Aerion Brightflame Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.htmlhttps://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155766682978/fact-sheet-on-eo-12333-raw-sigint-availability In the last few days of the Obama Administration, a new extention upon Executive Order 12333 has been passed into effect. E.O. 12333 was an Executive Order passed in the Reagan adminstration that legalised a lot of the vast data collection undertaken by the NSA, and allowed them to expand to collecting unecrypted data from things such as google and such. Up until now, such data required filtering by the NSA itself, and the use of I believe a judicial warrant before it could be used by another law enforcement agency owing to the protections of the 4th Ammendment of the US constitution. This change however allows 16 law enforcement agencies access to the raw surveilance data without the need for a warrant, nor congressional oversight. The Enforcement agencies would be required to perform the same filtering that previously existed, but they would still be allowed a significantly greater amount of surveilence information that before. And it becomes yet another step on the path towards the surveilance state. Thoughts, insights, any further commentary around the scope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senorchavez Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Slowly but surely, the people are losing their voice. The government sees us as nothing but compliant pawns, conditioning the general populace to allow them greater power. I only hope it's within Trump's moral compass to repeal this overextension of executive power, among others. If not, then something something tree of liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Am I the only one who supports this, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the government https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/27/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_establishing_anti_propaganda_center This on the other hand is scary, cause it shuts down discourse I'm fine with the gov watching me, I'm not fine with the gov telling me what I can or cannot say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Probably. Thanks to a certain someone I've got a whole lot of Diglett porn to hide. :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 But the government watching you is a direct directly leads to them telling you what to say. Because it allows them to influence opinion through direct concerted advertisment, and it prevents you ever rising up against them through blackmail and slander to discredit you before you do anything. In the words of Edward Snowden; 'Arguing that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say'. Or imagine the fact that you won't agree with the actions and behavoir of every government; what happens when your views become dissident views? If suddenly the government decides the belief system you hold becomes a danger to the US for no other reason than they say so? With the surveilance systems they'll know you, know your routine, know your secrets, know your contacts. They can find fringe meetings with 'radicals', or such and have you arrested for it. After a certain point, you don't even need to be doing any wrong. What happens when the government starts manipulating this data themselves? If they decide it's not enough to collect it, but to create it themselves? Say hack your facebook to gain association with radicals? Hack your bank to make it look like you are being dirty with money? They'd have the surveillance to do it, and the lack of a need for a warrant because it could bebuilt upon an extension from this? Some other arguments on both sides; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument Right to privacy remains one of your constituional rights. You shouldn't be willing to sell it so easily for security you do not need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 But the government watching you is a direct directly leads to them telling you what to say. Because it allows them to influence opinion through direct concerted advertisment, and it prevents you ever rising up against them through blackmail and slander to discredit you before you do anything. In the words of Edward Snowden; 'Arguing that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say'. Or imagine the fact that you won't agree with the actions and behavoir of every government; what happens when your views become dissident views? If suddenly the government decides the belief system you hold becomes a danger to the US for no other reason than they say so? With the surveilance systems they'll know you, know your routine, know your secrets, know your contacts. They can find fringe meetings with 'radicals', or such and have you arrested for it. After a certain point, you don't even need to be doing any wrong. What happens when the government starts manipulating this data themselves? If they decide it's not enough to collect it, but to create it themselves? Say hack your facebook to gain association with radicals? Hack your bank to make it look like you are being dirty with money? They'd have the surveillance to do it, and the lack of a need for a warrant because it could bebuilt upon an extension from this? Some other arguments on both sides; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument Right to privacy remains one of your constituional rights. You shouldn't be willing to sell it so easily for security you do not need.There's a delicate balance here Tom. And this is why I strongly support the 2nd