P-R-I-V-A-C-Y (Kesha for the search)

[broken iris]

Here's a quote from some guy who tried to wear Google Glass into a strip club in NYC:

"Even without Glass, we have no privacy. So to think people are up in arms about privacy when it comes to Glass is pretty silly to me when we already have no privacy. I think people need to be more worried about what Uncle Sam is prying in on."


I guess I still don't understand these types of complaints. It sounds like he is mad that the US government is collection information from private service providers about citizens all over the globe, but simultaneously acknowledging that those same companies will have it anyway. Are for-profit multinational corporations really morally superior to and more trustworthy than a democratically elected liberal government?

[simple schoolboy]

Here's a quote from some guy who tried to wear Google Glass into a strip club in NYC:

"Even without Glass, we have no privacy. So to think people are up in arms about privacy when it comes to Glass is pretty silly to me when we already have no privacy. I think people need to be more worried about what Uncle Sam is prying in on."


I guess I still don't understand these types of complaints. It sounds like he is mad that the US government is collection information from private service providers about citizens all over the globe, but simultaneously acknowledging that those same companies will have it anyway. Are for-profit multinational corporations really morally superior to and more trustworthy than a democratically elected liberal government?

Have AT&T and Google been running around kicking down peoples doors, shooting their dogs and imprisoning them for possessing contraband? So yeah, on that count I'd say they are morally superior.

[Rob]

I thought corporations were amoral.

The government might use your information to kick down your door, while the corporation will just sell your information to third parties for money. I realize the former does this without consent (though they argue the consent is implied) while the latter does usually have consent, but if my only other option is to be cut off from technology, it's not really a choice.

[simple schoolboy]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

[elliseamos]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

the wire looks so dated now.

[broken iris]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

I have no issues with the DEA using FISA warrants or wiretaps, but I do agree that denying it in court is wrong (in the case of US citizens).

[simple schoolboy]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

I have no issues with the DEA using FISA warrants or wiretaps, but I do agree that denying it in court is wrong (in the case of US citizens).

Why can't they just got to a normal federal judge which will be somewhat less of a rubber stamp? What sorts of crimes in your mind should we not target with the massive purportedly anti-terrorism oriented security apparatus? Sedition? Campaign finance violations? Shop lifting?

[broken iris]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

I have no issues with the DEA using FISA warrants or wiretaps, but I do agree that denying it in court is wrong (in the case of US citizens).

Why can't they just got to a normal federal judge which will be somewhat less of a rubber stamp? What sorts of crimes in your mind should we not target with the massive purportedly anti-terrorism oriented security apparatus? Sedition? Campaign finance violations? Shop lifting?

First off, we shouldn't kid ourselves about where a significant portion of the drugs in the US come from and that is organized gangs which could easily outclass Al Qaeda in the terror department should they choose to and most of which don't need to fly across the ocean to get here. But our draconian and misguided 'War on Drugs' is a topic for a different thread.

My guess, again solely a guess, is that in many of these situations they don't have enough information to get a federal warrant without the FISA derived products. I don't think it's quite as simple as the rubber stamp you make it out to be in this era of talented defense attorneys, corrupted foreign officials, and declining law enforcement budgets. It's also possible that the original source of the information is something three letter agency related and thus a federal judge and jury may not be allowed to know where it came from (classified) or they may learn about tactics and capabilities if revealed (thus allowing our enemies to know), hence the need to construct an alternative narrative to prove probable cause after the fact. I don't think we can make a moral judgement about this, and certainly not a legal one, without understanding the details of several specific cases in which this used.

Now in terms the cut-off for this stuff, I don't think things like family/domestic issues or tax evasion or seditious online postings or even local level corruption cases should fall under the scope of the FISA court and it's derived programs. The challenge here is to filter through all the noise and misdemeanors and internet bullshitting and get to the actionable information that can be used to prevent harm to US citizens here and abroad without investigating things outside the initial scope. For example if someone were to post on a forum "I'm gonna sell my dad's AR to this kid from my school. He's fucked up, but I need $$", should the government be able to detect that to prevent a crime? I dunno, but maybe. There also needs to be thorough and extensive oversight to prevent abuse and corruption of the data. We have evidence the current administration is not above using federal power to attack it's opponents, but that's something we can see on a macro level, even if we have to suffer through Fox News. Individual analysts or admins, like Snowden, have the potential to falsify data or misdirect analysis without detection, which IMHO, is the biggest problem with all that he has so far revealed.

