Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

I understand this type of argument, but it is somewhat faulty. I think we can all agree that the intelligence community can't operate with 100% transparency. They can't exactly do their job if they have to specifically tell their targets that they are being targeted. The opposite is also true. None of us want these organizations to operate in complete secrecy without having any idea what they are legally allowed to do.

The problem is that Snowden's actions land somewhere in that huge gap between those two options. We can once again all probably agree that the ideal solution also lies between those two extremes. So trying to frame the debate as if either extreme is a possible outcome or one that is preferred by anyone seems disingenuous.

View on HN

> somewhere in that _huge gap_ between those two options

The people I have seen on this board defend the NSA's actions don't see two things:

1. How much the US is an outlier.

2. How huge the gap between current practice and reasonableness is.

The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on weapons and soldiers. It is likely that intelligence follows this ratio. US military spending is near a historic high in constant dollars. But there is no Soviet Union. There is no military threat that can touch US territory. And yet we spent $TRILLIONS on overseas wars and incurred similarly staggering future liabilities for injured people and worn out materiel. We did 90% of that spending after our adversaries - the "bad guys" as they are referred to - had no weapons larger than a rifle. Not one aircraft. Not one armored vehicle.

The answer is not to "split the difference." There are not "two equal sides" to the story. Yes, there must be some state secrets. But none of what Snowden revealed needed to be a state secret. We are no less secure now than before Snowden. What that tells us is that every bit of secrecy around those documents was gratuitous and so were the secret programs themselves. All that secrecy did was to make us less free.

So let me challenge you about "either extreme." Let's say someone walked out of Ft. Meade tomorrow with a copy of everything. Including what the NSA knows about every state secret in every department of the government - let's assume that's everything. And then posted it openly on the Internet. Obviously extreme. Obviously irresponsible. Obviously some spies and informants would die.

But would that create an existential threat to the US, or not? Would it materially reduce the security of the American people? If not, why not work backward from that "extreme," of having no state secrets at all in small steps, until we have a reasonable and manageable number of state secrets. Everything else is unnecessary and corrosive to freedom.

There is no military threat that can touch US territory.

The threat our intelligence community is trying to guard against is not military. It's the threat of a terrorist attack. Our elected representatives have repeatedly authorized the intelligence community to do various things to try to prevent such an attack. (Not to mention our military.) That includes authorizing various forms of secrecy.

You may not agree with all that, but the remedy is to elect different representatives, who have been clearly informed by the voters that preventing a terrorist attack is now lower priority, so it's OK to spend a lot less money on it. And of course, those same voters would have to agree not to complain to the government if the drastic reduction in spending resulted in an attack happening that could have been prevented if spending on intel had been higher.

The fundamental problem is that we want two things: freedom, and safety. But you can't have unlimited amounts of both; there's always a tradeoff.

would that create an existential threat to the US, or not?

The problem is that nobody knows unless they've seen the information that would be released, and once you've released it, you can't take it back. So nobody is going to run this experiment.

If we had an unlimited amount of transparency, how many people do you think would die from terrorists, and please be specific about which terrorists and how.

Or, would more people would die falling off ladders?

Now before you say "But! Ladders have utility!" consider that you would be implying that freedom and transparency and consent of the governed have no utilty, or, at least, less utility than ladders.

If we had an unlimited amount of transparency, how many people do you think would die from terrorists

I don't know, because I haven't seen the data that currently isn't visible to the general public. Do you have an estimate?

please be specific about which terrorists and how

Now you're just being silly.

More power comes not from voters but from corporate interests who have historically pushed for favourable conditions overseas (overthrowing often stable or popular governments that didn't suit foreign corporate interests). That has made the US a popluar target. Now the threat is predominantly to the people and not those companies whose top dogs likely have a lot of freedom and paid-for safety.

I always said terrorism is a problem of technology. And the inevitable reaction - the surveillance state to prevent terrorism - is as well.

We must embrace the new tech including the spying, as the genie is out of the bottle. What we have to dk is develop rules and culture for how this can help the public. For example police officers should be REQUIRED to wear cameras and the video must be kept available to be produced in a trial.

You are more likely, much more in fact, to die from auto crashes or health problems then a terrorist attack, or even crime in general.

We should spend money on the things that will prevent the most deaths. Yet compare the budget that goes towards counter terrorism vs. Funding for health research, or vehicle safety.

The "threat" that the "intelligence" community is trying to guard against is political dissent. "Terrorism" is just the latest excuse for state violence at home and abroad.

It is so amazing to me that people cannot see that America is like other countries in this way.

A state is a state, whether its the United States or Russia or China or Bolivia. Some states have more power. The more power they have, the more they try to retain their power.

The state is the ultimate authority and monopoly on violence, and it will use it to maintain its power and control. Surveillance of citizens is just a type of violence that people don't feel directly on their physical persons.

The nation-state is an ancient concept that is fundamentally based on violence. Its just an extremely official and well-respected Mafia. But still founded on the same criminal and unethical principles of coercion by threat of death or imprisonment.

So you think that flying airplanes into buildings is just "political dissent"? If some terrorist were to set off a nuclear weapon in the middle of a city, that would just be "political dissent"?

