|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote:
I really hope one of the Republican candidates has the back bone to go after Trump for pile of non-sense. It could be a great moment for Rubio if he just calls and spade a spade.
That gets him + General election points and - Primary election points so in the end he still loses.
Welcome to the problem of the Republican nomination.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2015 04:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2015 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.
same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.
while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers. Internal procedures and legal authorization are not meaningful gates. If you think they are you haven't been paying attention. If it can be read, it has been read. If it can be listened in on, it has been listened in on. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/cwwpx19Imagine if the Secret Service were continually breaking your door down and ransacking your house without a warrant. Like a few times a week you'd come home and all your drawers would be emptied out on the floor, your papers would be everywhere etc. If I were to tell you not to worry about it because the police need a warrant to do that I doubt you'd be comforted. I think you'd probably want to get your house a moat. This is no different. A system based on faith that the secret police (for that is what the NSA are) will not violate the law is only good for as long as they do not routinely break the law and for as long as the lawmakers and courts care about those violations. You do not live in such a state. The next best option is to make it so that they cannot break the law. i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search. as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation. That amounts to "if the Secret Service picked the lock rather than breaking the door down, and if they put things back where they found them after searching then really, what is the harm?". And the FISA court is a joke. I'll take the moat. Even if enemies get one too. no, it amounts to 'we time capsule a particular house and throw it away in the cabinet in case we need to investigate.'
a more abstract analogy is simply labeling a house on the map in case of later retrieval.
the FISA court is populated by circuit court judges that will at least require the agency to state some reason for a search. it's far more security than what silicon valley does with your data.
On November 20 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2015 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.
same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.
while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers. Internal procedures and legal authorization are not meaningful gates. If you think they are you haven't been paying attention. If it can be read, it has been read. If it can be listened in on, it has been listened in on. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/cwwpx19Imagine if the Secret Service were continually breaking your door down and ransacking your house without a warrant. Like a few times a week you'd come home and all your drawers would be emptied out on the floor, your papers would be everywhere etc. If I were to tell you not to worry about it because the police need a warrant to do that I doubt you'd be comforted. I think you'd probably want to get your house a moat. This is no different. A system based on faith that the secret police (for that is what the NSA are) will not violate the law is only good for as long as they do not routinely break the law and for as long as the lawmakers and courts care about those violations. You do not live in such a state. The next best option is to make it so that they cannot break the law. i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search. as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation. You have 0 ways of knowing if your emails are being read. Yeah officially they need court orders but when its impossible to detect the desire to get those orders swiftly goes away and they instead just go read everything all the time because you cant know it happened anyway. As I said previously, You know when your door is smashed in and you can ask to see the warrant. You will never know your digital privacy was breached, so how will you ever ask to see the warrant? (ofc if it ever goes to court you could but we are talking about innocent people here).
yet again you are emotionally comparing an archival copy of content with active snooping behind your back or in your house. it's simply not similar whether by level of peeking or by the functional role in which this step serves in the discovery of information.
i fail to see how knowing whether the data is being searched is that relevant after it isn't disproportionately understood. but granting that knowing a search is a problem, there is no difference. if the police has a warrant, they will search your place. you knowing them knocking isn't going to help you unless you are just there to burn up your drugs or whatever. it's simply not a meaningful distinction because the police does not inform you that they are applying for a warrant in the real world situation.
|
On November 20 2015 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote:
I really hope one of the Republican candidates has the back bone to go after Trump for pile of non-sense. It could be a great moment for Rubio if he just calls and spade a spade. That gets him + General election points and - Primary election points so in the end he still loses. Welcome to the problem of the Republican nomination.
As much as I dislike the current Republican party, I think it would go over better than we are giving them credit for. Especially if put in the framing of overreaching federal government and similarity to what a fearful Germany did.
And if not, then this is way darker than I ever believed.
|
On November 20 2015 04:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:16 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2015 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.
same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.
while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers. Internal procedures and legal authorization are not meaningful gates. If you think they are you haven't been paying attention. If it can be read, it has been read. If it can be listened in on, it has been listened in on. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/cwwpx19Imagine if the Secret Service were continually breaking your door down and ransacking your house without a warrant. Like a few times a week you'd come home and all your drawers would be emptied out on the floor, your papers would be everywhere etc. If I were to tell you not to worry about it because the police need a warrant to do that I doubt you'd be comforted. I think you'd probably want to get your house a moat. This is no different. A system based on faith that the secret police (for that is what the NSA are) will not violate the law is only good for as long as they do not routinely break the law and for as long as the lawmakers and courts care about those violations. You do not live in such a state. The next best option is to make it so that they cannot break the law. i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search. as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation. That amounts to "if the Secret Service picked the lock rather than breaking the door down, and if they put things back where they found them after searching then really, what is the harm?". And the FISA court is a joke. I'll take the moat. Even if enemies get one too. no, it amounts to 'we time capsule a particular house and throw it away in the cabinet in case we need to investigate.' a more abstract analogy is simply labeling a house on the map in case of later retrieval. the FISA court is populated by circuit court judges that will at least require the agency to state some reason for a search. it's far more security than what silicon valley does with your data. Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2015 04:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.
