The NSA and your privacy

[scspkr99]

I doubt very much that spying relies on the targets not knowing they are being spied on.

[Muncey]

I doubt very much that spying relies on the targets not knowing they are being spied on.

Really? How does it not? Surely you're spying on them to get information, information that wouldn't normally be shared so openly.. knowing someone is spying on you is a pretty huge deterrent from sharing that information. It'd be like knowing the police are following you and still returning to the scene of a crime you committed, or the mafia informing the FBI they're gunna hit somewhere at a given time, or a KGB agent walking up to a target and saying "btw, I'm KGB and following you.. as you were".

Sorta defeats the object a little. Terrorists aren't gunna stop plotting things now phones and the internet are being tracked, it just means they won't use those mediums. Continuing to "spy" on all those things knowing that terrorists won't use those mediums but claiming its to catch terrorists is either straight up retarded or straight up bullshit.

If it doesn't rely on the targets knowing they're being spied on why exactly are whistle-blowers so condemned by the Government and considered a huge risk to national safety?

[scspkr99]

Really? How does it not? Surely you're spying on them to get information, information that wouldn't normally be shared so openly.. knowing someone is spying on you is a pretty huge deterrent from sharing that information. It'd be like knowing the police are following you and still returning to the scene of a crime you committed, or the mafia informing the FBI they're gunna hit somewhere at a given time, or a KGB agent walking up to a target and saying "btw, I'm KGB and following you.. as you were".

Sorta defeats the object a little. Terrorists aren't gunna stop plotting things now phones and the internet are being tracked, it just means they won't use those mediums. Continuing to "spy" on all those things knowing that terrorists won't use those mediums but claiming its to catch terrorists is either straight up retarded or straight up bullshit.

If it doesn't rely on the targets knowing they're being spied on why exactly are whistle-blowers so condemned by the Government and considered a huge risk to national safety?

Firstly it seems absolutely clear that the US and the USSR were spying on each other during the cold war (and still today with Russia but w/e) and that continued unabated, it's not that they didn't know they were being spied on they didn't know how they were being spied on. Like if anyone in Soviet or US security thought they weren't being spied on during that time they should be sacked. If we can accept this then we have a superficial idea that spying continues when the targets know they are being spied on.

It's why people involved in nefarious activities take precautions because they are being watched, they may now know know there's a bug where ever or a phone is being tapped but they replace those phones and use the obfuscated web because they are likely to be compromised at some time.

The job of the whistle blowers are to draw attention to specifics, the fact that the general populations communications are being monitored not just the bad guys.

[rickyarbino]

Like, you still bell up your boy with the big draws when you want to smoke, even though you know the gov't can read any message/hear any call you send/make to anybody.

[Muncey]

Really? How does it not? Surely you're spying on them to get information, information that wouldn't normally be shared so openly.. knowing someone is spying on you is a pretty huge deterrent from sharing that information. It'd be like knowing the police are following you and still returning to the scene of a crime you committed, or the mafia informing the FBI they're gunna hit somewhere at a given time, or a KGB agent walking up to a target and saying "btw, I'm KGB and following you.. as you were".

Sorta defeats the object a little. Terrorists aren't gunna stop plotting things now phones and the internet are being tracked, it just means they won't use those mediums. Continuing to "spy" on all those things knowing that terrorists won't use those mediums but claiming its to catch terrorists is either straight up retarded or straight up bullshit.

If it doesn't rely on the targets knowing they're being spied on why exactly are whistle-blowers so condemned by the Government and considered a huge risk to national safety?

Firstly it seems absolutely clear that the US and the USSR were spying on each other during the cold war (and still today with Russia but w/e) and that continued unabated, it's not that they didn't know they were being spied on they didn't know how they were being spied on. Like if anyone in Soviet or US security thought they weren't being spied on during that time they should be sacked. If we can accept this then we have a superficial idea that spying continues when the targets know they are being spied on.

It's why people involved in nefarious activities take precautions because they are being watched, they may now know know there's a bug where ever or a phone is being tapped but they replace those phones and use the obfuscated web because they are likely to be compromised at some time.

The job of the whistle blowers are to draw attention to specifics, the fact that the general populations communications are being monitored not just the bad guys.