Amendment as a fail-safe. We have a recurring feedback on the government and elections are frequent. With the ideal addition of term-limits, the government will not be able to build up seniority and has a constant turn-over rate that's controlled by the people As for influencing the public, that's already happening with news media. Less so because people are starting to copy President Trump in directly talking to the public, but it's not a new problem. The problem with the snowden quote is that the freedom of speech is needed for the time when you DO have something to say, even if you don't have something to say at the present. You should NEVER have something to hide from a government of, by, and for the people. There is a false equivalence there. If the balance of powers fails, that's when a civilian controlled militia and well armed citizens will become needed. Hopefully never, but there are contingencies. I appreciate your concern for the 4th amendment, but unwarranted has had it's meaning change over 200 years. Did you know the latest Florida shooter was actually a convert to Islam and had been posting pro-jihadist views on social media? How was he not caught despite surrender to the FBI once? Five people are dead and gone because we didn't have that security Tom, and that's unacceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 But then you are making an assumption that all future governments will be of the people and for the people, which you cannot garuntee. It only takes one government deciding that it wants to be the only government to cause this issue. Because if we ignore the US military for a second (I believe that if the Military was on the side of the government as it is like to be then no matter how well armed you are, the government would win. An armed militia cannot fight planes and tanks and boats and helicopters with any modicum of success, and the US military is too big for outside support to do anythin), how do you form an armed militia if the government is monitoring you? Like seriously, how? You have to communicate to do it, or deviate from ones routine to do so, and this sheet would stand out, and get flagged, and then what? A government willing to abuse this surveilance is one that would have no qualm imprisoning you as a 'terrorist' or a 'radical' because you are planning to act against the interests of the state. How do you form an armed militia in the 21st century capable of actually doing something without it being detected by this ever growing electronic surveillance? National security is an issue, but the need for due process, and probably cause should be an infallable part of the right to privacy (Which is considered a fundamental human right currently), because it is by this due process that one maintains the protection of the many against the few. Imagine too what happens when our generation starts moving into politics; we all have done stupid sheet online. sheet that we regret, but sheet that would be damning in politics; you have government institutions that have hold of all this information. What happens if the leaders of these institutions decide to use this leverage to control government instead? They aren't subject to term limits or the public eye in the same way. We've already seen intellegance leaders influencing current elections through the choice of disclosure of information. How do you prevent it from becoming a serious problem aside from trust the system behaves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bury the year Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 ---- As a wiser man than me once said, "Just because I have nothing to hide whilst taking a sheet, doesn't mean I'm going to leave the door open." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 As a wiser man than me once said, "Just because I have nothing to hide whilst taking a sheet, doesn't mean I'm going to leave the door open."Is your sheet regularly a natsec threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Is your sheet regularly a natsec threat? Apparently every sheet being taken is a natsec threat. Monitor all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Is your sheet regularly a natsec threat? On an individual basis, such a change means very little to a single person working a mundane job of no big importance. On a national scale, something like this has strong implications towards government involvement and control. The 4th amendment is still very important too, you know. These is such a thing as being too focused on your own individual context that you ignore the broader picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 How about I phrase it this way: I have nothing to hide, and pose no national security threat. Why should the government be able to monitor me if nothing they obtain from me will reveal anything dangerous to nat sec? If I have nothing to hide, they should have no reason to look in the first place. But they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 How about I phrase it this way: I have nothing to hide, and pose no national security threat. Why should the government be able to monitor me if nothing they obtain from me will reveal anything dangerous to nat sec? If I have nothing to hide, they should have no reason to look in the first place. But they do.Really guys, how are you more worried about this, a surveillance program that's like to get a lot of congressional oversight, instead of the anti-propaganda act. I really don't get. Before you say it, you can be worried about both. But there haven't been any notable abuses of this kinda power