I would certainly agree that states have lots of downsides. But I don't see how trying to stop people from flying airplanes into buildings or setting off nuclear weapons in the middle of cities is one of them.

That was a staged event. The jet was flown by wire. This is known as a false-flag attack. Please Google that (its a real thing). Fear of these types of attacks, or worse, is used to create an environment where freedom can be restricted in the name of "safety" which allows for better control of political dissent.

That was a staged event. The jet was flown by wire.

Ah, I see: I mistook you for someone who was in touch with reality.

That's the problem, while you say we shouldn't use the argument that "spies need 100 percent transparency", they do pretty much use the opposite argument, that we can never know anything about what they're doing, often even their overseers, because it would "endanger national security".

Plus, even though the 4th amendment clearly states that you can't even seize stuff from a person, without probable cause. Yet, they keep saying that they can, and it's ok to do it as long as they don't search it. They intentionally omit the seizure part of the 4th amendment.

Look at it this way. Would it be ok for the police to come into your home, no proper warrant other than a "general warrant", like the writ of assistance for which Americans rebelled against UK, and take your stuff, as long as they promise to not look through it?

I think that would be completely unacceptable and immediately be declared unconstitutional. Yet, NSA keeps pretending it's completely fine to take your "digital" stuff as long as they don't look at it.

That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff. The US government making a copy of my digital stuff doesn't deprive me of my digital stuff.

While I agree that you can't take either government at their word, the fact that one can happen without your knowledge makes it the preferable option from both an intelligence standpoint and maybe philosophically a rights infringing standpoint. I.E. it is the intelligence version of the tree falling in the woods. Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general (I didn't say it can't effect your life, but for the majority of people surveyed, I would guess it doesn't)?

> That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff. The US government making a copy of my digital stuff doesn't deprive me of my digital stuff.

So, "Information wants to be secretly collected?" That has a certain symmetry to it.

This sounds like the "information want's to be free" argument people use here to justify copying movies and music, shouldn't it also then apply to your phonecall data? It's all just bits right?

Sure, but those making that argument would be right to point out the NSA should be releasing all their data under the same logic.

> the fact that one can happen without your knowledge makes it the preferable option from both an intelligence standpoint and maybe philosophically a rights infringing standpoint. I.E. it is the intelligence version of the tree falling in the woods. Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general

Seizure is the wrong tack. The 4th Amendment also covers searches. SCOTUS has ruled in Katz that a reasonable expectation of privacy triggers 4th Amendment protections (clarified in additional rulings).

>That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff.

That is not the reason the restrictions exist at all. It's to prevent abuse of power, not just the police stealing your stuff.

Searching your house is, in general, far less abusive than stealing your digital information. You may not keep records of your private activities, you might not have any incriminating physical items. It also takes far more effort for the police to do.

Your digital information includes everywhere you've ever been, much of your conversations, the crazy things you Googled because you were curious, the porn you've looked at, everything you've ever bought, etc. Eventually it may even include recordings from microphone and cameras as they become ubiquitous. And all this becomes a permanent record of your life. It will be stored on some computer forever, never going away.

Oh ya, and it happens without your knowledge.

> Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general

You're assuming no impact without evidence. Let's think about that first. Even assuming no G-men in black helicopters descend on you at any point in your life, what results from the government collecting all of this information?

The most obvious problem is, what happens if the government uses the same level of competence to keep your secrets secret as they do at anything else? What happens when some tool walks out of the NSA with a backpack full of hard drives comprising the metadata of everyone in the US for the past decade, and posts it on the internet?

The results of that are entirely predictable. Every vulnerable population whatsoever will be exposed to their antagonists. Crime bosses will be able to find informants and undercover law enforcement officers. Terrorists and criminals will be able to identify vulnerable targets. Industrial espionage and blackmail will proceed on a massive scale. Abusive spouses will find their exes. None of that reasonably classifies as "no harm no foul."

But OK, that hasn't happened yet, suppose we give them the benefit of the doubt. Uncle Sam is going to fill the server room with Marines until the end of days and keep everybody's secrets from ever leaking onto the internets. But still there is the government. If you know the government is recording your movements, are you going to be willing to visit a Communist rally to broaden your horizons or satisfy your intellectual curiosity? What about an abortion clinic, or a psychiatrist? What aren't husbands and wives going to be willing to say to each other for fear that someone could be listening? What essays aren't going to be published if their authors don't believe in their ability to remain anonymous against pervasive surveillance?

The problem with "harmless" surveillance is that it creates fear, and fear is a harm.

> Would it be ok for the police to come into your home, no proper warrant other than a "general warrant", like the writ of assistance for which Americans rebelled against UK, and take your stuff, as long as they promise to not look through it?

Wrong question. Would it be okay for the police to come into your home, not touch anything, but just write down a list of everything they see? What if they did this without the bodily intrusion?

It is arguable whether or not the Fourth covers this. There are legitimate legal arguments that can be made for its legality. You might not agree with those arguments, and you might not find them convincing, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't like it. You have to argue that property is, in fact, being seized (which I'd disagree with you on). You have to argue that "search" is sufficient to meet the standard of the Fourth. And so on.

If anything, this is one of the most striking examples of how we have to bend over backwards in order to fit 21st century morals and ethics to codes written 200 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com