General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNoam Chomsky’s nightmare: Once again, you can’t trust the New York Times
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/26/noam_chomskys_nightmare_once_again_you_cant_trust_the_new_york_times/Two new communiqués from the surveillance state this week. Over the weekend, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, came up with another batch of documents released by Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, who has told us in a year more truth about the world we live in than our media seem prepared to tell us in the next two decades.
This case focuses on the NSAs cyberwar against China, in particular the large, emergent telecommunications company called Huawei Technologies. It turns out that the NSA has been breaking into Huaweis networks and infrastructure since 2009. This was right because Huawei may have been (note syntax) breaking into American networks and infrastructure, which, if so, would have been wrong.
A couple of days ago came news that the Obama administration has finally come up with a plan to rein in the NSAs indiscriminate collection of our telephone records. The Times is out there calling this a far-reaching overhaul. This phrase is key a stake in the ground. In my reading it is code for, The tweaks we are about to recount are the limit of what youre going to get by way of restraints on the NSA, so we should all agree now that they will have to do.
I do not agree. The present passage is significant because what remains at its end now looks as though it will be almost everything Snowden has revealed and all that he has not. The NSA as now constituted is effectively to be confirmed as a permanent feature of a government that is half or less visible and half or less under political control, a permanent intrusion into every Americans personal sovereignty, and a scar on the integrity of our pockmarked public space. Permanent dissent is a grim thought, but it is the sole defensible position for anyone who accepts the responsibility Americas ideals put upon us.
pscot
(21,024 posts)is the sole defensible position for anyone who accepts the responsibility Americas ideals put upon us
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I think you are right.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Not after helping Dubya get elected in 2004.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Almost everything Snowden has revealed is not spying on US persons.
Only a single program gathered data on US persons, the phone metadata program. It's legal under a 1979 SCOTUS decision. Everything else targeted (targets) non-US-Persons.
So claiming the rest of those programs is a "a permanent intrusion into every Americans personal sovereignty" is a lie. Flat out, giant lie. And it has been at the center of all the coverage of Snowden's leaks - the people talking about the leaks have either claimed they targeted US persons or left targeting out of the discussion, so that readers would imply it.
Which leads to: "Well, the NSA could have turned those programs on all of us!!!!!!!" Then why didn't Snowden leak that? He has leaked a few individual abuses (apparently having a jealous ex work for the NSA isn't good for privacy....but it results in the jealous ex getting punished in every case Snowden leaked). But Snowden has not leaked that the "targeting" part of any of these programs has been ignored. If such abuses existed, how come Snowden isn't leaking them?
I'm no fan of spying - for example, the SCOTUS should revisit that 1979 decision. But lying about it is wrong.
hueymahl
(2,495 posts)That is a flat out lie. FLAT OUT. The 1979 SCOTUS decision referred to a wholly different set of facts, pin registers. What the NSA is doing is wholly different.
An apt analogy would be your local five and dime tracking your purchases at their store via a loyalty punch card. That is the equivalent of a pin register - you can tell the purchases were made, maybe even when they were made and for how much, but that is about it.
What the NSA is doing is modern data mining. It would be like the that same merchant having access to every purchase you ever made at every store, knowing what you purchased and when, whether you returned it and how many times you bought it. You would even know if you liked it or recommended it to friends (and who those friends are). With that information, you can build a detailed profile of the customer, her likes, dislikes, disposable income, fetishes, friends and personality.
Pretty big difference.
The SCOTUS case ruled on a certain set of facts and based it on a limited intrusion into privacy. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention and can't see the difference is being nothing less than disingenuous.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The case was about a much more limited set of data. The ruling, however, was broad. It said all data, not just the data that was collected in 1979.
That is why I mention it would be good for the SCOTUS to revisit that decision. However, the 1979 decision defines what is legal until the SOCTUS rules again.
hueymahl
(2,495 posts)The opinion in Smith v. Maryland hinged on the telephone user's expectation of privacy. The court reasoned that since the the telephone company had to collect the numbers of the person called anyway to make the call and for billing and other legitimate purposes, the customer had no expectation of privacy with regard to those numbers. Therefore, the government did not need an warrant to collect information for that customer - they could thus install a pin register to collect the limited information (all quotes below come from Smith v. Maryland):
Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.
This claim must be rejected. First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S., at 174 -175.
When folks point to this case and say "its legal!" they show a vast misunderstanding of what legal means and how our legal system works. To understand this case, and privacy expectations in general as applicable to the requirement to obtain a warrant, you must first look at Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which sets for the standard for what is deemed a "search" within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
In Katz, Government agents had intercepted the contents of a telephone conversation by attaching an electronic listening device to the outside of a public phone booth. The Court rejected the argument that a "search" can occur only when there has been a "physical intrusion" into a "constitutionally protected area," noting that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places." Id., at 351-353. Because the Government's monitoring of Katz' conversation "violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth," the Court held that [442 U.S. 735, 740] it "constituted a `search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Id., at 353.
