Anti-spying CIA and FBI. [CLOSED]

TUN3R wrote:You could let the terrorists win.

If you don't like it, don't make a Facebook account. What, you think such a pointless site like Facebook became "successful" by itself? Gimme a break. It's part of a surveillance scheme, it has been all along. All you can do is avoid it.

Sir Auron wrote:
That's why you use a fictional character for your account...

larsV wrote:hmm TUN3R don`t you think that your own goverment also not doing that already? come on you don`t need facebook account or any other social media account as long you log in on the net,if it is a e-mail account or a post on a forum like here or pirate bay or any other sims site,they can track you down.

ps
they just said facebook because it is the biggest social site on the net.

They can see your IP, and they can use that to find your location. Then they can use your location to find out who you are.

Sir Auron wrote:

They can see your IP, and they can use that to find your location. Then they can use your location to find out who you are.

Besides, unless they suspect you of abducting a teenage girl or committing a homicide why would they go to all that trouble?

Sir Auron wrote:

They can see your IP, and they can use that to find your location. Then they can use your location to find out who you are.

Besides, unless they suspect you of abducting a teenage girl or committing a homicide why would they go to all that trouble?

Carlos G. wrote:I'm sure there are numerous reasons, but what exactly these reasons are is not important here.

The thing is: it would be a bit naive to assume that just because some (data protection) law is written down somewhere, the state's authorities will abide by these rules . Legal philosophers in this context also draw the line betweeen the "factual reality" and "legal reality": a "factual event" in reality doesn't necessarily have a legal basis, and vice versa a law might not be effective in the "real world", for various reasons.

"Theory" (law) and "practice" (reality) are two completely different things.

Sir Auron wrote:

TUN3R wrote:You could let the terrorists win.

If you don't like it, don't make a Facebook account. What, you think such a pointless site like Facebook became "successful" by itself? Gimme a break. It's part of a surveillance scheme, it has been all along. All you can do is avoid it.

cat2006house wrote:
If the surveillance scheme does work, why did the Boston Incident happen? Gimme a break. There are numerous terreroist attacks on the land of US and US allies every year. Yeah, the spying scheme *works*, very funny.

Hello,

While there is certainly a point in your argumentation, think about the logical consequences of that: for example, the same principle can be applied to the police in general then. So you would also have to say that "The police can't prevent all crimes, so why do we need the police ?". Or: "Modern legal systems are not always effective, so do we really need them ?". And these are just very simplistic examples.

But again, you are actually raising an interesting philosophical question, which would look like this: "In which cases is it justified to do 'wrong' things, when you at the same time do 'good' things too? So in this case, is total surveillance justified to prevent terrorist attacks, even when it doesn't always work out ?".

Another related example of this is the following: after 9/11, there were discussions (no, not only in the US!) about the possibility of shooting down hijacked airplanes before they harm others. The question then was whether it is justified to "sacrifice" the passengers of such an airplane in order to save the lives of those who are in a skyscraper or any other building.

And this is the point where I am afraid to actually state any "preference".

cat2006house wrote:If the surveillance scheme does work, why did the Boston Incident happen? Gimme a break. There are numerous terreroist attacks on the land of US and US allies every year. Yeah, the spying scheme *works*, very funny.

Carlos G. wrote:

cat2006house wrote:
If the surveillance scheme does work, why did the Boston Incident happen? Gimme a break. There are numerous terreroist attacks on the land of US and US allies every year. Yeah, the spying scheme *works*, very funny.

Hello,

While there is certainly a point in your argumentation, think about the logical consequences of that: for example, the same principle can be applied to the police in general then. So you would also have to say that "The police can't prevent all crimes, so why do we need the police ?". Or: "Modern legal systems are not always effective, so do we really need them ?". And these are just very simplistic examples.

But again, you are actually raising an interesting philosophical question, which would look like this: "In which cases is it justified to do 'wrong' things, when you at the same time do 'good' things too? So in this case, is total surveillance justified to prevent terrorist attacks, even when it doesn't always work out ?".

cat2006house wrote:

Carlos G. wrote:

cat2006house wrote:
If the surveillance scheme does work, why did the Boston Incident happen? Gimme a break. There are numerous terreroist attacks on the land of US and US allies every year. Yeah, the spying scheme *works*, very funny.

Hello,

While there is certainly a point in your argumentation, think about the logical consequences of that: for example, the same principle can be applied to the police in general then. So you would also have to say that "The police can't prevent all crimes, so why do we need the police ?". Or: "Modern legal systems are not always effective, so do we really need them ?". And these are just very simplistic examples.

But again, you are actually raising an interesting philosophical question, which would look like this: "In which cases is it justified to do 'wrong' things, when you at the same time do 'good' things too? So in this case, is total surveillance justified to prevent terrorist attacks, even when it doesn't always work out ?".