Well yeah but thats sorta my point.. its well documented now how the NSA spy on people yet they continue with those methods.. thats why it doesn't make sense if they're gunna cling on to the "safety" excuse. If anyone in the Soviet or US security got caught spying using a particular method, managed to get to safety then tried to do the exact same thing again.. they should be sacked, but they'd end up dead out of pure stupidity. If they're wise to your methods, spying doesn't work. Everybody is wise to the methods of NSA, at least people vaguely know what they do, how can anybody without laughing out laugh and giving a cheeky wink say "we're going to continue monitoring the internet and phone records for safety"?

Like, you still bell up your boy with the big draws when you want to smoke, even though you know the gov't can read any message/hear any call you send/make to anybody.

But you're making the crime smaller relative to the level of spying, people do that assuming the Government have bigger fish to fry and don't care about some kid buying some weed. If a copper knows you're picking up at a particular location every day and the copper also knows that you both know the cops know.. the copper should come to the conclusion that you're gunna do your business elsewhere. Sending the cop to that location at a particular time every single day with the knowledge of knowing you both know he'll be there would be retarded, no? If terrorists know the NSA track phones/the internet and stop using those methods its equally as retarded to carry on tracking those mediums.. its a huge waste of resources ASSUMING thats the real reason. I don't think the US Gov and NSA are that stupid though, so the only other conclusion is theres an ulterior motive... or a case of 'they might know but if we stop monitoring they'll go back to using it'.. which isn't a good argument imo.

[rickyarbino]

I didn't see him describe any magnitude of crime when he posted that spying doesn't require the observer to ensure that the observee doesn't know they're being observed. Plus, there are ways to have conversations without people who may be trying to spy on you being able to understand.

[Muncey]

I didn't see him describe any magnitude of crime when he posted that spying doesn't require the observer to ensure that the observee doesn't know they're being observed.

It was implied. Its in a topic about the NSA

Plus, there are ways to have conversations without people who may be trying to spy on you being able to understand.

Yep, the Mafia managed it.. they knew their phones were tapped but there was a legitimate reason for the FBI to monitor calls still (work out the code/could be useful at a later date ect). Not knowing your target (terrorists) and spying on everybody at once, knowing the terrorists (and everybody else) knows you're monitoring and your messages could bring up red flags but continuing with this method of spying makes absolutely no sense unless you have an ulterior motive other than national safety.

[scspkr99]

Well yeah but thats sorta my point.. its well documented now how the NSA spy on people yet they continue with those methods.. thats why it doesn't make sense if they're gunna cling on to the "safety" excuse. If anyone in the Soviet or US security got caught spying using a particular method, managed to get to safety then tried to do the exact same thing again.. they should be sacked, but they'd end up dead out of pure stupidity. If they're wise to your methods, spying doesn't work. Everybody is wise to the methods of NSA, at least people vaguely know what they do, how can anybody without laughing out laugh and giving a cheeky wink say "we're going to continue monitoring the internet and phone records for safety"?

Why would you stop monitoring phone calls just because you've been caught monitoring phone calls? Why would you stop trying to recruit the opposition because you've been caught trying to recruit the opposition. I tend to think a lot of this spy stuff is pretty mundane routine stuff where they catch the people too stupid to learn lessons and try harder to catch the ones they have. Just because a vulnerability has been identified it doesn't mean it can no longer be exploited.

[faultier]

a better question is why the whole Snowden scandal got so much media coverage in outlets that are usually .gov mouthpieces(see the Guardian's hyper-opinionated propaganda on the Ukraine crisis for example)

[rickyarbino]

I didn't see him describe any magnitude of crime when he posted that spying doesn't require the observer to ensure that the observee doesn't know they're being observed.

It was implied. Its in a topic about the NSA

So far as we know the NSA wants to look at a little bit of everything from everyone in order to catch out anyone who is bad. Whatever that badness connotes.
So far as I know, even Snowden only talks about the stuff that the NSA has access to and not what they do with it, so implementing a crime scale doesn't really work that well. And I'll bet that there are people who won't do bad shit just because the NSA could easily find out. So what they're doing is pretty darn effective since everyone who can be caught because they are doing sketchy shit openly can be looked into while they have the means to deter anyone contemplating sketchy activities from performing them.