[elliseamos]

FBI Increasingly Using Malware To Remotely Turn On Phone/Laptop Microphones
from the that-seems-problematic dept

It's not a secret that the FBI has used hacking methods in the past to spy on suspected criminals, including keyloggers and remotely turning on microphones in mobile phones, in order to spy on suspected criminals. However, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI has been ramping up these efforts, specifically hiring hackers and purchasing hacker tools to be able to do more such things.

Federal agencies have largely kept quiet about these capabilities, but court documents and interviews with people involved in the programs provide new details about the hacking tools, including spyware delivered to computers and phones through email or Web links—techniques more commonly associated with attacks by criminals.

• [....] The FBI develops some hacking tools internally and purchases others from the private sector. With such technology, the bureau can remotely activate the microphones in phones running Google Inc.'s Android software to record conversations, one former U.S. official said. It can do the same to microphones in laptops without the user knowing, the person said.

The report also notes things like using a computer's camera to take photos -- though, in the one case where this tactic was requested, the judge nixed the request, worried that it might lead to the collection of info on innocent people. There's also this wonderful line:

• The bureau has controls to ensure only "relevant data" are scooped up, the person said. A screening team goes through all of the data pulled from the hack to determine what is relevant, then hands off that material to the case team and stops working on the case.

Considering how we've already seen the feds redefine "relevant," that seems kind of laughable.

Of course, if you're a computer hacker, you might be safe:

• The bureau typically uses hacking in cases involving organized crime, child pornography or counterterrorism, a former U.S. official said. It is loath to use these tools when investigating hackers, out of fear the suspect will discover and publicize the technique, the person said.

So, um, if you want to avoid such things, I guess you should get busy hacking.

[simple schoolboy]

Today we have news of the DEA using some of the FISA approved wiretaps to create cases against Americans and then omiting any record of their use at trial. Instead they created a parallel probable cause to make their timelines credible. Additionally, the FBI has been working hard to pressure ISPs and telecoms to get direct access to their servers and other backbone infrastructure. Ah, good old mission creep.

I have no issues with the DEA using FISA warrants or wiretaps, but I do agree that denying it in court is wrong (in the case of US citizens).

Why can't they just got to a normal federal judge which will be somewhat less of a rubber stamp? What sorts of crimes in your mind should we not target with the massive purportedly anti-terrorism oriented security apparatus? Sedition? Campaign finance violations? Shop lifting?

First off, we shouldn't kid ourselves about where a significant portion of the drugs in the US come from and that is organized gangs which could easily outclass Al Qaeda in the terror department should they choose to and most of which don't need to fly across the ocean to get here. But our draconian and misguided 'War on Drugs' is a topic for a different thread.

My guess, again solely a guess, is that in many of these situations they don't have enough information to get a federal warrant without the FISA derived products. I don't think it's quite as simple as the rubber stamp you make it out to be in this era of talented defense attorneys, corrupted foreign officials, and declining law enforcement budgets. It's also possible that the original source of the information is something three letter agency related and thus a federal judge and jury may not be allowed to know where it came from (classified) or they may learn about tactics and capabilities if revealed (thus allowing our enemies to know), hence the need to construct an alternative narrative to prove probable cause after the fact. I don't think we can make a moral judgement about this, and certainly not a legal one, without understanding the details of several specific cases in which this used.

Now in terms the cut-off for this stuff, I don't think things like family/domestic issues or tax evasion or seditious online postings or even local level corruption cases should fall under the scope of the FISA court and it's derived programs. The challenge here is to filter through all the noise and misdemeanors and internet bullshitting and get to the actionable information that can be used to prevent harm to US citizens here and abroad without investigating things outside the initial scope. For example if someone were to post on a forum "I'm gonna sell my dad's AR to this kid from my school. He's fucked up, but I need $$", should the government be able to detect that to prevent a crime? I dunno, but maybe. There also needs to be thorough and extensive oversight to prevent abuse and corruption of the data. We have evidence the current administration is not above using federal power to attack it's opponents, but that's something we can see on a macro level, even if we have to suffer through Fox News. Individual analysts or admins, like Snowden, have the potential to falsify data or misdirect analysis without detection, which IMHO, is the biggest problem with all that he has so far revealed.

