We can safely assume that the IRS and other countries tax agencies have systems like this - or will soon. Nearly every agency with enforcement powers will eventually too. Wiretaps are being used for everything these days and they need to parse this data.
Just like the recent use of SWAT teams by even benign regulatory agencies (ie, raiding unlicensed clothing factories with assault rifles) - they will make use of new advanced enforcement techniques as the tech starts to trickle down from the top agencies.
We (the tech community) all complained for years about the poor state of technology in government. But now they are catching up - and that technology is being combined with the great powers they hold. Creating something most people didn't expect. New levels of power it seems... which can be utilized extremely efficiently.
You can drop "it seems". We all know where this is headed. And as with the other huge problems such as climate change, we'll try to change something once it really, really hurts. But that, I suppose, has already been said a thousand times, as well. There really isn't much more left to say...
I think there is significant enough opposition to the notion that the IRS would have such a capability that at the very least it will be the very last agency to get it. I can't see even the Republicans crossing that line.
What is the need to defend-through-balance? Just because Y isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't point out and hold to full accountability the faults of X.
X, here, being the Republican base which is, it seems, so much more radical than it has ever been before in my life. Y has all sorts of faults of their own, but there shouldn't be compulsion to hold it up as defense of X.
It's not the need to defend through balance it's the constant push of the extremes to the spot light mostly by none-other than the opposition.
Trump gets more air time (direct or in name) by the media which is aligned with the democratic party than say FOX news.
And the republicans are no better one of the biggest pushes for Obama leading to the 2004 elections were the republicans with their constant "fascination" with him.
Now I'm not comparing Obama to Trump here as an individual but as a candidate the rednecks hating on Obama pushed more democrats to his side because "we are supposed to object to them aren't we?" same thing goes here Trump is surprisingly quite a good public speaker, he knows how to work a crowed and he knows how rub people the wrong or well the right way to get the responses he wants from them.
When the opposing party is attacking him day and night it not only give him free publicity but moves more and more people to his side because when you feel that your side is under attack you align yourself to "defend" it.
This is the same reality that breaks or tears so many social movements especially on the internet apart since eventually they grow to the point where they have some many loons that that's the only thing that your "opposition" is attacking you with and well you can't side with them can't you now?
And this isn't just happening to politics, this is the same human behavior that killed Greenpeace (all of it's founders were pushed aside by radicals) and why you can't tackle any serious issues whether it's wall street or global conflicts.
Just try having a movement for a 2 state solutions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts you'll start with few ideals that want to open a good dialog, you'll end up absorbing BDS loons, people with signs that praise Hamas, your gatherings end up having "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" chants that leave not room well for a 2 state solution.
Animal rights? pfft you'll end having naked people running and spraying fake blood, social equality? that will turn into a Guy Fawkes look a like contest, the ease of inclusiveness which comes with the modern times pretty much exclude you from dealing with any major issue in a serious manner.
That's hilarious. One of the premier and foremost missions of the Verfassungsschutz is of course counter-intelligence.
To support another countries foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale.
Corporate interests care a great deal about borders so long as it allows them to artificially segment markets to derive maximum profitability (dvds, pharma, etc)!
>To support another country's foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale.
Maybe, but the logical slippery slope if you do allow this happen is that in the end every country cooperates and their budget for counter-espionage looks like... the budget, say, California has to defend itself from Texas and Massachusetts, or for securing its borders from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon by planting spies in those countries I mean states, or the FBI budget for counter-intel versus the CIA. All of which is exactly, precisely $0.
In what conceivable world is it better for California to be spending that money on such hypothetical programs, or for taxpayers to fund the CIA in its attacks against the FBI, and to fund the FBI in its countermeasures against the CIA -- an idea that is total, complete madness - instead of putting it into education, roads, water, or whatever else you want that actually has any benefit to society whatsoever?
The world is incredibly well-connected, and states don't need to be hacking other states. Whether you agree with surveillance or not, it is not difficult to argue that cooperation is a net benefit for all.
I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here. First of all, states are hacking other friendly states. States they cooperate with.
Then of course, foreign intelligence services derive their power and existence outside of the normal law framework from the simple fact that they are generally not allowed to spy on their own (e.g. US) citizens. That is pretty much the very fine line that separates them from a state-funded terrorist conspiracy. In that light, any cooperation with another intelligence agency (which naturally isn't bound to not spying on US citizens) is prima facie suspect.
But I was replying to the thought, which I quoted, that "to support another country's foreign intelligence service is nothing short of treason on an organized scale". (I mean official support and cooperation, that both services know about, like James Bond and Felix Leiter, his American counterpart who sometimes makes an appearance, in the films.)
On a formal level, that seems true enough. Plus, they are using unconstitutional means to “protect the constitution”. I'm starting to wonder whether agencies like that are actually worth the trouble they're causing.
Does this have implications in that Getmany can collect data on US citizens, and by sharing with the NSA, the NSA can circumvent restrictions on collecting data on US citizens?