[Muncey]

Well yeah but thats sorta my point.. its well documented now how the NSA spy on people yet they continue with those methods.. thats why it doesn't make sense if they're gunna cling on to the "safety" excuse. If anyone in the Soviet or US security got caught spying using a particular method, managed to get to safety then tried to do the exact same thing again.. they should be sacked, but they'd end up dead out of pure stupidity. If they're wise to your methods, spying doesn't work. Everybody is wise to the methods of NSA, at least people vaguely know what they do, how can anybody without laughing out laugh and giving a cheeky wink say "we're going to continue monitoring the internet and phone records for safety"?

Why would you stop monitoring phone calls just because you've been caught monitoring phone calls? Why would you stop trying to recruit the opposition because you've been caught trying to recruit the opposition. I tend to think a lot of this spy stuff is pretty mundane routine stuff where they catch the people too stupid to learn lessons and try harder to catch the ones they have. Just because a vulnerability has been identified it doesn't mean it can no longer be exploited.

Cause its an ineffective use of resources? Why exactly would you continue it? As I said it could be the "we started monitoring, we got caught out, we can't go back now we've started so we'll just continue" but thats a bullshit argument in my opinion and its extremely authoritarian. Most people don't want to be monitored all the time but if its an effective way of preventing terrorism and crime to do so without the publics knowledge then fair enough, I won't agree with it but I definitely understand it. Once caught out, continuing with it by going "we know you don't like it, but we've got to commit now we've started" and expecting the public to go "yeah okay" is authoritarian. I'm sure installing CCTV into every building and home would be a good security measure as well, if they did it without our knowledge then got found out.. how can you expect people to lay down and accept it in the name of safety? Knowing its now, for the most part, highly ineffective?

I get the intrusion thing in the name of safety but once found out do we really want to accept such a massive intrusion of freedom for such a massively ineffective spying technique? Is the argument "well it could still be exploited and might catch someone" really suffice? I don't think so.

[scspkr99]

Cause its an ineffective use of resources? Why exactly would you continue it? As I said it could be the "we started monitoring, we got caught out, we can't go back now we've started so we'll just continue" but thats a bullshit argument in my opinion and its extremely authoritarian. Most people don't want to be monitored all the time but if its an effective way of preventing terrorism and crime to do so without the publics knowledge then fair enough, I won't agree with it but I definitely understand it. Once caught out, continuing with it by going "we know you don't like it, but we've got to commit now we've started" and expecting the public to go "yeah okay" is authoritarian. I'm sure installing CCTV into every building and home would be a good security measure as well, if they did it without our knowledge then got found out.. how can you expect people to lay down and accept it in the name of safety? Knowing its now, for the most part, highly ineffective?

I get the intrusion thing in the name of safety but once found out do we really want to accept such a massive intrusion of freedom for such a massively ineffective spying technique? Is the argument "well it could still be exploited and might catch someone" really suffice? I don't think so.

Because people will still do stuff that can be exploited. It's pretty simple and cheap to collect lots and lots of data, what's harder, and this is why I think a dragnet approach to information flawed, is processing it, getting some interesting stuff out of the tons of shit it swims alongside.

Another idea, if you can plant the idea that you are monitoring people to encourage them to not engage these activities then letting them think you are doing stuff you aren't is actually pretty effective.

I don't think we do want to accept it but there isn't the outcry in general and it seems that there's little about to change.

[Muncey]

Because people will still do stuff that can be exploited.

How is that a good enough reason though? That reasoning could be used to the extremes of surveillance and remove all freedom. Why not monitor everybody all the time everywhere every second of the day? The criminals will slip up at some point. Like I said I don't entirely agree with the spying of the internet and phones but I understand it when it was a secret operation, now it isn't its become a lot less effective and should be abandoned.. even if they got rid of the NSA and just built an identical organisation in secret again. But they aren't, they're staying extremely public and expecting everybody to lay down and take it... and its working.

It's pretty simple and cheap to collect lots and lots of data, what's harder, and this is why I think a dragnet approach to information flawed, is processing it, getting some interesting stuff out of the tons of shit it swims alongside.

Exactly, not effective. It wasn't even that effective when it was a secret operation as you've said the processing is hard.. now everybody is aware of what they do its even more ineffective. It makes no sense to apply such an intrusive approach on the general public in the name of national safety which is so inefficient.