so far, unlike the "fake" news thing. Really seems like you guys are missing the big picture of what the gov is doing? Surveillance can mold public opinion? Sure. You know what else can? The gov controlling the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Really guys, how are you more worried about this, a surveillance program that's like to get a lot of congressional oversight, instead of the anti-propaganda act. I really don't get. Before you say it, you can be worried about both. But there haven't been any notable abuses of this kinda power so far, unlike the "fake" news thing. Really seems like you guys are missing the big picture of what the gov is doing? Surveillance can mold public opinion? Sure. You know what else can? The gov controlling the media Serious question. The last bit. I'm not sure if you're for or against it. The wording is weird to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Serious question. The last bit. I'm not sure if you're for or against it. The wording is weird to me.As of right now, seeing that Obama signed the bill, they gov can categorize and quarantine "fake news" That should remind you of Nazi germany But then you are making an assumption that all future governments will be of the people and for the people, which you cannot garuntee. It only takes one government deciding that it wants to be the only government to cause this issue. Because if we ignore the US military for a second (I believe that if the Military was on the side of the government as it is like to be then no matter how well armed you are, the government would win. An armed militia cannot fight planes and tanks and boats and helicopters with any modicum of success, and the US military is too big for outside support to do anythin), how do you form an armed militia if the government is monitoring you? Like seriously, how? You have to communicate to do it, or deviate from ones routine to do so, and this sheet would stand out, and get flagged, and then what? A government willing to abuse this surveilance is one that would have no qualm imprisoning you as a 'terrorist' or a 'radical' because you are planning to act against the interests of the state. How do you form an armed militia in the 21st century capable of actually doing something without it being detected by this ever growing electronic surveillance? National security is an issue, but the need for due process, and probably cause should be an infallable part of the right to privacy (Which is considered a fundamental human right currently), because it is by this due process that one maintains the protection of the many against the few. Imagine too what happens when our generation starts moving into politics; we all have done stupid sheet online. sheet that we regret, but sheet that would be damning in politics; you have government institutions that have hold of all this information. What happens if the leaders of these institutions decide to use this leverage to control government instead? They aren't subject to term limits or the public eye in the same way. We've already seen intellegance leaders influencing current elections through the choice of disclosure of information. How do you prevent it from becoming a serious problem aside from trust the system behaves? Mainly internet records are being tracked from this bill I understand. They still cannot crack encryption or TOR. There's ways you can get the message across. It sounds mad max, but I doubt the US army would have that easily of a time of putting down an armed population revolt. Remember Vietnam or Afghanistan? How did that work out for the US Army? There's really no right to privacy; you can stretch liberty to mean privacy, but Life is the first and most important right the nation has to protect. Which IC influencing Election results are you pointing to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 As of right now, seeing that Obama signed the bill, they gov can categorize and quarantine "fake news" That should remind you of Nazi germany Mainly internet records are being tracked from this bill I understand. They still cannot crack encryption or TOR. There's ways you can get the message across. It sounds mad max, but I doubt the US army would have that easily of a time of putting down an armed population revolt. Remember Vietnam or Afghanistan? How did that work out for the US Army? There's really no right to privacy; you can stretch liberty to mean privacy, but Life is the first and most important right the nation has to protect. Which IC influencing Election results are you pointing to? Well they're already trying to bring down pornography and monopolize the internet. Watching what you do is about to become controlling what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Military technology has advanced immensly since Nam. Be it drone strikes, because those are a thing, or in general armour and ariel combat strength, there's more assets to bring to bare that an ordinary populace cannot deal with. I should remind you that the actual assault in Afghanistan was really successful, it was the occupation that was harder. But occupation on sovereign soil is easy; Insitutions such as the police force exist, there's media networks they can manipualte to assist in the decrediting, there's no cultural or language barrier, and all the ground is well known to both sides, so guierilla warfare is harder. That would be on top of surveillance measures discussed here, where they can find out locations using the tracking within smart phone apps (Because that is a thing, and it's information the government is trying