TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

Go To

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#226: Jun 12th 2013 at 8:59:18 PM

You are aware that isn't necessarily an accurate description of that entire political culture yes?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#227: Jun 12th 2013 at 9:09:07 PM

I'm aware that Liberals aren't created in a factory, yes.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#228: Jun 12th 2013 at 10:52:06 PM

Hmm... you might want to make a new thread for that since it's a lot to respond to and I don't want to derail. I can explain some of the logic you are saying that is apparently contradictory. For now I'll say it's about how you use government power and resources, not about the quantity (Papa Doc of Haiti terrorised the people are orders of magnitude less spending and laws than the Hong Kong government while Sweden spends inordinate gobs of money in the government and is one of the most democratic places on the planet).

As for PRISM, whatever happened to police actually investigating?

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#229: Jun 12th 2013 at 11:07:25 PM

Ideally, it appears that PRISM is supposed to be a tool the police can use for investigation. In practice, it doesn't appear to be that effective and is pissing people off.

I mean, seriously, don't be surprised when law enforcement of any level tries to use technology that's current when trying to investigate crimes. It doesn't make it any less investigation. The question is whether it's a good use of investigative resources and doesn't violate people's privacy and rights.

edited 12th Jun '13 11:08:43 PM by AceofSpades

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#230: Jun 12th 2013 at 11:28:57 PM

@Morven: Actually, it would probably be more correct to say that we (the brand of "leftist" you're talking about, who are both suspicious of authority and suspicious of letting the masses act freely) simply don't trust anyone, period. I doubt it has much to do with Southern whites' mass refusal to abide by the Fourteenth Amendment.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#231: Jun 13th 2013 at 2:18:19 AM

I'm aware that Liberals aren't created in a factory, yes.

Give them a few years.tongue

edited 13th Jun '13 2:18:30 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#233: Jun 13th 2013 at 4:06:50 AM

As I understand it, the government is keeping records of everyone's calls on file, but isn't allowed to actually look through those files without a warrant. The concern is that, since the files are stored on a government server which government employees can access directly, no one outside the government can check whether they're actually abiding by the "not without a warrant" rule.

On the one hand, that does sound like a dangerous amount of trust to put in an organization that's far from immune to corruption. On the other hand, we trust the government to hold onto radioactive materials, powerful explosives, and vials of smallpox without civilian oversight, so it's not like that level of trust is unprecedented.

demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#234: Jun 13th 2013 at 6:23:42 AM

"...On the other hand, we trust the government to hold onto radioactive materials, powerful explosives, and vials of smallpox without civilian oversight..."

Since when has the gov't done any of that without civilian oversight?

The Congressional Hearings:

Senators press NSA director for answers on secret surveillance program. During a tense, two-hour-plus afternoon hearing that was not intended to focus on the recent revelations about domestic surveillance, senators of both parties used General Keith Alexander's first public appearance on Capitol Hill since the Guardian's stories broke to press him for answers about how its widespread surveillance programs operate.

NSA Chief defends policy: "The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that “dozens” of terrorism threats had been halted by the agency’s huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans, while a senator briefed on the program disclosed that the telephone records are destroyed after five years."

Of course, Congress is not entirely blameless here since they re-authorized the government's warrantless surveillance program.

"...In effect, every senator was aware of dubious NSA surveillance — some had been briefed on the programs in great detail — but a bipartisan majority was comfortable with an enormous amount of secrecy and minimal oversight."

edited 13th Jun '13 6:24:57 AM by demarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#235: Jun 13th 2013 at 6:50:46 AM

Ideally, it appears that PRISM is supposed to be a tool the police can use for investigation. In practice, it doesn't appear to be that effective
Has there been any commentary on that? I haven't seen anything on that one way or the other beyond various government officials saying "yes, Prism has actually been used to stop terrorists before, and no, I can't give you any details".

Also, bringing some commentary over from the US politics thread to avoid derailing that (further).

I'm trying to get across that PRISM is not a problem because of any particular single bad event that can be traced back to it, but that it is a bad kind of thing, a tool of authoritarianism with an endless number of bad uses and no substantial benefit for the public.
And I'm trying to get across that that's a terrible argument because it's slippery slope logic that can be applied to literally every single power granted to the government. Government oversight is bad because lawmakers can target people they don't like with onerous regulation. Government police forces are bad because they can be used to crack down on political dissidents. Government-run military is bad because they can be used to further violent nationalist or imperialist agendas.