 
Even you do something wrong and illegal to achieve the goal "morally", what you do is still against the law. The local police of my city cannot break into arrested suspects' homes without letting them know.
 
A simple example can illustrate how important privacy is. Say you go to toilet to pee, do you want everyone to see? Peeing is not embarrassing, but it's of privacy and no one would want others to spy on you when you are fulfilling your bladder needs right? This can also be applied to leakage of civilians' personal lives as well. And this is what the US government did before.

//EDIT: Homicide is an excellent simile as well. Say I slaughtered someone so as to defend myself. This reason can prevent myself from getting prosecuted, but this is a question of decency and moral centre. Murder, no matter what reason you have, is not righteous.

Forum users disussing Snowden wrote:None of this keeps us safe, and any surveillance that can keep us safe can be done so abiding by the law. Terrorism is an infinitesimal danger, and it's not worth this type of Big Brother surveillance. It wouldn't be allowed to cut down on "murder" as a concept, why is terrorism different?
This shit disgusts me beyond words, I start sputtering like a madman and my face turns red!


The worst thing are those people who say "I don't care! I have nothing to hide!" That's what really disgusts me...

An article wrote:

And this is why PRISM should - and does- concern you. [...] For the first time in history, the government has encyclopedic knowledge of every single one of its constituents; who we are, what we do, and what we’re likely to do, to an astonishing level of accuracy.

This data can be used for benevolent purposes, sure… to protect the American people, as it were. But when protecting the American people involves labeling other American people as criminals or potential criminals, that same data transforms into an incredibly powerful weapon.

Maybe you’re in the privileged minority right now and don’t have any characteristics that could pit you against the wealthy, largely Caucasian, largely male, upper-class lawmakers who write & fund our laws.
But I can guarantee that others in your community do; and in the future, as our political landscape shifts and evolves, as it inevitably will, you might too. Not because of anything you’ve done wrong, or anything you should feel the need to hide. But because of a tendency for societies of people to point fingers, blame and “otherize” individuals in the minority during times of crisis, fear or economic instability.

Another passage wrote:[ltr]
Yes, the world doesn't give a shit about you and your antics, your Instagrams and your inane LOL this and LMFAO that posts. Or mine. We are, most of us, irrelevant at an individual level. Until we are not. Until someone decides to use whatever information they have available to do something against someone—individually or as a collective.[...]

"But I know that the people who are involved in these programs... They're professionals. In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance."

Sure. And it's possible, even likely, that these professionals aren't abusing the data they've collected. Yet. But does Obama really think that a government that collects this kind of stuff won't abuse it eventually? That's vanishingly unlikely.

One very clear example of what Kevin says: there was nothing wrong with Germany computerized census of 1933—made with the first IBM perforated card machines, then Hollerith—until the Nazis got to power and started to create lists of Jews complete with address in a matter of minutes. Unchecked access to big data—like NSA's Prism operation—is what enabled the Holocaust.

Millions of people—literally about 70 million—died in a war against those Nazis, believing they represented the antithesis of the rights that the I Don't Care, I Have Nothing to Hide people so easily disregard because, as they argue, nobody gives a shit about them.

But the truth is that there are governments and organizations who give and will give a shit about you. Not about the **** you watch, but about who you are, what your spending habits are, and a million other things. The people can be the government or perhaps some crazy neighbor who, for some reason, doesn't like you and happens to work at the NSA.

So have no doubt: if the information is there, it can be used for less noble purposes than "fighting terrorism." Whatever that means. I didn't see PRISM stopping the Boston bombings, for example.

This is not fearmongering. This is not sensationalizing a potential threat. We just don't know what's going on at the NSA. We don't know what's going in many other organizations that are not accountable and are not held to transparency standards. When some people alerted of what was happening in Germany, some said that it was all fear mongering. Some people argued "oh, that can't never happen. That's fear mongering."

Those people had the excuse that they didn't have any previous experience. They didn't know the ultimate intentions of those collecting the apparently inoffensive data. They didn't know the potential of such technology if it isn't closely controlled by the public. Now we know that potential.

But nothing will happen to us!

Sure, a holocaust happening in America is highly unlikely. But what about the US citizens of Japanese-origin who were send to concentration camps during the World War 2, their rights completely obliterated by a democratic government in the name of national security? Or all those US citizens beloning to the Communist party, well after the war? Or the people fighting for the rights of African-Americans until a few decades ago? All those cases may seem extreme, but they happened just a few years ago here, in the US of A.

So you have to fight for your rights. That's the basis for the progress of society. There has to be ZERO tolerance for a government going unchecked and for its lack of transparency. The threat of terrorism is never an excuse to limit the rights of the individual and society as a whole.