to make it a legal obligation for services providers to provide). Getting rid of the militia when they amass in any level of force would be easy, and the same potential for subterfuge wouldn't exist in the surveilance state we are suggesting here. The right to privacy is deemed in part one of the fundamental human rights by the UN; In both articles 3, where it talks of personal security, and article 12, where it talks about no arbitrary intrusions in ones privacy. The influence I am talking about is Comey's comments about the Clinton investigation being reopened, which get put into a worse light when you consider the dossier that Mr Steel created that had been circulating around the intellegence community for months. Both had similar levels of factual certainty to them, and yet Comey only made public statement about one of them. You've argued slippery slope logic before for other points. Internet surveillance is an area where we can legitmately see the slope at work (At least in the UK, which is a little ahead of the US in terms of this). Almost all internet surveillance or government surveilance laws are passed on things one can't object to without being easily dimissed. The PATRIOT act for example; how can something called the PATRIOT act be a bad thing? Not believing in it means you must hate America. Or the Snooper's charter in the UK, which is going after porn on the grounds that it's immoral and that we need to protect the children; you can't really dispute that logic, but it's controlling what we can and can't do, and can and can't say. That's part of the reason why I am opposed to these surveilance laws; I live in a nation where these 'national security measures' are starting to be used as a context to restrict our liberties. It's one of the only cases of the slippery slope fallacy actually being true in my eyes. The 'fake news' issue is concerning as well; I care less for it, because if anything the past 12 months has taught it's skeptism, but it is worrying that the government is legally entrenching the right to dismiss a given viewpoint as invalid because of the title 'Fake news'. There should be greater standards and rigors applied to newscasting as it stands because it is a mockery, but this is not the way to do it. It's an extention to this privacy sheet to me however. When I talk of privacy, I think of the State enacting a gradual totalitarian police state, which includes in the complete control of ideas. And part of that means being able to monitor ideas amongst groups and discrediting them; a feat impossible without surveillance and internet monitoring. The title should probably include more than just surveilance, because I am talking about internet monitoring as well in these points if I was not clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Military technology has advanced immensly since Nam. Be it drone strikes, because those are a thing, or in general armour and ariel combat strength, there's more assets to bring to bare that an ordinary populace cannot deal with. I should remind you that the actual assault in Afghanistan was really successful, it was the occupation that was harder. But occupation on sovereign soil is easy; Insitutions such as the police force exist, there's media networks they can manipualte to assist in the decrediting, there's no cultural or language barrier, and all the ground is well known to both sides, so guierilla warfare is harder. That would be on top of surveillance measures discussed here, where they can find out locations using the tracking within smart phone apps (Because that is a thing, and it's information the government is trying to make it a legal obligation for services providers to provide). Getting rid of the militia when they amass in any level of force would be easy, and the same potential for subterfuge wouldn't exist in the surveilance state we are suggesting here. The right to privacy is deemed in part one of the fundamental human rights by the UN; In both articles 3, where it talks of personal security, and article 12, where it talks about no arbitrary intrusions in ones privacy. The influence I am talking about is Comey's comments about the Clinton investigation being reopened, which get put into a worse light when you consider the dossier that Mr Steel created that had been circulating around the intellegence community for months. Both had similar levels of factual certainty to them, and yet Comey only made public statement about one of them. You've argued slippery slope logic before for other points. Internet surveillance is an area where we can legitmately see the slope at work (At least in the UK, which is a little ahead of the US in terms of this). Almost all internet surveillance or government surveilance laws are passed on things one can't object to without being easily dimissed. The PATRIOT act for example; how can something called the PATRIOT act be a bad thing? Not believing in it means you must hate America. Or the Snooper's charter in the UK, which is going after porn on the grounds that it's immoral and that we need to protect the children; you can't really dispute that logic, but it's controlling what we can and can't do, and can and can't say. That's part of the reason why I am opposed to these surveilance laws; I live in a nation where these 'national security measures' are starting to be used as a context to restrict our liberties. It's one of the only cases of the slippery slope fallacy actually being true in my eyes. The 'fake news' issue is concerning as well; I care less for it, because if anything the past 12 months has taught