Another idea, if you can plant the idea that you are monitoring people to encourage them to not engage these activities then letting them think you are doing stuff you aren't is actually pretty effective.

You mean pretend you're monitoring them to act as a deterrent? Yeah I guess, but it just deters people from using those methods, doesn't deter from the crime. Plus if you was going to commit a crime wouldn't it be pretty useful knowing what methods to avoid? Internet/phones ect.

I don't think we do want to accept it but there isn't the outcry in general and it seems that there's little about to change.

There isn't an outcry because of the illusion of freedom in my opinion. People in the Soviet Union/China aren't under the impression that they're free but they're monitored by force. The case in the US is that you have a society believing they're free and so they happily accept (or at very least don't strongly oppose) authoritarian activities in the name of security. I think the illusion of freedom is extremely dangerous, the people of SU/China had to be forced to accept these activities, in the US and generally in the west they've somehow managed to apply these activities without the need of force.. the public just accept it. Joseph Goebbels must be spinning in his grave, the US has managed to do something that previously took brute force and oppression by the state.

[scspkr99]

Because people will still do stuff that can be exploited.

How is that a good enough reason though? That reasoning could be used to the extremes of surveillance and remove all freedom. Why not monitor everybody all the time everywhere every second of the day? The criminals will slip up at some point. Like I said I don't entirely agree with the spying of the internet and phones but I understand it when it was a secret operation, now it isn't its become a lot less effective and should be abandoned.. even if they got rid of the NSA and just built an identical organisation in secret again. But they aren't, they're staying extremely public and expecting everybody to lay down and take it... and its working.

It's pretty simple and cheap to collect lots and lots of data, what's harder, and this is why I think a dragnet approach to information flawed, is processing it, getting some interesting stuff out of the tons of shit it swims alongside.

Exactly, not effective. It wasn't even that effective when it was a secret operation as you've said the processing is hard.. now everybody is aware of what they do its even more ineffective. It makes no sense to apply such an intrusive approach on the general public in the name of national safety which is so inefficient.

Another idea, if you can plant the idea that you are monitoring people to encourage them to not engage these activities then letting them think you are doing stuff you aren't is actually pretty effective.

You mean pretend you're monitoring them to act as a deterrent? Yeah I guess, but it just deters people from using those methods, doesn't deter from the crime. Plus if you was going to commit a crime wouldn't it be pretty useful knowing what methods to avoid? Internet/phones ect.

I don't think we do want to accept it but there isn't the outcry in general and it seems that there's little about to change.

There isn't an outcry because of the illusion of freedom in my opinion. People in the Soviet Union/China aren't under the impression that they're free but they're monitored by force. The case in the US is that you have a society believing they're free and so they happily accept (or at very least don't strongly oppose) authoritarian activities in the name of security. I think the illusion of freedom is extremely dangerous, the people of SU/China had to be forced to accept these activities, in the US and generally in the west they've somehow managed to apply these activities without the need of force.. the public just accept it. Joseph Goebbels must be spinning in his grave, the US has managed to do something that previously took brute force and oppression by the state.

To be clear and I'll try and give this a bit more time when I'm home, I'm not claiming that they are right to continue only that I understand why they do. I also wanted to challenge the idea that spying relies upon the spied upon not knowing which seems a mistake.

[Muncey]

To be clear and I'll try and give this a bit more time when I'm home, I'm not claiming that they are right to continue only that I understand why they do. I also wanted to challenge the idea that spying relies upon the spied upon not knowing which seems a mistake.

Well aside from the point of 'we've started, we must continue' I honestly don't understand why they do unless theres an ulterior motive behind it or the fact they do it just because they can, nobody will stand up against it so lets just do it regardless. Which is exactly why I think the illusion of freedom is so dangerous, gives the state a license to do as they please.

Okay I'll agree that it was wrong that it relies upon the spied not knowing, it certainly relies on the spied not knowing to be effective. At least it relies on the spied not knowing in detail the methods of surveillance.

[faultier]

it all makes a lot more sense if you abandon the premises that this is aimed at terrorists and not at potential political dissenters and other malcontents

[rickyarbino]

Oi Muncey,
Is freedom really illusory? I mean, you can definitely still do whatever you want just that the consequences might make whatever you want less desirable to do, but that's not really the government's doing imo. Saying that it is their fault is like saying you have no self control and would do dumb shit like take heroine every day and kill random people if they weren't outlawed by the government.