After all this, if you can't see why you should care about this situation, then I will not be sorry if something happens to you or anyone you love when, in the future, the world ends up in a similar situation than in 1939. Hopefully, that will not happen. But, if history has told us something, is that it happened. Many times since then. And it will probably happen again. And I'm not talking about Nazis coming back, but governments and corporations using Big Data unchecked and with no accountability whatsoever.

[/ltr]

An article wrote:In the wake of former CIA employee Edward Snowden’srevelations of the PRISM NSA mass surveillance, people are once again asking why the general public should care if they’ve got nothing to hide.


“Nothing to hide” hides a lot behind an absolutist gloss. It puts the focus on the individual rather than on the real problem of a society-wide loss of data control at many levels.


Is this a fair question? Not really. Below, I give nine reasons why we must care – regardless of our innocent intentions.


1) Presumption of guilt


Mass surveillance and data retention overturn the foundation of the modern legal system: the presumption of innocence. Not only is the presumption lost for gathering evidence, it also weakens the effect of that presumption throughout the rest of the legal process.


If there is a normalisation in the public consciousness that there is a weakened presumption of innocence, we have compromised the effectiveness of our legal system.


2) The loss of personal data control


Mass surveillance circumvents our right to personal data control, also known as informational self-determination. As the late Professor of Public Law Alan F. Westin put it in his 1970 book, Privacy and Freedom:


The right of the individual to decide what information about himself [sic] should be communicated to others and under what circumstances.


We have envelopes for our letters and curtains on our windows not because we’re doing something wrong but because our we are choosing how to share (or not) that business. Governments and security organisations should have no part in that choice without a specific, targeted, and legally warranted reason.


3) Transferring power to security organisations


Allowing security organisations to have far-reaching capabilities without strict oversight effectively transfers power from governments to the security organisations themselves.


The power of voting for elected officials is weakened if security organisations make choices based on securing their own position rather the interests of the country.


Vladimir Putin is reputed to be finding the siloviki (the “men of power” from state security) who helped build his regime to now be more demandingthan in the past. Such transfers of power are not limited to a shadowy few in a far-off land, nor just at the highest level.


In this kind of climate, the power to invoke or even just threaten a search from mass surveillance can be devolved to even front-line law enforcement.


4) False positives


Anyone searching for information on “topics of concern” to security agencies, for legitimate reasons (such as researchers, journalists, students) or even personal curiosity, could be falsely identified as a person of interest in an investigation.


As security technologist and author Bruce Schneier argued in a guest blog post last year, this is one of the fundamental problems of profiling.


The ramifications for the individual might range from inclusion on no-fly lists, denial of access to some jobs, through to false arrest.


5) Changing definitions of issues of concern


What counts as a problematic topic in the eyes of security organisations changes over time, especially in the wake of an incident. We are all still taking off our shoes at many airports because of one “shoe bomber”, Richard Reid, in 2001.


When something as seemingly benign as shoes is suddenly linked to security concerns, the potential for large retrospective data sweeps – as well as having shoe-related topics then included in future sweeps – increases, with concurrent increases in the possibility of embarrassing and/or gravely serious mistakes.


6) Political corruption


The potential exists for the government of the day to request detailed information that falls well outside the scope of legality.Watergate is the classic example of data-gathering about political adversaries, but compared to the potential corruption made possible by mass surveillance, that was a drop in the ocean.


Mass surveillance could be directed not only at direct political adversaries but also their official supporters and those who might fall into a demographic of potential support.


7) Personal abuse of power


While most security agents work within the law, there are occasions when they abuse their power. The London Police werefound to be complicit in the News Of The World hacking scandal and, as ABC journalist Nick Ross noted in an article last September, many small-scale examples of abuse of power are captured on the news website Reddit.


Communication data gathered for abusive private purposes could include email, texts, pictures intended for revenge, extortion or prurience.


8 )Honeypots


Large collections of telecommunications data – be it the content or the metadata – attract hackers. Unfortunately, governments and their sub-contractors have a poor track record safe-guarding such data.


Even without blunders, the data can be stolen or individuals with direct access can be manipulated to hand over this information through social engineering, bribery, or coercion.


9) Big data and the problem of patterns


The entire premise of “big data” – large and complex sets of computer data – is to find patterns from aggregates. While you may feel that, post-by-Facebook-post, you have “nothing to hide”, mass surveillance creates the possibility of finding patterns that catch the interest of security organisations.


Such patterns have the possibility of including the innocent with the guilty. Worse, there’s the possibility to not just find but “create” patterns from such aggregations that frame the innocent as potentially guilty.


Everything to lose


As security expert Bruce Schneir wrote for Wired in 2006, and is even more true today, we must not “accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong”.


The issue with the NSA PRISM program, and other such programs around the world, is not that we have “nothing to hide” – it’s that we have everything to lose.

cat2006house wrote:Snowden revealed that even universities and non-Muslim organisations were targeted as well. What do universities and these organisations do with terrorism?