it's skeptism, but it is worrying that the government is legally entrenching the right to dismiss a given viewpoint as invalid because of the title 'Fake news'. There should be greater standards and rigors applied to newscasting as it stands because it is a mockery, but this is not the way to do it. It's an extention to this privacy sheet to me however. When I talk of privacy, I think of the State enacting a gradual totalitarian police state, which includes in the complete control of ideas. And part of that means being able to monitor ideas amongst groups and discrediting them; a feat impossible without surveillance and internet monitoring. The title should probably include more than just surveilance, because I am talking about internet monitoring as well in these points if I was not clear.P1: It would be harder to Afghanistan than the US for many the reasons you mentioned, however, I'm not sure I can give you the first part of that claim. We weren't able to take out the Al Queda high command, often our methods were mass damage and we got lucky. I wouldn't be so sure that just because we have drones that we'd be able to take out the rebellion. If that were possible, the law enforcement would have eradicated drug trade and human trafficking. There's clear ways and means the law cannot find. If you oppress the society, they only feel sympathy for the rebellion. It's always been that way. As I mentioned above, there are methods like encryption to pass information through that the Feds cannot get into You would initially be able to wipe a portion of the militia, but it becomes harder to pull out the roots P2: Only talking US law. The current US gov is already planning to weaken the connection between the UN and US http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/313994-cruz-graham-offer-bill-to-cut-off-funding-to-un-over-israel-vote Not sure citing UN law is gonna do much P3: Really? http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign/ But Hillary herself said it was already baked into the public's eyes. Why did it make an impact now. Did she lie then or now? P4: Might as well set this record straight. Slippery Slide isn't a valid argument because you don't know where it will feasibly end. I've used it before when I have a fixed end-point. For example, Trans people want to be treated equally as a natural born member of their preferred gender. Given that's the end goal, you can fill in points in the middle to predict what they'll ask for. Like Tampons, like gov sponsored genitalia replacement. Nothing more, You cannot use SS if you don't have a desire end goal. Anyway, there were plenty of people who attacked the PA despite it's cutesy name. I don't think that's a very solid argument Tom. P5: Fake news monopolizes the news sources. It creates a Pravda sorta creation, where in you can silence dissent. It's a more immediate problem because it goes back to my original critique of Snowden's argument You should always have the freedom to speak, which is why even if you have nothing to say now, the right shouldn't be stripped. You should never have something to hide from the government designed to look after you. While I support this kinda of mesure, I also want Term Limits to stop a slow centralization of power through seniority. Flushing out Washington in a frequent fashion should pour new ideas into DC as well as throw friction into any devious plot to take over the nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delibirb Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Am I the only one who supports this, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the government I support this, to a degree, but that isn't why. The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality is by nature loaded and ignorant. The fear is that once someone begins poking around in private information, that information can A: Be misconstrued, either unintentionally or otherwise, getting you into serious trouble for potentially innocent behavior because it didn't conform to the government's agenda, or B: be intentionally altered to criminalize people who don't conform to the government's agenda, and as it's private information they're altering, it'd be your word against theirs. These may be extreme situations, but they are reasonable concerns for human-operated systems like this one. Yet, mass surveillance is something I am greatly in favor of, however, it needs to be coupled with an automated, preferably black box system to be efficient and trustworthy. I am optimistic that the law enforcement agencies will be responsible with this power, however for the sake of public peace of mind, a system wherein information is only passed to human agents when necessary is required. ASI development, even simple AI development, needs to be on the table to oversee mass surveillance programs like this in order to protect the interests of citizens' privacy as well as safety, efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 This could be easily used by the head of those 16 law enforcement agencies or perhaps the new administration to crack down in what they see as a major issue. For instance, if they notice that illegal drug trafficking is a major issue in their jurisdiction they may resort to collecting online information in that jurisdiction concerning people discussing the consumption or use of illegal narcotics. This could open the door to misunderstandings as many may be sarcastically talking about that "420 blaze it" meme, or discussing lyrics of songs that contain themes of drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.