[Muncey]

You're only as free as the box you get put in. People often mistake lack of freedom with oppression which isn't necessarily true. It depends on what you define as freedom...

We are free to shop where we like, pretty much eat as we wish, watch any sort of film/tv we wish, any radio station or music we wish. But do we have a choice of whether the Government spy on us or not? Do we even have a real say in how Government and democracy operates? Theres only a couple of major political parties to choose from and only one process of voting them in or out, pretty narrow choice don't you think? Until the likes of Bitcoin we've also been forced to use a specific type of currency and even with these new virtual currencies we're still forced to pay tax in the national currency. We don't really have a great deal of choice on the system we adopt either, we're pretty much stuck with capitalism regardless, not saying that people don't want it but if the majority didn't want it the only method of change would be through revolution. The only choice in how our taxes are spent are through appointing the extremely limited choice of political parties as well. Just think of any of the major choices we have in the world.. austerity, wars, education, how democracy works.. we have, as individuals, very like choice in these matters and even as a group of people if we strongly disagree our choices are limited to protests and revolts. I dunno about anybody else but if major change can only really come through revolutionary activities thats not an aspect of a free society to me.

So yeah we have a lot of choice between what TV channels or talent shows we wanna watch but very little choice when it comes to choosing if we're spied on or how we even choose a Government, we don't even have a choice of if we have a Government or not. Even the news and education are pretty heavily controlled. What the west has done that is genius is provide enough little insignificant freedoms so we don't have to worry about the lack of freedoms on things that should matter. Mobile phones and other devices like kindles, iPads, xbox, playstation ect. are insanely advanced nowadays and you can pick through so many and get them in different colours and pick from thousands of games, when you're given such freedom who cares if they watch your google searches? Create the illusion that people are free and they won't care that really, they aren't.

Whos to say being totally free is a good thing anyway? I'd rather be in this bullshit system than try make it in the wild. I won't pretend I'm free though, not when everything I do online and on my phone is being recorded for "safety reasons" lol. Thats why, as I said, the Soviet Union, China, sizan would all be hugely envious of the West nowadays because we're under some huge illusion that we're as free as we've ever been because we aren't in an oppressive regime like the Soviet Union, China and izan.. and that illusion means we accept, or at least don't strongly oppose, operations which are textbook authoritarian which previously could only be implemented through force and military action. Snowden would have been killed off in those oppressive regimes, America doesn't need to do that because of the illusion of freedom, he won't make the impact he should because people don't really give a shit, we live too comfortably. Stick someone in a luxury cage and they won't complain, as long as its better than the alternatives - we don't care. Its my main problem with Brand, I think hes fucking clueless to call for a revolution because it will never happen in the western world, its stupid to even consider it an option.. we live too comfortable to go up against the Government. When the choice is stay in scratching your balls with a KFC, beer and TV or go up against the Government because the financial and political class are too powerful, its a no brainer. KFC all day long.

[scspkr99]

You mean pretend you're monitoring them to act as a deterrent? Yeah I guess, but it just deters people from using those methods, doesn't deter from the crime. Plus if you was going to commit a crime wouldn't it be pretty useful knowing what methods to avoid? Internet/phones ect.

CCTV cameras may have an affect on peoples choices irrespective of whether they are actually recording, similarly speed cameras, you're right these won't deter all, possibly even most, but it will deter some. Neighbourhood watch schemes seem to be based on the idea that monitoring deters crime. It most likely pushes a lot to non neighbourhood watch areas and I don't know how effective they are but they are predicated on surveillance deterring.

You're only as free as the box you get put in. People often mistake lack of freedom with oppression which isn't necessarily true. It depends on what you define as freedom...

