NSA Defenders Need To Learn: Trust Is Something You Earn, Not Legislate
from the wake-up-to-reality dept
I’ve been thinking about last week’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA boss Keith Alexander, and deputy Attorney General James Cole. This was the one in which Senator (and Intelligence Committee chair) Dianne Feinstein both insisted that it’s shameful that the press and the public refer to the NSA’s surveillence program as “surveillance” while accidentally admitting that the NSA gets internet information via tapped “upstream” backbone connections. But if there was one issue that came up over and over again it was the palpable anger of the NSA’s defenders that the press and the public don’t trust them. This seemed to focus on a two key arguments:
- Everything we do is legal and is handled by “oversight from all three branches of government.”
- We’re not listening in on everyone’s calls, but trying to stop terrorist attacks.
First of all, the first claim is basically false and the second one is mostly a strawman, but also somewhat misleading to false (depending on your perspective of the continuum).
However, just for fun, let’s give the NSA and its defenders the benefit of the doubt, and explain how even if both of those points are 100% true, it still is no reason to trust them.
In response to the first point, the NSA defenders seem to think that just because the secret FISA court says this is all okay, that means the American people should agree that it’s okay. But that’s not how this works. In fact, part of the point why people are so pissed off about this is the fact that we don’t think this should be legal in the first place. Whether or not the courts decide that it’s legal doesn’t change that. And it certainly does not lead to “trust.” Quite the opposite. When the judicial system rules against what the American public believes is just and right, that hurts trust and makes us a hell of a lot less trusting of the judiciary.
As for the second point, the whole “we’re not listening to your calls with your mother” line is a total strawman. People (generally) aren’t concerned about whether or not the NSA is listening to calls like that. What they’re (quite reasonably) concerned about is the possibility that such powers can and are abused. And this type of abuse has happened many times before. This includes a few different kinds of abuse:
- Abuse for political power, such as spying on political enemies and critics.
- Abuse for personal reasons, such as spying on spouses and love interests.
- Abuse for law enforcement reasons, such as stretching the definition of the law or finding perfectly normal behavior that can be turned into a felony charge for the purpose of piling charges on people the government wants to lock up.
All of those things have happened (in some cases quite recently). The fact is that while the NSA might not be listening to calls between me and my mom, the NSA and other law enforcement agencies have long shown that they’ll come up with all sorts of excuses to spy on people they don’t like to try to twist and distort things, often out of context, to shut up people they don’t like. The NSA and its defenders response to all of this seems to be something along the lines of “sure that happened in the past, but we’re different.” Yet, they give no reason at all to show why they’re different. It just comes back to “trust us.”
But the American people (and, actually, the rest of the world) have been fooled plenty of times already. Telling people to “trust us” doesn’t cut it. At all. The only way to build trust is to earn it. If the NSA needs to do these kinds of things, prove it. Explain publicly what they do and why they do it, and let a public debate occur about whether or not this kind of effort is appropriate. That’s still missing. We’re just told to trust them, because they’re different and that the NSA doesn’t want to listen to every call. But that’s not what leads to trust. In fact, it just leads to greater distrust.
Filed Under: intelligence committee, nsa, nsa surveillance, senate, trust
Comments on “NSA Defenders Need To Learn: Trust Is Something You Earn, Not Legislate”
Explain publicly what they do and why they do it, and let a public debate occur about whether or not this kind of effort is appropriate.
And explain how much it costs compared to other governmental functions that we somehow don’t have the funds for.
NEVER EVER NEVER TRUST GOVERNMENT!
Government is inherently EVIL, only permitted and beneficial when it fights smaller or foreign evils, but its unchangeable basic nature is EVIL, and it must be watched constantly.
Of course it tends to get out of control. Those who can’t learn from history (that’s nearly everyone, by the evidence) are doomed to endless cycles of tyranny that vary only in degree and details. And this time, gov’t has learned from experiments and is setting up high-tech tyranny.
Beware of FOOL frat boys saying that you can EVER trust government. That’s just THE most basic mistake of all.
Re: NEVER EVER NEVER TRUST GOVERNMENT!
Never trust the government, says the troll employed by Big Lies and Big Censorship.
In case you hadn’t noticed, many evils (not all) done by the government leading to tyranny, which you so loudly denounce, are done by government on acting on behalf of it’s hollywood paymasters.
They’ll never earn my trust again as long as the same people running it are still in office. However it is for sale to the highest bidder.
/s
Yes it’s obvious, but still I don’t want to end up receiving a check in the mail expecting that my trust has been bought.
Post from OOTB
Okay guys… I know that OOTB is usually a clown, but for once one of his posts are spot on. You can never trust a government, it is the nature of the beast. Flagging a good post only shows that some people here are unable to be objective.
Re: Post from OOTB
No it’s not a good post. It contains nothing based on fact and as always Blue is using it to lash out at people. Just because it’s not Mike for a change doesn’t make it good.
