"The choice isn't between "pulling the plug" and wholesale surveillance. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, then by all means surveil them. What we shouldn't do is proactively watch everybody on the off-chance that some people are committing crimes. This is the way it is (supposed to be) in real life. There is nothing so magical or unusual about the internet that requires that we give these principle up in that space."
I agree with you on most of this. We need to find the appropriate and/or acceptable level of surveillance.
I disagree that the internet isn't different from physical space and that it can somehow be policed in the same ways. The policing tactics will have to be improved because the smartest guys in the IRC are working to destabilize the system in ways our government can't hope to figure out.
Perhaps if you thought of the internet the same way you do a mini-mart/gas station with it's umpteen video cameras at several angles you could understand my point. If the only way to keep people in line is to watch them, then that's what you must do to stay in business; or the biz can shut down/move on. This is one example of my point was that we are being constantly watched by employers and businesses; the government has simply made it legal to review this previously viewed meta data.
It is wrong to lie, but criminals rely on the transparency of government as much as it's law-abiding citizens do. I believe you had it right that he should have said he can't answer the question, rather than trying protect, placate, or dissemble. That being said, if he'd chosen not to answer the questions, we'd be in the exact same boat.
"You'll have to explain your argument here, because on the face of it, what you're saying makes no sense."
I went into this a bit already with the other reply; but I will focus on this idea further.
The growth of technology has created several parallel spaces of existence. This space has to be policed by someone, but just like the Wild West, the criminals find the soft spots first and we have to learn how to tame it so that it can be useful in more and better ways.
We can't pull the plug on new spaces; and we can't simply choose not to interact with it or these spaces will become, not just unsafe, but a instantaneous conduit for criminals to plan, conduct, manipulate, and destroy as they see fit.
Call it "spying" if you like, but these spaces must be policed.
The government didn't collect the data you're so quick to blame the NSA for requesting and backing-up.
Is it any surprise that the governments would use a known effective method to create a safety program to combat crime using/developing technology that governments can't hope to fully understand?
This idea of mine didn't get fully fleshed out.
My idea is that the government doesn't understand technology (perhaps due to the dinosaurs we keep electing) and crime fighting agencies don't either, which means we're playing catch-up. The worst part is we don't have qualified professionals with a goal or plan of action; we're just contracting companies to do it for us and hoping it works. However, nobody is going to approve ANOTHER tax to pay for the security the public so badly proclaims they need.
Who knows, maybe we'll decide that safety isn't worth the price in money OR privacy.
Hold on, you think that government is the only entity spying on you?
We, as a populace, are being data mined constantly when we interact with any place of biz.
Is it any surprise that the governments would use a known effective method to create a safety program to combat crime using/developing technology that governments can't hope to fully understand?
As slimy as it feels to know we're being watched by, not just Big Brother, but by Big Sister, Older Cousin, and the pervert with the hidden camera in the public pool bathrooms; it's a necessary slime unless you're going to let technology become a purely criminal domain.
You're missing the forest for the tree. The funny (sad?) part is all of this the fake outrage over Clapper (the "liar") getting to set up the ind. review. Gee wiz fellas, it was Congress who approved the law which let the intelligence agencies conduct the data mining, and now conveniently get to investigate how this data mining happend. They have all the "indisputable" evidence about the program. How dare the agencies USE the law that congress approved!
Wait... lol, you don't truly believe that congress was ignorant of this do you? hahahaha. Well, welcome to the dog and pony (phony) show.
btw, the outrage IS fake because lying is part of the political game; as a matter of fact, they don't even call it lying anymore it's "spin" and tons of people make a great living as PR folk "spinning" the truth like stats on the back of your baseball cards.
Oh give me a *^#%(@& break. Let's talk about lies. This is congress trying to scapegoat the fall guy and hope everyone forgets that THEY approved the Patriot act (the law the gov'ment used to justify collection of this data), which has been reauthorized and extended since it's enactment 45 days after 9/11. 9/11, you remember that, that was when Saddam Hussein organized a terrorist attack on the USA and later we found satellite pictures of his WMD, so we attacked Iraq. Oh wait, none of that shit was the... how did you put it ... "least untruthful answer". Bay of Pigs anyone? "I am not a crook!" "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" This one was a doozy "In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not?repeat, did not?trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
As for the "syping"; How much intercontinental communication are you doing these days? Are you a multinational corporation (still a person) who's achieved self-awareness who's been unwittingly spied on while being completely innocent? I fail to see why you're diving head first into this red-herring, because nothing is private.
"confessed liar"? Now who's being ridiculous? The trick was giving an unclassified answer about classified material. The real story here is that anyone who has a SS#, credit card, place of residence, drivers license, gun permit, fishing permit, an ISP, cell phone or bank account thought they were not being watched by someone somewhere at any given time.