Since Katz, the court has formulated at two part test: First, has the individual exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy?; second, is that expectation of privacy reasonable? This is a fact-based test.
Consistently with Katz, this Court uniformly has held that the application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "justifiable," a "reasonable," or a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. E. g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 , and n. 12 (1978); id., at 150, 151 (concurring opinion); id., at 164 (dissenting opinion); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7 (1977); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442 (1976); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14 (1973); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335 -336 (1973); United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 752 (1971) (plurality opinion); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 368 (1968); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968). This inquiry, as Mr. Justice Harlan aptly noted in his Katz concurrence, normally embraces two discrete questions. The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has "exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," 389 U.S., at 361 - whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual has shown that "he seeks to preserve [something] as private." Id., at 351. The second question is whether the individual's subjective expectation of privacy is "one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable,'" id., at 361 - whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual's expectation, viewed objectively, is "justifiable" under the circumstances. Id., at 353. 5 See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S., [442 U.S. 735, 741] at 143-144, n. 12; id., at 151 (concurring opinion); United States v. White, 401 U.S., at 752 (plurality opinion).
The court in Smith v. Maryland applied this test to the limited information pin registers gather. They first looked at the precise nature of the alleged invasion of privacy:
In applying the Katz analysis to this case, it is important to begin by specifying precisely the nature of the state activity that is challenged. The activity here took the form of installing and using a pen register. Since the pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices, petitioner obviously cannot claim that his "property" was invaded or that police intruded into a "constitutionally protected area." Petitioner's claim, rather, is that, notwithstanding the absence of a trespass, the State, as did the Government in Katz, infringed a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that petitioner held. Yet a pen register differs significantly from the listening device employed in Katz, for pen registers do not acquire the contents of communications. This Court recently noted:
"Indeed, a law enforcement official could not even determine from the use of a pen register whether a communication existed. These devices do not hear sound. They disclose only the telephone numbers that have been dialed - a means of establishing communication. Neither the purport of any communication between the caller and the recipient of the call, their identities, nor whether the call was even completed is disclosed by pen registers." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 167 (1977). [442 U.S. 735, 742]
Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.
(Emphasis Added)
The court went on to do a detailed FACT BASED analysis of the two part test. Each situation is FACT BASED. You cannot apply the facts of what a pin register does to the what the NSA is doing. Each situation must be analyzed on its own facts and own merit. The facts are WHOLLY different.
That is why when folks scream "ITS LEGAL BECAUSE OF THE 1979 CASE", it tends to upset me. Because it means one of three things:
1. They have not read the case and are ignorantly repeating something they have heard
2. They have read the case but lack the intelligence or legal training to understand it, but act like they do.
3. They have an agenda, and they are trying to distort reality to fit that agenda.
Hope this helps in your understanding.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The "modern" data serves the same purpose.
For example, your cell phone's location is reported to the phone company for E911 service, as well as part of determining which tower to use to communicate with your phone. It also powers the "locate my phone" applications on their web sites and devices.
If you use a web browser on your phone do surf DU, the phone company has to know you are going to DU - they have to know where to send the requests and responses.
The individual pieces of the modern data fit very nicely into the same metric as the old data - if the phone company is gonna let you know where you lost your phone, they have to know where your phone is. If the phone company is going to carry your web requests, it has to know where to send those requests.
What's new is the aggregate total of that data. Bringing all the data together can be used to infer a great deal of information about the person. There's nothing in the old ruling about aggregating that data - it wasn't relevant at the time. But it is now, and so we could use a new ruling.
Or even better, a law.
hueymahl
(2,495 posts)On that we can agree!
A new law would be nice too, but we should not need a law to protect our 4th amendment rights. That should be something that is inviolable.
And the NSA IS violating our 4th amendment rights.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It being the phone company's data makes the situation murky. How can it be a search of you when they never set foot on your property, nor collect data from any of your possessions, and you don't even own the data?
Google scans your gmail account. They tell you this when you sign up. The mail resides on Google's servers. It's not completely clear that there would be privacy violation to look at Google's data.
Which is where a law would come in. It could resolve that murky situation so that it's clear the 4th amendment applies. A new ruling could do the same, but I'd rather not roll the dice with this SCOTUS.
hueymahl
(2,495 posts)This SCOTUS is not our best product.
But it is as much an expectation of privacy issue as ownership. Just because a third party has the info, does not mean you don't have an expectation of privacy from government (there is a good line of cases that discuss that issue).
So maybe you are right. We need a law. Belts and suspenders are a good thing sometimes!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)strongly.
The first thing I saw was the court order to Verizon to hand over records without any showing of cause or specifics on which records were to be handed over. That order gave NSA the ability to spy on Americans. That's one of the things that the NSA is doing.