How is FISA not a rubber stamp? How would talented defense attorneys help if as far as the judge, prosecutor, and defense know the drug case was started by a 'random' traffic stop?

If there's not enough information for a traditional warrant, then its not appropriate to get one. The DEA should consider diverting more resources into investigating foreign cartels rather than going after the low hanging fruit of state approved medical marijuana dispensaries.

Its rather circular to argue that we can't make a judgement until we know more but then no particularly useful specifics are forthcoming. I'm sure Obama welcomes a discussion on this as well. Not that we needed another anectdote, but its been clear that the war on drugs has been substantially responsible for 4th amendment protections and the war on terror has furthered that process along. With the DEA back in the picture, its kind of like we've gone fulll circle.

[simple schoolboy]

NPR had a segment about license plate capturing technology, and I have to wonder if this isn't just a bit related to the NSA disclosures. In addition to police cruisers equipped with the cameras, some localities with restricted entrances have them set up at the city border to monitor every car entering and leaving their jurisdiction, purportedly to deter and track thieves. Such an example is not too far from where I live, in Tiburon, CA: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... e-readers/

While creepy, I can't imagine any challenge that would pass muster on a constitutional basis as photography in the public sphere has pretty wide protection, regardless of who's doing it. In the segment the ACLU suggested that local police departments publish their policies for such devices so that the public may comment on it. Again, while a good idea I don't imagine public pushback will have much of an impact, nor is it likely that a majority would oppose such a policy. Generally, it seems that police policies survive between changes of administration rather well and despite city settlements. It seems that the whole mechanism of democratic oversight of police departments is broken and that at the moment all we can really do is continue paying off victims of police malfeasance. But perhaps that is a thread for another day.

[Electromatic]

NPR had a segment about license plate capturing technology, and I have to wonder if this isn't just a bit related to the NSA disclosures. In addition to police cruisers equipped with the cameras, some localities with restricted entrances have them set up at the city border to monitor every car entering and leaving their jurisdiction, purportedly to deter and track thieves. Such an example is not too far from where I live, in Tiburon, CA: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... e-readers/

While creepy, I can't imagine any challenge that would pass muster on a constitutional basis as photography in the public sphere has pretty wide protection, regardless of who's doing it. In the segment the ACLU suggested that local police departments publish their policies for such devices so that the public may comment on it. Again, while a good idea I don't imagine public pushback will have much of an impact, nor is it likely that a majority would oppose such a policy. Generally, it seems that police policies survive between changes of administration rather well and despite city settlements. It seems that the whole mechanism of democratic oversight of police departments is broken and that at the moment all we can really do is continue paying off victims of police malfeasance. But perhaps that is a thread for another day.

Yeah I heard that segment too and feel exactly the same way. It makes me uncomfortable.

[broken iris]

First off, we shouldn't kid ourselves about where a significant portion of the drugs in the US come from and that is organized gangs which could easily outclass Al Qaeda in the terror department should they choose to and most of which don't need to fly across the ocean to get here. But our draconian and misguided 'War on Drugs' is a topic for a different thread.

My guess, again solely a guess, is that in many of these situations they don't have enough information to get a federal warrant without the FISA derived products. I don't think it's quite as simple as the rubber stamp you make it out to be in this era of talented defense attorneys, corrupted foreign officials, and declining law enforcement budgets. It's also possible that the original source of the information is something three letter agency related and thus a federal judge and jury may not be allowed to know where it came from (classified) or they may learn about tactics and capabilities if revealed (thus allowing our enemies to know), hence the need to construct an alternative narrative to prove probable cause after the fact. I don't think we can make a moral judgement about this, and certainly not a legal one, without understanding the details of several specific cases in which this used.