It would guess not because the deal is that Germany is getting software for data. They are not being trusted with large amounts of data from the NSA.
However the 5 Eyes share data freely with each other, and while there is no verification I would be shocked if the US did not file warrants against US citizens based on the testimony of analysts from the other 4. And once there is a warrant, of course, then the US can cheerfully look at its own data and see what they were told could be seen.
My expectation is that this happens, and happens frequently. And not just for terrorism.
Subject washd - Mention of emergency order ◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎ is forbidden unless expressly permitted by an exemption granted under clause P97/X2 of Commandment ◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎. Your deviation has been noted and you are hereby commanded to appear at Re-education Camp #47 for a 2 hour Happiness and Gratitude Ritual.
I don't know, but I'm glad we can still find amusement even in very dark things. Imagine a world that not only has Nineteen Eighty-Four'ish surveillance, but also lacks any humor.
Not to say I don't take this very seriously. And as much as humor is all but verboten on HN, I'm glad to see the occasional little kernel of comic exchange on here. It's a sign that we still possess our fundamental human nature.
If we had a world even remotely like 1984, there would be blood on the streets. The privacy zealots overplay this as if the NSA is capable of magic, and that they are omnipresent on every network. It's like saying that every user on the Internet is fumbling around in the dark and doesn't know what they're doing. As we all know, there are very smart people on the network who could possibly outsmart the NSA, but media theater likes to champion the NSA as our new overlords. This is not magic. The NSA collaborating like this is what happens when you give 6 billion people an Internet connection. Of course you get zero day stockpiles. Of course you get back alley deals
I think that when the majority of people on the Internet are non-technical Android and iPhone users, browsing Facebook and Instagramming lunch, from that perspective, the NSA really is on every network.
From the disclosures we got from Snowden, as well as previous revelations about the NSA, the evidence points to a situation pretty damn close to that. They are grabbing data from all sorts of social networks, we know they scarf up email, we know at least they grab most - if not all - phone metadata, and we know they're tapping underseas fiber-optic cables that represent backbone Internet links between countries. We know carriers like AT&T graciously make data off their networks available to the NSA, and we know they do these smokey back-room deals with the other Five Eyes countries, and now Germany as well. I see no reason to think they aren't doing similar deals with most other "friendly" countries.
And let's not get into the backdooring routers and commercial software, and attempts to weaken encryption standards.
To say that we aren't already "in a world remotely like 1984" strikes me either disingenuous (Hello, NSA employee?) or uninformed. Would you care to say what else the NSA would have to do (or what we'd have to find out they're doing) before you say we are "remotely close to 1984"?
1984 is a nice bit of canon for the privacy conscious, but it is also a work of fiction, and can quickly be co-opted by the paranoiac fringe community as being something that exists.
> What else the NSA would have to do (or what we'd have to find out they're doing) before you say we are "remotely close to 1984"?
They would have to know our private thoughts. They would have to read our paper diaries. They would have to disallow me closing my curtains at night. They would have to hear me telling my girlfriend I love her.
All the clusters of GPUs and corridors of big data will not know my private thoughts. I see your handle is mindcrime, but as I said; there would be blood on the streets if they started infiltrating the substrate of our craniums.
They would have to know our private thoughts. They would have to read our paper diaries. They would have to disallow me closing my curtains at night. They would have to hear me telling my girlfriend I love her.
And you think that's what it would take to be "remotely close"? I don't get it. From what I remember of Nineteen Eighty Four that scenario would put us absolutely on par with the description in the book. I believe that we are far more than "remotely close" already. But that's just me. shrug
> And you think that's what it would take to be "remotely close"?
Basically any AFK stuff is pushing it, and apt to be very invasive of privacy and truly Orwellian. The distinction I make is the NSA resides on the network and doesn't go much further than that. Is what they're doing Orwellian on the network? Possibly, but only insofar as I let them on my network. Who is to say I don't use secure meshnets? Who is to say I don't watch the watchmen?
I respect your thoughts on the matter, and the current narrative does suggest we are tending towards a 1984 panopticon, but this is also framed in the context of pervasive CCTV, and presumes that every citizen is glued to their smartphone. Measures like CCTV and smartphone tracking observe the citizenry and this means everyone is kept in line and the system works, so fair dues, this could be seen as 1984'ish. But again, only insofar as the citizen opts in. It is said we would prefer to be watched than go about our private business alone.
(And yes CCTV can be opt in, but that is a lot harder to achieve and ironically requires Google Maps hacking to pinpoint where key CCTV hotspots are)
TL;DR: I don't negate 1984'ish elements, I'm simply saying they are opt-in only, and not as bad as the current narrative suggests.
39 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 96.9 ms ] threadJust like the recent use of SWAT teams by even benign regulatory agencies (ie, raiding unlicensed clothing factories with assault rifles) - they will make use of new advanced enforcement techniques as the tech starts to trickle down from the top agencies.
We (the tech community) all complained for years about the poor state of technology in government. But now they are catching up - and that technology is being combined with the great powers they hold. Creating something most people didn't expect. New levels of power it seems... which can be utilized extremely efficiently.