If we spent half the money we spend on the NSA on making sure our internet facilities are truly safe from hackers, we would make our internet services the first choice of the world.
The NSA is invading our privacy and while gradually making our internet companies pariahs in the world. The NSA program makes no sense on any level.
Some surveillance of overseas entities and even persons may be necessary, but the NSA is far, far out of bounds on what it is doing.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Two, when Obama announced in January his plans for calibrated curbs (the Times phrase), the reporting from Washington was plain that he had to avoid provoking the surveillance set. I found the thought chilling, and I do again now that these plans are headed for the Hill.
What are we witnessing? What does the phrase post-constitutional law mean, if we are to use it? Are we watching some kind of slow-mo coup wherein the security and surveillance establishments, having finally succeeded in suffusing among us an eternal, pervasive fear, are cut loose, immune from all law but the law they make as they need it? Are we all to be watched over by machines of loving grace, as old Brautigan put it long years ago?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)we all fall down!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)When I start to imagine connections with no real proof.
It's not hard to find a headline "Huawei, ZTE Employees Among Passengers on Missing Plane" to get the conspiracy juices flowing.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)moved into his new Crimean Beach House?
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)It's simply where he ended up after the US made it more-or-less impossible to travel. Yes, he had to get their permission. No, there's no reason to believe that a permanent situation in Russia is what he wanted.
It's so basic, and it completely destroys your view of the situation. Tell the others.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)And what's still keeping him there after all this time? AFAIK there's nothing preventing him from renouncing U.S. citizenship and flying on a Russian passport...I'd have thought the Russian government would at least owe him that much...
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
hueymahl
(2,495 posts): differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way
: peculiar
: involving trickery or deception
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Since they are doing it to us.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)limited, very limited freedom for individuals is a good thing?
Wow! As a nation, we have fallen a long, long way from the day when we fought the NAZIs because they were a terrible surveillance state among other things.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)We can see how the spy on us to steal our tech
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)or we'd be sinking to their level.
Do you suppose we might have spied on those surveillance Nazis ? Nah, we've fallen along way.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the concept that we can stoop to whatever level we want with someone we think is doing it to us. Where is the evidence that the Chinese are spying on us? If we have it, let's bring it out and talk about it. Why all the secrecy about this?
As I see it whether it is the Chinese government spying or our government spying, the question is why each tries to keep the spying secret from its own people. That's where the problem is. If I my neighbor peeks into my bedroom window, why should I be secretive about peeking into his/hers? If China is reading the e-mails of Americans, why not just announce loud and clear that they are doing it and that we are doing it back?
The only reason I can think of is that a cabal of people who have hidden themselves and rooted themselves in our government gain a lot of secret pleasure and a sense of power and not just a sense of power but actual power from being "in" on the surveillance state while keeping the rest of the American people and the world out of the secret.
It's really sick. So if the Chinese are spying on us while claiming to be our best trading partners and friends, let's let the world know about it. AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WHEN WE HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE WORLD AND TO ALL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY WE ARE DOING IT, let's spy on them back.
Let's simply be open about what we are doing. What is the harm in that?
And no surveillance of Americans. If people are so untrustworthy that we need to spend millions on surveillance of them, they belong in jail or if they are not citizens in the US, they should be deported.
Enough of this stupid childish stuff already. We are grown-ups. Let's respect each other's privacy.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)why is that such a foreign term here?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and when the U.S. catches Chinese, Russian or Israeli spies on our soil, or foreign intelligence services tapping OUR high-ranking officials, it's because we deserve it...
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)than the arm of political parties and government interests, yet...we can not suspend our disbelief
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)In describing the story about Huawei:
You get fulsome accounts of Huaweis misdeeds, surely. But there are a couple of things to watch. Watch the verbs: They are all conditional. Watch the sources: These are single-source stories of the open-mouth-and-swallow-whole variety. Here is the Times account this week. It is all coulda, woulda, mighta and potential threat, coming from interviews with intelligence officials, current and former American officials, and that vessel of detached impartiality, the RAND Corp.
Smith realizes that is word-for-fucking-word the same method Greenwald and most everyone else have been using to "interpret" the NSA powerpoint slides, right? After weeding through all the sensationalist bullshit, the vast majority of stories on the NSA scandal this past year are nothing but coulds, mights, and "potentially have the ability to"...It doesn't mean those stories are not necessarily worthy of attention, but that point must always be at the forefront of our minds...
Of course, had he bothered to do even 30 seconds of web searching, he would have seen Huawei has a much murkier history than the one he's trying to whitewash -- So either this guy is being incredibly ignorant or duplicitous...Also convenient for him to ignore the possibility of the Chinese government having access to Snowden's files when he was in Hong Kong...
Are some people so far underwater on this NSA story they don't know which way is up? To the point where spying on fucking CHINA of all nations is some cause for widespread shock and outrage??