[Air-L] NSA and privacy?

Sun Jun 9 17:21:00 PDT 2013

Here's a splendid interview with Snowden:

m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance 

-Robert

On Jun 9, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org> wrote:

> 
> I have not been this annoyed and disgusted with my country's actions since 2003 and the run-up to the Iraq War.  I'm truly saddened at what's been sacrificed over the years.
> 
> Here are some initial thoughts.  (Pls pardon the semi-rambling nature, I've been going nonstop for the past few days.)
> 
> The 9/11 Report talked about a failure to "connect the dots" before the attacks, so now the US intelligence community is trying to "COLLECT all the dots" so that it can try to "CONNECT them" and potentially prevent future attacks.  By the same token, if politicians try to reign in such efforts on civil liberties concerns they run the risk of not only looking 'soft' on terrorism but being held responsible for the next attack and likely lose their jobs in the next election.  (Which to me is a great reason for term limits.)  Ask any competent security expert -- there never can be "100% security" but no government person wants to be seen as doing less than trying to acheive that unachievable goal. In many ways, this whole thing re-opens the question of how far the US has gone in terms of "protecting the homeland" -- ie the frequently-cited security-v-civil liberties balance.  
> 
> None of these revelations (to me) are surprising in the slightest ... since the late '90s I (and presumably many here) have said the Internet and the pervasive usages of various ICTs would make mass surveillance quite possible, powerful, and just as pervasive as the users' embrace of them in their daily lives. Since the 'Patriot' Act was passed in 2001, that pretty much made it a certaintyt. The past few days' revelations have confirmed that officially and publicly for all to see.
> 
> What I find pathetic and disturbing is summed up by Greenwald's tweet this morning about the USG folks complaining about the leaking of classified information:  "DNI: Prior to this week, The Terrorists didn't realize that the US Govt tries to monitor their communications."    Even the normally reserved Jim Fallows from the Atlantic asked "why is this classified?" on Friday.  This has been an 'open secret' for years, but because it's technically still classified, the government must respond accordingly even if it makes them look foolish by doing so.  As I said in a Friday interview, the only terrorists still using mobile phones and GMail are stupid terrorists and other "low hanging fruit." 
> 
> Interestingly, everyone (government and tech firms) are saying their actions are in full compliance with the law.  But if a broadly-worded court order is lawful under an equally broadly-worded provision of law, then indeed these companies could just fork over whatever they wanted to and still be done "in accordance with the law" ... which explains why all those tech company statements looked pretty much the same in content and language --- ie they all made specific reference to not providing "direct access" to their systems. How about indirect or other types of access?  Their statements might be TECHNICALLY and LEGALLY true, but there's plenty of wiggle room.
> 
> Legal semantics will be a key thing, too.  The US government says it doesn't "target" citizens but never really says it doesn't "monitor" their communications and transactions.  How is "targetting" different from "monitoring" in the operational and legal contexts here? The lawyers are going to have an absolute field day parsing the semantics and interpretations of "the law" here....it may be akin to the Clinton lawyers trying to define what "is" meant back in the '90s.  :\
> 
> The big takeaways as I see it right now? First, American citizens *finally* know about the secret interpretations of Section 215 of the 'Patriot' Act that were ominously hinted at by a few very concerned Senators over the years.  Secret laws generally aren't condusive to trust or accountability open societies, right?  Maybe they will realise exactly how far the government is going to 'protect' them.  Will they be okay with that?
> 
> Second, these disclosures, and the 2010 WikiLeaks one (Manning), again help speak truth to power by demonstrating one of this country's most debilitating problems:  the government's infatuation with secrecy and overclassification. Yes, there is a need for secrecy in select situations, but for DECADES the USG has gone waaaay overboard in this regard.
> 
> Anyway, here's some extra reading on the subject.  I sggest those interested have a stiff drink or two first, just to get a bit numb before reading:
> 
> Initial thoughts on the NSA-Verizon surveillance order (by me)
> http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/06/initial-thoughts-nsa-verizon-surveillance-order
> 
> The DNI's Non-Denial of Mass Surveillance of Americans  (Jennifer Granick)
> http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/06/dnis-non-denial-mass-surveillance-americans
> 
> EFF: Why Metadata Matters
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters
> 
> What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know (Schneier)
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/what-we-dont-know-about-spying-on-citizens-scarier-than-what-we-know/276607/
> 
> Will this latest series of disclosures lead to a meaningful public debate and/or changes to the surveillance regime?  I'm hopeful, but have my doubts.   I've been in DC for too long and pretty much know how these things play out.  Plus, I wonder if the American people really care about this in the so-called 'Age of Facebook' and the share-it-all society.
> 
> Le sigh.  :(
> 
> --rick
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:04 PM, nativebuddha <nativebuddha at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Surprised that there's no discussion here on NSA and metadata collection. Seems like prime aoir material. Maybe some privacy scholars and cryptography experts can give some expert comments?
>> 
>> -Robert
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>> 
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/
> 
> 
> ---
> Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.
> 