Anyone who believes governments are not inherently evil is a frat boy? Come on, it’s better than most of his work but it’s still shit.
Re: Post from OOTB
I threw out my magic Eight Ball because being right five percent of the time is not sufficient cause to pay attention to it.
Re: Re: Post from OOTB
5% is stretching it a bit. OOTB is usually only right once in a billion!
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
I was going to respond with my own “once in a numberhere”, then I realized that numbers don’t go that high.
Re: Post from OOTB
…but for once one of his posts are spot on. You can never trust a government, it is the nature of the beast.
I don’t agree with your “spot on” analyses of Blue’s comment.
Governments in and of themselves are not “evil”. Although once they reach their half-life stage they can most certainly be led astray by unsavory groups and/or individuals.
But, whether they are “evil” or not is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that they are necessary for a productive society. What exactly would you replace a government with? Lawless anarchy?
Re: Re: Post from OOTB
Not just necessary, but inevitable. Humans are pack animals, and whenever you get more than three living together for an extended period of time, you will have a government. This is the essential flaw of anarchism — it will always transmute into some kind of government.
The question isn’t whether or not government is inherently good or evil, nor whether we should have one or not. The question is how can we shape the government we will inevitably have so it minimizes the downsides and maximizes the upsides.
This is why just saying “government is evil” and walking away is worse than pointless. It encourages disengagement. And when we are disengaged, then it virtually guarantees that we will have the worst of what government can be.
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
OOTB is dead wrong. The whole point of having “the government” is that you can trust them. That, btw is true for any form of government, monarchy included.
With democratically elected one, issue of trust is resolved by the very process – those are people you choose, so choose someone you trust.
Under monarchy, usually king is god-given, which is trustful enough for religious population.
So please, stop this nonsense of “government is evil”/”never trust” etc.
Re: Re: Re:2 Post from OOTB
I don’t know if you are joking or you really believe that.
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
Government IS evil. By its very nature it is anti-freedom.
You point out a so-called “essential flaw” in anarchism. Well, how about the essential flaws in government? Even if you could “shape the government so it minimizes the downsides and maximizes the upsides”, how long would it stay that way? It could be said that that’s how the American government started out, and look at it now. Even the supposedly “best intentioned” government will always transmute into something evil.
Re: Re: Re:2 Post from OOTB
I think you misunderstand me. I am not arguing that the government is good, or evil. Mostly because that’s irrelevant. I’m arguing that government will always exist as an inevitability of the human condition. Given that, the most rational thing to do is to make it as good as possible.
As to how long it will stay that way — it doesn’t work like that. It’s a constant and neverending struggle. “Good government” is a bit like Zen. You can’t ever achieve it, but it’s best to always work to get it anyway.
Re: Re: Re:3 Post from OOTB
Ack. I said “that the government is good, or evil”, but I meant “that government is good, or evil”. I’m talking about government in general, not any specific one. Also, where I said “Zen” I meant “enlightenment”. Don’t drink & comment, kids!
Re: Re: Post from OOTB
“The fact of the matter is that they are necessary for a productive society”. That’s what you’ve been led to believe, along with the majority of the sheeple.
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
The fact of the matter is that we do not currently have sufficient surpluses or automation available to sustain an anarchic approach. The competition for resources causes power blocs which form governmental structures to maintain themselves.
Re: Re: Post from OOTB
Lawless anarchy sounds good to me.
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
Lawless anarchy sounds good to me.
Yeah. Sure. Sounds good right up until the point where you come across someone with a larger arsenal than you who wants all your stuff. Then it’s not so good.
Strawman
Total strawman, but for some totally false as well: to wit if your mom lives overseas, it’s been demonstrated that such calls are being listened to. Which means my calls to my mom.
Re: Strawman
If your mom lives overseas, she’s a terrorist.
If you talk to your mom, you’re a terrorist.
Coming soon: if the phone company allows you (a terrorist) to talk with your mom (another terrorist) then THEY must be terrorists. If the NSA doesn’t act against the phone companies (potential terrorists) then they themselves must be terrorists.
I could go on, but the meds are kicking in. Ahhh……
Re: Strawman
It sounds like even they see it as illegal and deal with it appropriately if they find out. It would be more appropriate to discuss how to catch the people abusing the data. As I understand it, the constant surveillance of the workers at NSA is excruciating to those who follow the rules.
Re: Re: Strawman
There are two aspects to this. You’re addressing one — how does the NSA ensure it complies with the law? This is certainly important, but I would argue that even more important than that is the other aspect: what they can do while remaining within the law is still egregious, unconstitutional, and shouldn’t be done.
By first thought? Boo-freaking-hoo. My second thought is perhaps a bit more charitable: since people can certainly get away with breaking the rules, perhaps the rules are only excruciating to those who choose to follow them.