I care less about if something can be misused than if it is misused. If there are reasonable safeguards in place to combat misuse, and they don't appear to be laughably ineffective, then I'm generally satisfied. There are definitely safeguards in place with regards to Prism. They may or may not be effective; that's actually something I'd be interested in hearing about, but no information has surfaced on that, to my knowledge.

Isn't [public accountability] the kind there's supposed to be in a democratic society?
The government does not need to make everything it does public. If making information about something would compromise that thing's effectiveness — for example, the details of an intelligence program designed to collect information about foreign agents without their knowledge in order to judge whether or not they're a threat and how best to counter that threat if necessary — then not revealing its existence to the public at large is entirely reasonable.

Secrecy put in place in order to hide wrongdoing on the part of the people running the program is obviously something else entirely, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on with Prism. Secrecy in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#236: Jun 13th 2013 at 6:59:50 AM

"Secrecy put in place in order to hide wrongdoing on the part of the people running the program is obviously something else entirely, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on with Prism. Secrecy in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing."

No, it isnt, but since we wouldnt even know about the program if it wern't for all the whistleblowers...

Very few are arguing that there should be no gov't secrecy (this isnt the Tea Party, after all). We are arguing that there has been too much for this particular policy.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#237: Jun 13th 2013 at 7:09:55 AM

If the program had proper Congressional oversight, than that satisfies the demands of transparency, at least from an historical point of view.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#238: Jun 13th 2013 at 7:17:55 AM

That would be a nice first step, anyway...

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#239: Jun 13th 2013 at 7:29:45 AM

"Would be"? It had Congressional oversight. They were aware of the program and approved it. Prism was secret only in the sense that it wasn't shared with the public, not in that it was some shadowy black ops program that no one outside the people running it knew about.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#240: Jun 13th 2013 at 8:52:52 AM

Time for the next step, then...

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#242: Jun 13th 2013 at 10:11:39 AM

More or less what we are doing now, revealing information to the public, and having a debate over this policy. I would like to see tighter restrictions placed on the gov't, for example, but providing the public with more information is a necessary first step.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Meklar from Milky Way Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
#243: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:37:35 AM

And I'm trying to get across that that's a terrible argument because it's slippery slope logic that can be applied to literally every single power granted to the government.
Not after I qualified it with 'tool of authoritarianism' and 'no substantial benefit for the public'.

If making information about something would compromise that thing's effectiveness — for example, the details of an intelligence program designed to collect information about foreign agents without their knowledge in order to judge whether or not they're a threat and how best to counter that threat if necessary
As I mentioned before, it's not designed to collect information about foreign agents so much as it is designed to collect information about everybody. The american government assures us all that, behind the scenes, they only use their tools for righteous purposes like catching terrorists, but what we've actually been shown so far is a system with no such obvious discrimination.

Join my forum game!
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#244: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:43:15 AM

It's important for a democratic society to know what a government is doing in order to make informed decisions about policy. I don't see how you expect to be a citizen of a country, to have the power to vote, and then I tell you "but you can't know what I'll do". What if you had an election but all the parties said their platform was secret? Does that make sense to you?

NSA doesn't need to reveal the specific details of HOW the information is collected, but they should inform you that they can/will perform a particular level of surveillance on domestic communications. What difference does it make to the nation's security? Well you can have a public discussion over it.

I do not see how the revelation of this program affects its efficacy. Terrorists still must continue to communicate electronically or by phone or otherwise. They cannot go "Oh the NSA was watching us? Gee I completely did not know that such a thing could occur because there isn't already a thing called a warrant that allows them to wiretap communications as is. We'd best start using encryption and the like!".

Additionally, remember that all government resources is opportunity cost. If you're going to the trouble of doing PRISM, you do not think about it in terms of "Oh gee, PRISM isn't so bad and you cannot prove that it is bad". How about this... I can prove that spending billions of dollars in other policing work is far more effective and far more democratic. Don't think of it as trying to have opponents prove PRISM is bad. Think of it as trying to prove PRISM is a good use of government resources versus hundreds of other things the NSA can do instead (or take it away from NSA and put it into the hands of other agencies).

Imagine for instance, you spent all that money instead on outreach programs on America's fringe societies: extremists white nationalists, isolationist groups, so-called "constitutionalists", gun rights nuts, churches and mosques across the country. Build positive police relationships and people report problems to you instead of FBI agents having to snoop around at $200/hour.

edited 13th Jun '13 11:45:14 AM by breadloaf

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#245: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:47:39 AM

Nobody is arguing that the money couldn't potentially be better spent. That's not the issue. The point is that this program is both legal and constitutional by the rules as we've defined them. It may not be effective, efficient, or morally sound, but that's a separate argument. We may also need better rules and better people to make the rules, but that's what voting is supposed to be for.