same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.
while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers. Internal procedures and legal authorization are not meaningful gates. If you think they are you haven't been paying attention. If it can be read, it has been read. If it can be listened in on, it has been listened in on. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/cwwpx19Imagine if the Secret Service were continually breaking your door down and ransacking your house without a warrant. Like a few times a week you'd come home and all your drawers would be emptied out on the floor, your papers would be everywhere etc. If I were to tell you not to worry about it because the police need a warrant to do that I doubt you'd be comforted. I think you'd probably want to get your house a moat. This is no different. A system based on faith that the secret police (for that is what the NSA are) will not violate the law is only good for as long as they do not routinely break the law and for as long as the lawmakers and courts care about those violations. You do not live in such a state. The next best option is to make it so that they cannot break the law. i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search. as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation. You have 0 ways of knowing if your emails are being read. Yeah officially they need court orders but when its impossible to detect the desire to get those orders swiftly goes away and they instead just go read everything all the time because you cant know it happened anyway. As I said previously, You know when your door is smashed in and you can ask to see the warrant. You will never know your digital privacy was breached, so how will you ever ask to see the warrant? (ofc if it ever goes to court you could but we are talking about innocent people here). yet again you are emotionally comparing an archival copy of content with active snooping behind your back or in your house. it's simply not similar whether by level of peeking or by the functional role in which this step serves in the discovery of information. i fail to see how knowing whether the data is being searched is that relevant after it isn't disproportionately understood. but granting that knowing a search is a problem, there is no difference. if the police has a warrant, they will search your place. you knowing them knocking isn't going to help you unless you are just there to burn up your drugs or whatever. it's simply not a meaningful distinction because the police does not inform you that they are applying for a warrant in the real world situation.
The situation has been explained to you plenty enough already, if you want to be willfully ignorant and believe it is purely archival then gl with that. No point discussing it further.
|
United States43989 Posts
|
On November 20 2015 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
the specific thing hillary was talking about is complete encryption stuff. it's not broad surveillance.
also would not surprise me if a lot of this noise about the nsa is putin lackeys
Lol you really are obsessed with putin
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
try to think about privacy beyond the simple emotional reflex entirely captured by "kyaa! hentai."
|
Whether they are reading your emails are not, what is interesting about all these terrorist attacks is that many of the subjects were in policy custody before, were on no-fly or "dangerous individual" lists, they were known to the police. This is not an issue of lacking information or surveillance tools, it's an issue of misjudging who poses a threat and who doesn't. And this seems to be the case regularly. I think it is misguided to call for stronger surveillance tools when the intelligence community is unable to evaluate the information they possess. Some of the terrorists posted Jihadist content on their Facebook page for months or outright announced their attack publicly a day before.
|
United States43989 Posts
On November 20 2015 04:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Whether they are reading your emails are not
No, really, they are. Like it's no longer in dispute.
Sorry to correct you but this needs to be "Even though they are reading your emails..."
|
On November 20 2015 04:50 oneofthem wrote:
try to think about privacy beyond the simple emotional reflex entirely captured by "kyaa! hentai."
I have no idea what that means.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem with that view is that the information required to further discriminate between harm and harmless suspects might be encrypted and/or beyond the grasp of current monitors.
even if encryption is not a concern, there is still the problem of newer and newer messaging platforms that are not actively watched. it's a game of messenger hopping.
i don't think encryption's main problem is how perfect law enforcement will be without it. it is rather a blank check to abusers and can facilitate the emergence of extra-legal activities.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2015 04:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
the specific thing hillary was talking about is complete encryption stuff. it's not broad surveillance.
also would not surprise me if a lot of this noise about the nsa is putin lackeys Lol you really are obsessed with putin
and you are really naive about the russians.
i'll just say that like the immune system, civil rights safeguards are important. but this is a simple allergic reaction brought about by changing technological and threat environment.
|
On November 20 2015 04:55 oneofthem wrote:
problem with that view is that the information required to further discriminate between harm and harmless suspects might be encrypted and/or beyond the grasp of current monitors.
If you know that someone is an extremist and a violent criminal who actually went to Syria to fight and came back home, how can you not discriminate here? How is it possible for such a person to get their hands on a fucking grenade launcher without anybody noticing? This is simply a failure of conventional police and security work. If a group of known suspects can arm themselves like a militia I doubt that an additional whatsapp chat would have done anything.
|
Atm the agencies Seen to have Too mich Information to sort out the important stuff... So we have less privacy and are less secure.
Win/win i guess
|
On November 20 2015 04:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 04:48 IgnE wrote:On November 20 2015 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
the specific thing hillary was talking about is complete encryption stuff. it's not broad surveillance.
also would not surprise me if a lot of this noise about the nsa is putin lackeys Lol you really are obsessed with putin and you are really naive about the russians. i'll just say that like the immune system, civil rights safeguards are important. but this is a simple allergic reaction brought about by changing technological and threat environment.