Re: Re: Re: Strawman
You are right on the aspects. I find that the second aspect has been dealt with in large amounts in other news though and it seems to have become a big seller among politicians, even though the improvements are likely to be watered down considerably!
As for breaking the rules, I have had the exact same second thought. NSA is secretive about their internal safety measures (and some secrecy there is absolutely warrented to avoid giving workers ideas!).
However, there might be more fundamental ways to discourage internal abuse: Surveillance is almost always somewhat automated and predictable and obviously adding more surveillance internally would only make it that much harder to review. The ways to improve could be randomizing some of the surveillance and going in more details to discourage non-gamblers and better catch serial abusers, reducing the number of programs and/or workers considerably to make it easier to review and cleaning out the cultural problems of ao. “as little info to FISC as possible” aka “FISC = enemy” and “least untruthful wording” aka “word-games” to avoid the constant problematisation of the system they work under and thereby the indirect encouragement of workers to defy it!
Re: Re: Strawman
Currently, sure. However, the capability being in existence greatly increases the chance of governmental coup being able to settle into a totalitarian state, thus making it far more likely that such coups will be attempted. Whether or not anyone is deliberately manipulating things towards such a position is immaterial (and such a conspiracy probably doesn’t exist).
Each time the government allows our rights to be restricted or corrupt actions to be legitimized, the path such a conspiracy would have to walk becomes easier. Eventually all it takes is a single charismatic bastard to realize how little is in their way and the curfews and secret police at your door.
If they are forbidden to use the data, they should be forbidden to collect it.
The problem here is the sort of threats they are really looking for (like a few dozen people gathering together and crafting a document saying “we’ve had enough of the government abuse of our welfare, freedoms and rights”) are exactly the sort of threats they are fostering by their very actions and behaviors (the impending government shutdown isn’t going to do much to help their cause).
We’re not listening in on everyone’s CALLS, but trying to stop terrorist attacks.
By recording and monitoring almost all of the INTERNET’s TRAFFIC.
Re: Re:
And since a surprisingly high percentage of ordinary phone traffic is being carried over the internet behind hte scenes now, monitoring internet traffic would include those phone calls.
Surprising though the NSA couldn’t dig up enough dirt on the Republicans to prevent the shutdown …
Re: Re:
Why would they care?
You forgot a fourth kind of abuse
4. Abuse for commercial reasons, such as spying on foreign oil companies.
legislated honesty
I really think the whole goddam government could benefit from a mantra like that!
How about a 4th Abuse on the list...?
Manipulation – using the information gleaned to direct and redirect ideological propaganda to serve goals not necessarily in the best interest of citizens: in a manner similar to Sunstein’s ideas, or DARPA’s “Narrative Networks (N2): The Neurobiology of Narratives”?
Re: How about a 4th Abuse on the list...?
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Narrative_Networks.aspx
The NSA will never earn my trust. EVER.
If they came to me tomorrow and told me they were 100% completely disbanding, releasing all their contractors, laying off all their employees, setting fire to all their buildings, equipment and data and finally putting Clapper and Alexander, Feinstein and Rogers in prison where they belong, I wouldn’t trust them.
The entire lot of them are 100% corrupt to the core.
How are we supposed to trust our government, if it doesn’t even prosecute the alleged felonious liars who were caught red handed?
I couldn't say it better, Mike
Everything you say is right on. But they’re NOT going to earn it. They’re going to keep doing what they’re doing, except they’ll do more of it.
So we have to make ourselves as “small” as possible on the Internet. Start encrypting your browser, email and cell phone messages. Then take everything offline and stash it in a CloudLocker (www.cloudlocker.it) which stays in your home but you can still access your data and they need a warrant to get inside. We’re going to see more new products like this to help protect us from the people supposed to protect us.
Re: I couldn't say it better, Mike
I’m not so sure the CloudLocker is the way to go. It still requires an account with a third party (StoAmigo) to manage access to your files. So, even though your files are being stored on a local device, all access to and from that device (including, I think, the file data itself — the site is a bit vague on this point) flows through a third party.
You’d be much better off using a private cloud that is actually, you know, private.
Re: Re: I couldn't say it better, Mike
I’m not a techie, but I was told by the folks at StoAmigo that they can’t access the contents unless I give them permission & open the door so they can come in and fix something. Otherwise, they can’t see inside.
Re: Re: Re: I couldn't say it better, Mike
That is certainly technically possible, and it may even be true. I don’t know. All I know is that they claim it — but it still means that we have to put blind faith in a third party. We need to trust that they’re both being truthful and have implemented their system correctly. In this day and age, such trust is a dangerous thing and shouldn’t be given casually.
They could have implemented the system in a way that didn’t require a third party component at all, but chose not to. I simply think that the safer thing to do is use one of the solutions that don’t require trusting a third party.