help them while shifting any opposition onto the politicians. Also, some companies have the sense to realise that even if handing over customer data is no great burden now, the demands from governments only tend to grow, and so opposing a small amount of snooping can protect themselves against a larger imposition later. (For example, the telephone companies at first only had to turn over data they were keeping anyway, then they were ordered to keep it at their own expense for government use.)
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 20:51:34 Philip Shaw pisze:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 19:52 , rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Corp? Are you implying that corporations are on "our" side of this? That's cute.
Once corporations get 1. plausible deniability; 2. legal indemnification, they'll be happy to provide any and all data to any government that asks. I hope we're all clear on that.
That varies from corp to corp - pure ISPs (as opposed to companies which are also involved in other areas of the media business), for example, are generally quite strongly opposed to filtering, wiretap and data retention laws, because they are a significant cost to them which makes their core product no better for their customers (and will often make things worse), without any useful benefit to them. Sure, they are only really interested in their own advantage, but their advantage coincides with the desires of privacy advocates, so an alliance of convenience is suitable.
Exactly. I am seeing this in Poland right now. We're after 3-4 different Internet censorship debates (and a few data retention ones), and ISPs had always been vehemently opposed. However, as soon as such a discussion gravitates towards tax incentives, direct payment, etc. -- they are all for it. They see it as an additional revenue stream. In fact, a few international ISPs that operate in Poland (I will not disclose any of the two related colours) are -- as far as I know -- in the process of implementing parental filtering on the national network level. The tech is advanced and less costly than 5 years ago, and now ISPs seem to think that this will be a billable feature for parents. Always about the children, eh? My point being: we can't rely on corporations. We can use the momentary alliances as they form, but should not rely on them in the long run.
OTOH, in the US many ISPs are also either content producers, TV companies, or POTS companies, and so have a strong interest in preventing their internet activities from harming those (often more profitable) areas of their business. Because they are themselves often beneficiaries of attempts to preserve traditional distribution channels and business methods, they are strong advocates for anti-privacy measures which they believe (rightly or wrongly) will help them while shifting any opposition onto the politicians.
Also, some companies have the sense to realise that even if handing over customer data is no great burden now, the demands from governments only tend to grow, and so opposing a small amount of snooping can protect themselves against a larger imposition later. (For example, the telephone companies at first only had to turn over data they were keeping anyway, then they were ordered to keep it at their own expense for government use.)
Yeah, but the lawmakers can make the best interest of corporations perfectly aligned with snooping and retention easily -- with law and money. The only place where we can really stop such activities is values/virtues/human rights. And these are foreign and all french to both corporations and politicians. -- Pozdr rysiek
Corp? Are you implying that corporations are on "our" side of this?
No, they're not, except any kind thoughts of their boards, they are only on the money side. However in most places they are separate from government and thus not have always same interests aligned with govts, ie: are in competition with govts. And since 'we' feed corps their existance money just like we feed govts, they are in part behold to us same as are to govt. It is a three way symbiot. And right now corp is pissed at govt for causing their user contracts to breach and sales to go down. So we should jump like fly on shit on that angle to beside corp to ourselves while we can to use them that way against govt. Need remind you to replace Tor hat with IBM hat, it be same effect. https://bayimg.com/BAfJGAafB
Once corporations get 1. plausible deniability; 2. legal indemnification,
3. funding
participants (4)
-
Bill Stewart -
grarpamp -
Philip Shaw -
rysiek