That being said; terrorists and child abductors/pornographers can't wait to get this privacy issue resolved so they can get back to regularly scheduled lives.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Electrogasm.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
"The choice isn't between "pulling the plug" and wholesale surveillance. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, then by all means surveil them. What we shouldn't do is proactively watch everybody on the off-chance that some people are committing crimes. This is the way it is (supposed to be) in real life. There is nothing so magical or unusual about the internet that requires that we give these principle up in that space."
I agree with you on most of this. We need to find the appropriate and/or acceptable level of surveillance.
I disagree that the internet isn't different from physical space and that it can somehow be policed in the same ways. The policing tactics will have to be improved because the smartest guys in the IRC are working to destabilize the system in ways our government can't hope to figure out.
Perhaps if you thought of the internet the same way you do a mini-mart/gas station with it's umpteen video cameras at several angles you could understand my point. If the only way to keep people in line is to watch them, then that's what you must do to stay in business; or the biz can shut down/move on. This is one example of my point was that we are being constantly watched by employers and businesses; the government has simply made it legal to review this previously viewed meta data.
It is wrong to lie, but criminals rely on the transparency of government as much as it's law-abiding citizens do. I believe you had it right that he should have said he can't answer the question, rather than trying protect, placate, or dissemble. That being said, if he'd chosen not to answer the questions, we'd be in the exact same boat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
"You'll have to explain your argument here, because on the face of it, what you're saying makes no sense."
I went into this a bit already with the other reply; but I will focus on this idea further.
The growth of technology has created several parallel spaces of existence. This space has to be policed by someone, but just like the Wild West, the criminals find the soft spots first and we have to learn how to tame it so that it can be useful in more and better ways.
We can't pull the plug on new spaces; and we can't simply choose not to interact with it or these spaces will become, not just unsafe, but a instantaneous conduit for criminals to plan, conduct, manipulate, and destroy as they see fit.
Call it "spying" if you like, but these spaces must be policed.
The government didn't collect the data you're so quick to blame the NSA for requesting and backing-up.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
Is it any surprise that the governments would use a known effective method to create a safety program to combat crime using/developing technology that governments can't hope to fully understand?
This idea of mine didn't get fully fleshed out.
My idea is that the government doesn't understand technology (perhaps due to the dinosaurs we keep electing) and crime fighting agencies don't either, which means we're playing catch-up. The worst part is we don't have qualified professionals with a goal or plan of action; we're just contracting companies to do it for us and hoping it works. However, nobody is going to approve ANOTHER tax to pay for the security the public so badly proclaims they need.
Who knows, maybe we'll decide that safety isn't worth the price in money OR privacy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
Hold on, you think that government is the only entity spying on you?
We, as a populace, are being data mined constantly when we interact with any place of biz.
Is it any surprise that the governments would use a known effective method to create a safety program to combat crime using/developing technology that governments can't hope to fully understand?
As slimy as it feels to know we're being watched by, not just Big Brother, but by Big Sister, Older Cousin, and the pervert with the hidden camera in the public pool bathrooms; it's a necessary slime unless you're going to let technology become a purely criminal domain.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
You're missing the forest for the tree. The funny (sad?) part is all of this the fake outrage over Clapper (the "liar") getting to set up the ind. review. Gee wiz fellas, it was Congress who approved the law which let the intelligence agencies conduct the data mining, and now conveniently get to investigate how this data mining happend. They have all the "indisputable" evidence about the program. How dare the agencies USE the law that congress approved!
Wait... lol, you don't truly believe that congress was ignorant of this do you? hahahaha. Well, welcome to the dog and pony (phony) show.
btw, the outrage IS fake because lying is part of the political game; as a matter of fact, they don't even call it lying anymore it's "spin" and tons of people make a great living as PR folk "spinning" the truth like stats on the back of your baseball cards.
Re: Re: Tin foil hats (because nothing is private)
Oh give me a *^#%(@& break. Let's talk about lies. This is congress trying to scapegoat the fall guy and hope everyone forgets that THEY approved the Patriot act (the law the gov'ment used to justify collection of this data), which has been reauthorized and extended since it's enactment 45 days after 9/11. 9/11, you remember that, that was when Saddam Hussein organized a terrorist attack on the USA and later we found satellite pictures of his WMD, so we attacked Iraq. Oh wait, none of that shit was the... how did you put it ... "least untruthful answer". Bay of Pigs anyone? "I am not a crook!" "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" This one was a doozy "In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not?repeat, did not?trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
As for the "syping"; How much intercontinental communication are you doing these days? Are you a multinational corporation (still a person) who's achieved self-awareness who's been unwittingly spied on while being completely innocent? I fail to see why you're diving head first into this red-herring, because nothing is private.
Tin foil hats
"confessed liar"? Now who's being ridiculous? The trick was giving an unclassified answer about classified material. The real story here is that anyone who has a SS#, credit card, place of residence, drivers license, gun permit, fishing permit, an ISP, cell phone or bank account thought they were not being watched by someone somewhere at any given time.
That being said; terrorists and child abductors/pornographers can't wait to get this privacy issue resolved so they can get back to regularly scheduled lives.