Arguments Supporting Warrantless Surveillance Wither When Exposed to Sunlight
eff.org
eff.org
Which, granted, is a different case from what the EFF is talking about here but the same question applies: Is the DOJ even considering all the implications of what they do, and how they may be making us less safe by things like requiring back doors and (separately) enabling man in the middle scenarios?
Don't kid yourself, when all of these things happen, the FBI will not stand up and criticize itself... it'll blame the company that made/maintained the backdoor.
When your company (or the company you work for) is compromised because of the backdoor the government mandated, it'll be your company's name on the notice being sent to your customers saying you lost their data; your company in court for the damage caused; your company that will foot the bill.
Also consider that criminal organizations that profit from stolen data will become more active (more data lost > more data to sell > more profits > more activity toward compromising data).. which means more organizations for the FBI to investigate.
And there's the potential that victim companies could face prosecution also.. for example, if a company had a minor violation of HIPAA (et al) and was compromised due to a backdoor.. instead of the damage being minor and the company fixing the problem without any patient data being compromised.. instead it becomes a significant incident with real losses of patient data.. potentially opening the company up to prosecution for violation of HIPAA (or other laws).
If there is one thing history teaches us, it is this pattern that repeats itself over and over. For example look at the Stasi of East Germany. The Stasi did everything it did to protect the state and the 'people'. When we look at these totalitarian governments of past, we are shocked and can not believe people allowed it to go on. It is much harder to see these patterns in the present context of our own culture and even harder to do something when things go wrong.
Next time you are in Berlin visit the old Stasi headquarters.
But as time and again, no heads will roll, no one will go to prison for making the Free World significantly less free. And I'm pretty sure domestic surveillance now is significantly more advanced than it was back when this letter was written.
Is there anything left to hold on to?
Edit: I should stop reading. I'm starting to believe that ignorance is indeed bliss.
Our major mistake last time seems to have been allowing the process to be secret.
We have evidence in countries like North Korea that government can keep total power and control against their population for a very long time.
I know you don't intend it to be, but your response seems kind of like a "things will sort themselves out so let's not worry ourselves". It's this sort of apathetic response to wrongdoing that is the precursor to many evils in history.
In other words, it's likely to happen, but only if we don't say "it's likely to happen" and then not try to make it happen because we assume it's inevitable. The fact that your side is right and usually wins in the end doesn't mean you can win without fighting. We still need to raise hell until the work is done.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Arms in the hands of citizens is not a guarantee against abject oppression, but it's a deterrent. Banning general ownership of arms is a step that a despot must take.
Naturally, a lot of people think the insurance is not worth the risk. And at the level of national politics it can be hard to separate the honestly concerned, the secretly malicious, and the useful idiots.
----
With crypto, it's pretty easy. The folks who want to ban crypto have an agenda to spy and control, or they are co-opted. Well, there are also a few useful idiots, too . . . .
Ignorance is only bliss until your well-intentioned life accidentally runs into a law you didn't know existed that is now too late to change.
Q: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody,
including by crushing the testicles of the person's child,
there is no law that can stop him?
A (John Yoo): No treaty.
Q: Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August
2002 memo
A: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.John Yoo's legal opinions were used by the Bush administration to justify a system of torture up to and including permanent injury, sexual assault, and death. If he had issued these opinions in a vacuum, I would agree with you. Instead, he sought opportunities to provide legal cover for systemic human rights abuses.
The consequences of his actions seem predictable, and in my view that makes him partially morally responsible for them and it is fair to call him an advocate of them, in deed and word.
You can read about it in the CIA torture report and the DOD torture report:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Detainee-...
There are a multitude of US laws against torture, but Yoo and his intellectual cohort seem to think that the "Unitary Executive" is not bound by most laws, as long as that executive proclaims the actions are part of a war (which does not need to be declared by Congress, under Unitary Executive theory that rejects the War Powers Act).
Finally, I posted this snippet to point out that John Yoo has a history of dismissing limits to executive power to an extreme degree. Even if his theories are viewed outside of the moral consequences of his actions, I think it's important to know that his view on surveillance goes WAY, WAY beyond just warrantlessly listening to the phone calls of innocent people, all the way to, according to him, crushing the testicles of innocent people. I think this helps frame the discussion of the history of the Bush administration's abuse of civil liberties, though you are welcome to disagree.
Spying is a routine military activity that is intrinsic to foreign relations, an area where the Constitution gives the President unique powers. Seizing steel mills, on the other hand, is a major intrusion into domestic activity within Congress's usual domain. It's not so clear why Youngstown would direct the conclusion here.
More generally, there are a lot of people who believe that the framers intended to give the President great powers when it came to foreign relations and the exercise of military power, and didn't intend for Congress to be able to check those powers. One of the motivating rationales of having a unitary executive was so that the government could respond to internal and external threats decisively without waiting for hundreds of senators and congressman to get on board. It was set up that way to address the concerns of people who thought that a democracy would be weak and indecisive in the face of foreign threat.
Foreign relations, yes. The exercise of military power, no. Especially not creating a permanent wartime condition, secret courts, etc. where military power, including spying, is exercised within the US and against the people.
First, it has simply never been the case, since the time of the Presidencies of the founders themselves, that espionage was limited to times of war, or for that matter to countries with whom we had declared war. The President has always been able to spy on other countries.
Second, Rayiner himself concedes the distinction between spying on US citizens (an activity restricted by the Fourth Amendment) and spying on foreigners abroad (an activity not restricted by the Fourth Amendment).
I.8: Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a Navy.
II.2: Treaties require advice and consent of the Senate.
Bill of Rights: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Look no further than the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, our third President and a staunch opponent of a powerful executive branch: practically upon obtaining office he launched a covert military offensive without the authorization of Congress! If Jefferson wielded a particular kind of executive power, and Adams advocated for that power, and Madison did the same, it becomes difficult to suggest that the framers intended something different in the language of the Constitution they wrote.