We are free to shop where we like, pretty much eat as we wish, watch any sort of film/tv we wish, any radio station or music we wish. But do we have a choice of whether the Government spy on us or not? Do we even have a real say in how Government and democracy operates? Theres only a couple of major political parties to choose from and only one process of voting them in or out, pretty narrow choice don't you think? Until the likes of Bitcoin we've also been forced to use a specific type of currency and even with these new virtual currencies we're still forced to pay tax in the national currency. We don't really have a great deal of choice on the system we adopt either, we're pretty much stuck with capitalism regardless, not saying that people don't want it but if the majority didn't want it the only method of change would be through revolution. The only choice in how our taxes are spent are through appointing the extremely limited choice of political parties as well. Just think of any of the major choices we have in the world.. austerity, wars, education, how democracy works.. we have, as individuals, very like choice in these matters and even as a group of people if we strongly disagree our choices are limited to protests and revolts. I dunno about anybody else but if major change can only really come through revolutionary activities thats not an aspect of a free society to me.

Freedom is a pretty elusive concept. Am I free to break the law? It seems I can break the law, I do frequently, so it seems I must be free to but I am not free from sanction should I decide to and get caught.

There are those that would deny we have any real freedom in a determined universe and others that would claim our choices are free if we don't have a gun pointed at our heads. I understand that these ideas of freedom differ from yours yet are we really free to shop where we like when we lack the resources to buy the goods on offer? Our choices are subject to constraints the question is what we are prepared to accept. Many consider surveillance an acceptable constraint because we are led to believe that there is this fundamental trade off between security and freedom and some will prefer security.

I get that the reasons offered for spying are disingenuous, following from faultier it may be that the targets of surveillance are local and the activities legitimate political dissent rather than terrorist, when I was active in left wing politics back in the 80's The Economic League specifically targeted left wing activists but do we expect the state to not protect itself from those that would oppose it. I think we'd be naive to suggest it shouldn't.

I'd consider freedom from poverty much more important than freedom from being surveyed. One would impact more people far more significantly than the other.

[Muncey]

Freedom is a pretty elusive concept. Am I free to break the law? It seems I can break the law, I do frequently, so it seems I must be free to but I am not free from sanction should I decide to and get caught.

There are those that would deny we have any real freedom in a determined universe and others that would claim our choices are free if we don't have a gun pointed at our heads. I understand that these ideas of freedom differ from yours yet are we really free to shop where we like when we lack the resources to buy the goods on offer? Our choices are subject to constraints the question is what we are prepared to accept. Many consider surveillance an acceptable constraint because we are led to believe that there is this fundamental trade off between security and freedom and some will prefer security.

I agree, and we could also say we are constrained by circumstances and physical laws for a lot of things as well. I wouldn't say it differs from my idea of freedom because I didn't really give me own view of freedom, I took the view of freedom promoted by America. America spent decades and billions on promoting itself (propaganda) as the land of the free, liberty ect ect. and it equally spent a lot of time claiming communism is the opposite. The way I was talking about freedom previous was really the American version of freedom, the one they claim to have and others do not. Why they go to wars to free civilians and make them more like them.. free. But if you use that same version you find that America is becoming more and more unfree, by its own definitions. The whole Big Brother is Watching You stuff is a classic example of its attacks on communism yet they now surveillance on a similar level and spy on their citizens WAY more than most non-dictatorship communist countries. Its just double standards and Alphacat hit the nail on the head, its okay for us because we're the good guys. So I guess I mean the illusion of freedom as promoted by America for decades.

I get that the reasons offered for spying are disingenuous, following from faultier it may be that the targets of surveillance are local and the activities legitimate political dissent rather than terrorist, when I was active in left wing politics back in the 80's The Economic League specifically targeted left wing activists but do we expect the state to not protect itself from those that would oppose it. I think we'd be naive to suggest it shouldn't.

I'd consider freedom from poverty much more important than freedom from being surveyed. One would impact more people far more significantly than the other.

Yeah I agree but which level of poverty? Poverty, food banks, payday loans just to get through the week have all been massively on the increase in the past year or so despite the UK claiming/bragging about economic growth. People don't really have a great deal of choice over the austerity measures put in place over the past 4 years apart from voting for a different party in the next elections 4 years later. It became very clear after a year or so that austerity has, and continues to be, a huge failure especially on the poorest in society.. but if the party in power want to stick with it, we have to suck it up and accept it.

But getting a bit sidetracked.. my point about the whole illusion of freedom and stuff is that the American government, and other western governments but not to the same degree, have the potential to abuse the public and take advantage. Giving/allowing any organisation this much power in a society that sits back and allows those things to be carried out despite disagreeing with it is dangerous. So I don't really see it as a privacy issue, more about power and the potential to abuse that power.