Now in terms the cut-off for this stuff, I don't think things like family/domestic issues or tax evasion or seditious online postings or even local level corruption cases should fall under the scope of the FISA court and it's derived programs. The challenge here is to filter through all the noise and misdemeanors and internet bullshitting and get to the actionable information that can be used to prevent harm to US citizens here and abroad without investigating things outside the initial scope. For example if someone were to post on a forum "I'm gonna sell my dad's AR to this kid from my school. He's fucked up, but I need $$", should the government be able to detect that to prevent a crime? I dunno, but maybe. There also needs to be thorough and extensive oversight to prevent abuse and corruption of the data. We have evidence the current administration is not above using federal power to attack it's opponents, but that's something we can see on a macro level, even if we have to suffer through Fox News. Individual analysts or admins, like Snowden, have the potential to falsify data or misdirect analysis without detection, which IMHO, is the biggest problem with all that he has so far revealed.

How is FISA not a rubber stamp? How would talented defense attorneys help if as far as the judge, prosecutor, and defense know the drug case was started by a 'random' traffic stop?

If there's not enough information for a traditional warrant, then its not appropriate to get one. The DEA should consider diverting more resources into investigating foreign cartels rather than going after the low hanging fruit of state approved medical marijuana dispensaries.

Its rather circular to argue that we can't make a judgement until we know more but then no particularly useful specifics are forthcoming. I'm sure Obama welcomes a discussion on this as well. Not that we needed another anectdote, but its been clear that the war on drugs has been substantially responsible for 4th amendment protections and the war on terror has furthered that process along. With the DEA back in the picture, its kind of like we've gone fulll circle.

It is a bit circular, but again, having no insight into FISA, we don't know the checks and balances involved and we cannot assume that the federal government has such vast available resources that it would go after minor offenders via setting then up as you describe. I don't doubt the scenario you present has occurred, but the multiple levels of corruption such things would entail would be difficult to repeatedly execute, especially in secret and for so long. You gotta also remember that one of the 'causes' of 9/11 was a failure to share exactly the type of intel analysts are suppose to glean from these systems, so it's hard to say what they should and should not share. The DEA shouldn't be excluded as drugs fund terror just as much as petroleum does. That is a fact.

I do agree that the follies in our continued war or drugs certainly are a problem that can probably be exacerbated by the analysis and tracking these type of systems lends themselves to. But the conflict between state and federal laws w/r to medical marijuana is a whole different topic and I would be careful about advocating for the states to have too much power to override federal rulings on things like this. That is a slippery slope if there ever was one.

[simple schoolboy]

I guess I never linked the story to which I was referring, so here it is:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... AZ20130807

[simple schoolboy]

How freaked out is HB that the NSA has access to all of his sordid goat related deeds?

[broken iris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23898580

<snippet>:

But, at the start of the hearing, Mr Miranda's lawyers said that he and other parties had reached an agreement that would allow police to carry on examining the material under similar conditions.

In a statement presented at the High Court, Mr Robbins said that the files Mr Miranda was carrying were "highly likely to describe techniques crucial in life saving counter-terrorist operations".

He added that intelligence staff were identifiable in the information, posing a danger to them in the UK and overseas.

Although many of the files were encrypted, Mr Robbins said, Mr Miranda was also carrying a "piece of paper containing basic instructions for accessing some data, together with a piece of paper that included the password for decrypting one of the encrypted files on the external hard drive".

"Work continues to access the content of the other files on the hard drive and the USB sticks," he added.

Mr Miranda's partner Glenn Greenwald has worked with former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden on stories about US and UK surveillance programmes.

Mr Snowden fled the US in May after revealing extensive details of the workings of US intelligence agencies.

Reports based on data he had obtained accused the US National Security Agency (NSA) of gathering millions of telephone records, and collecting data from the systems of US internet giants including Google and Facebook under a previously undisclosed surveillance programme called Prism.

So it's becoming more like a low budget re-enactment of Mission Impossible 1. Bunch heroes these guys.

[Stickman]

[broken iris]

Fuck improving relations with Russia, this guy has got to go.

[BurtReynolds]

Fuck improving relations with Russia, this guy has got to go.

Is he on a boat? Can't touch him. Maritime law.

[malice]