Yeah the environment is that since now it's possible to know everything in practice, power must know everything in practice. The constitution was set up with stringent safeguards on the power of authority at a time when you could literally travel to the next state and erase your past. But the need for vast intelligence networks to maintain and reproduce power goes back further than the Roman empire, when Augustus was the most well-informed man in the world. The difference between you and me is that you willingly grant power this right to know everything because you would rather have the reproducing power you think you know rather than be exposed to any risk. Your immune system is infected with HIV.
|
Sanders interview yesterday.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-20151118?page=9
While reading this, I remembered one of the debate quotes by Sanders. "Wall Street regulates Congress, Congress does not regulate Wall Street." If Hillary wins, we'll probably have a war on our hands and further deregulation.
The Obama administration has been widely criticized for not prosecuting Wall Street executives who presided over the financial crisis. Would you have tried to send them to jail?
Ha!
…And do they still deserve to go?
I'd like to be able to tell you more than I can. I think meetings that one has with the president have got to be held private. But what I can tell you: About a half-dozen of us went to visit the president, I'm guessing six months into his [first] term. And we went into the White House, and Larry Summers was there and [Tim] Geithner was there. We had all their money people, all their financial people. That was the issue.
I like the president very much, and I have supported him. We've worked together. But these are some of the disagreements we have. The American people were crushed by the greed and illegal behavior on Wall Street, right? And the American people wanted justice.
And we said to the president – I wasn't alone on this – we said, "Mr. President, you gotta do something. You gotta be tough on this issue." The end result was seven years have come and gone and there are still no high-ranking CEOs who are in jail. There are kids who smoke marijuana who have criminal records, but not CEOs of large corporations. No matter what kind of crimes and illegal activity, these guys [Wall Street CEOs] are too big to jail?
That is one of the reasons why people become alienated from the political process. They just don't see justice. From a public-policy point of view, in terms of holding people accountable for serious crimes, the Obama administration blew it. From a political point of view, in giving people confidence that we have a criminal-justice system that works for all, regardless of their wealth or power, it blew it.
Now what do you think a president should have done? On Day One, I am appointing a special committee to investigate the crimes on Wall Street. We're gonna move this quickly, and if these people are found guilty, they will be in jail. Nobody in America is above the law. Is that what Barack Obama said? Mm – not quite.
|
On November 20 2015 05:23 Deathstar wrote:Sanders interview yesterday. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-20151118?page=9While reading this, I remembered one of the debate quotes by Sanders. "Wall Street regulates Congress, Congress does not regulate Wall Street." If Hillary wins, we'll probably have a war on our hands and further deregulation. Show nested quote +The Obama administration has been widely criticized for not prosecuting Wall Street executives who presided over the financial crisis. Would you have tried to send them to jail?
Ha!
…And do they still deserve to go?
I'd like to be able to tell you more than I can. I think meetings that one has with the president have got to be held private. But what I can tell you: About a half-dozen of us went to visit the president, I'm guessing six months into his [first] term. And we went into the White House, and Larry Summers was there and [Tim] Geithner was there. We had all their money people, all their financial people. That was the issue.
I like the president very much, and I have supported him. We've worked together. But these are some of the disagreements we have. The American people were crushed by the greed and illegal behavior on Wall Street, right? And the American people wanted justice.
And we said to the president – I wasn't alone on this – we said, "Mr. President, you gotta do something. You gotta be tough on this issue." The end result was seven years have come and gone and there are still no high-ranking CEOs who are in jail. There are kids who smoke marijuana who have criminal records, but not CEOs of large corporations. No matter what kind of crimes and illegal activity, these guys [Wall Street CEOs] are too big to jail?
That is one of the reasons why people become alienated from the political process. They just don't see justice. From a public-policy point of view, in terms of holding people accountable for serious crimes, the Obama administration blew it. From a political point of view, in giving people confidence that we have a criminal-justice system that works for all, regardless of their wealth or power, it blew it.
Now what do you think a president should have done? On Day One, I am appointing a special committee to investigate the crimes on Wall Street. We're gonna move this quickly, and if these people are found guilty, they will be in jail. Nobody in America is above the law. Is that what Barack Obama said? Mm – not quite.
Bernie is killing his Democratic socialism speech and the following Q&A here
http://www.ustream.tv/georgetownlive
|
Obama killing it usual:
I don't want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up. And that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side.
And so when I hear, for example, you know, folks on college campuses saying, "We're not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas--" you know, I think that's a recipe for dogmatism. And I think you're not going to be as effective…
I do worry if young people start getting trained to think that if somebody says something I don't like, if somebody says something that hurts my feelings, that my only recourse is to shut them up, avoid them, push them away, call on a higher power to protect me from that.
Source
|
The thing about this "liberal campus" and real world split, admittedly I don't know much about American campus life, but where in the 'real world' can you go to your company's Halloween party blackfaced?
|
Since when do employees clamor for their employer to publish a list of acceptable culturally-sensitive Halloween costumes before the party? Social censure on one hand and tolerance on the other generally suffice. That's for adults, not for the children currently populating college campuses. They're revealed by their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