PRISM is a consequence of PATRIOT, which enjoyed enthusiastic bipartisan support at both its inception and its reauthorization. It was, according to the President, known about by Congress, and the various laws that authorize our intelligence community specifically allow for "secret" programs as long as Congress is duly notified and approves.

edited 13th Jun '13 11:53:58 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#246: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:54:08 AM

"...On the other hand, we trust the government to hold onto radioactive materials, powerful explosives, and vials of smallpox without civilian oversight..."

Since when has the gov't done any of that without civilian oversight?

While we know the government has access to those materials, where they keep them is officially secret, so we civilians can't go and check what the government's doing with them.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#247: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:54:55 AM

Shouldn't it be the issue? I mean the defence of PRISM seems to be "you can't prove that it did bad things" or some such. That seems ridiculous to me as the focus. If the point isn't to have good government, why have government? It doing technically legal things is totally pointless. It should only be doing good things.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#248: Jun 13th 2013 at 11:57:24 AM

Maybe the government should take all the money it spends on soldiers and tanks and spend it instead on feeding and providing medical care to the poor and homeless.

We're talking realism here, breadloaf. As long as you have a military, a national security apparatus, and the perceived need for secrecy, then you'll have secret programs that do things that every citizen might not approve of. That's fact. You're off into butterflies and peace pipes territory.

And anyway, that's not what this thread is about. We're talking about privacy, government, and surveillance, not whether or not we should have tanks and spies.

edited 13th Jun '13 11:58:07 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#249: Jun 13th 2013 at 12:14:00 PM

I personally don't argue with the fact that, given what we currently expect of governments, some things do need to be secret. Some details of the armed forces' capabilities and operational methods. Foreign espionage. In-depth assessments of other nations' capabilities (not general ones, but detailed ones). Specific details of active law enforcement and counter-espionage cases.

What bothers me is the logic behind the secrecy we're talking about here, in which keeping programs secret is justified because openness might lead to a demand to close them down. Stuff should not be secret just because the government doesn't want to admit doing it.

Generalities about what kind of information the government collects & is allowed to collect should not be secret.

Also, I think this whole thing shows that once a secret court is established for a specific purpose, it's easy for the government to overstep the boundaries. Here, the secret FISA court was established so that there could be judicial sign-off on specific actions taken for specific investigations that must be kept secret, which is a legitimate purpose.

Instead, it appears the court was used to approve increases in general surveillance, not tied to investigations of specific wrongdoing. That was not what it was established to do. Increases in general surveillance should be decided in the open and with normal judicial review, not secret judicial review.

A brighter future for a darker age.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#250: Jun 13th 2013 at 12:37:44 PM

Not after I qualified it with 'tool of authoritarianism' and 'no substantial benefit for the public'.
Except that neither of those things are true about Prism. There's no evidence that it's ever been misused, and officials familiar with the program have said that it has had concrete results in helping to prevent terrorist attacks.

As I mentioned before, it's not designed to collect information about foreign agents so much as it is designed to collect information about everybody.
And as I've mentioned before, they can't do anything with that information (not even look at it!) without a warrant.

what we've actually been shown so far is a system with no such obvious discrimination.
The fact that you're choosing to ignore or dismiss the safeguards built into the system is not the same thing as us not being shown the safeguards built into the system.

I do not see how the revelation of this program affects its efficacy.
The more you know about something, the more you're able to counter it. There's a huge difference between terrorists knowing "the US government is definitely looking for us, but we don't know how" and "the US government is using this particular technology to look for us in this particular way". Knowing facts — even vague ones — about the system being used to search for you makes it easier to avoid that system. Even if it turns out there's absolutely no way to avoid detection on the internet and it forces would-be terrorists to resort to mailing physical letters instead, that's bad for us, because now they're mailing letters (which can't be intercepted) instead of sending emails (which can).

Think of it as trying to prove PRISM is a good use of government resources versus hundreds of other things the NSA can do instead (or take it away from NSA and put it into the hands of other agencies).
You could make a good case for that. Prism's annual budget is only $20 million. That's really modest by federal government program standards.

What bothers me is the logic behind the secrecy we're talking about here, in which keeping programs secret is justified because openness might lead to a demand to close them down. Stuff should not be secret just because the government doesn't want to admit doing it.
Who's saying anything remotely like that? I know I've specifically rejected that logic (though it may have been in the politics thread instead of this one; I can't recall).

edited 13th Jun '13 12:40:11 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Total posts: 4,776
Top