You can drop "it seems". We all know where this is headed. And as with the other huge problems such as climate change, we'll try to change something once it really, really hurts. But that, I suppose, has already been said a thousand times, as well. There really isn't much more left to say...
X, here, being the Republican base which is, it seems, so much more radical than it has ever been before in my life. Y has all sorts of faults of their own, but there shouldn't be compulsion to hold it up as defense of X.
And this isn't just happening to politics, this is the same human behavior that killed Greenpeace (all of it's founders were pushed aside by radicals) and why you can't tackle any serious issues whether it's wall street or global conflicts. Just try having a movement for a 2 state solutions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts you'll start with few ideals that want to open a good dialog, you'll end up absorbing BDS loons, people with signs that praise Hamas, your gatherings end up having "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" chants that leave not room well for a 2 state solution. Animal rights? pfft you'll end having naked people running and spraying fake blood, social equality? that will turn into a Guy Fawkes look a like contest, the ease of inclusiveness which comes with the modern times pretty much exclude you from dealing with any major issue in a serious manner.
To support another countries foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale.
Maybe, but the logical slippery slope if you do allow this happen is that in the end every country cooperates and their budget for counter-espionage looks like... the budget, say, California has to defend itself from Texas and Massachusetts, or for securing its borders from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon by planting spies in those countries I mean states, or the FBI budget for counter-intel versus the CIA. All of which is exactly, precisely $0.
In what conceivable world is it better for California to be spending that money on such hypothetical programs, or for taxpayers to fund the CIA in its attacks against the FBI, and to fund the FBI in its countermeasures against the CIA -- an idea that is total, complete madness - instead of putting it into education, roads, water, or whatever else you want that actually has any benefit to society whatsoever?
The world is incredibly well-connected, and states don't need to be hacking other states. Whether you agree with surveillance or not, it is not difficult to argue that cooperation is a net benefit for all.
Then of course, foreign intelligence services derive their power and existence outside of the normal law framework from the simple fact that they are generally not allowed to spy on their own (e.g. US) citizens. That is pretty much the very fine line that separates them from a state-funded terrorist conspiracy. In that light, any cooperation with another intelligence agency (which naturally isn't bound to not spying on US citizens) is prima facie suspect.
[even though my guess would be that a similar deal with the BND is in place as well]
However the 5 Eyes share data freely with each other, and while there is no verification I would be shocked if the US did not file warrants against US citizens based on the testimony of analysts from the other 4. And once there is a warrant, of course, then the US can cheerfully look at its own data and see what they were told could be seen.
My expectation is that this happens, and happens frequently. And not just for terrorism.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
█████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████████████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████████████ ██████████████████. ███████ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██████████████ [CODE WORD REDACTED] ███ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ████████ ████████.
Not to say I don't take this very seriously. And as much as humor is all but verboten on HN, I'm glad to see the occasional little kernel of comic exchange on here. It's a sign that we still possess our fundamental human nature.
From the disclosures we got from Snowden, as well as previous revelations about the NSA, the evidence points to a situation pretty damn close to that. They are grabbing data from all sorts of social networks, we know they scarf up email, we know at least they grab most - if not all - phone metadata, and we know they're tapping underseas fiber-optic cables that represent backbone Internet links between countries. We know carriers like AT&T graciously make data off their networks available to the NSA, and we know they do these smokey back-room deals with the other Five Eyes countries, and now Germany as well. I see no reason to think they aren't doing similar deals with most other "friendly" countries.
And let's not get into the backdooring routers and commercial software, and attempts to weaken encryption standards.
To say that we aren't already "in a world remotely like 1984" strikes me either disingenuous (Hello, NSA employee?) or uninformed. Would you care to say what else the NSA would have to do (or what we'd have to find out they're doing) before you say we are "remotely close to 1984"?
> What else the NSA would have to do (or what we'd have to find out they're doing) before you say we are "remotely close to 1984"?
They would have to know our private thoughts. They would have to read our paper diaries. They would have to disallow me closing my curtains at night. They would have to hear me telling my girlfriend I love her.
All the clusters of GPUs and corridors of big data will not know my private thoughts. I see your handle is mindcrime, but as I said; there would be blood on the streets if they started infiltrating the substrate of our craniums.
And you think that's what it would take to be "remotely close"? I don't get it. From what I remember of Nineteen Eighty Four that scenario would put us absolutely on par with the description in the book. I believe that we are far more than "remotely close" already. But that's just me. shrug
Basically any AFK stuff is pushing it, and apt to be very invasive of privacy and truly Orwellian. The distinction I make is the NSA resides on the network and doesn't go much further than that. Is what they're doing Orwellian on the network? Possibly, but only insofar as I let them on my network. Who is to say I don't use secure meshnets? Who is to say I don't watch the watchmen?
I respect your thoughts on the matter, and the current narrative does suggest we are tending towards a 1984 panopticon, but this is also framed in the context of pervasive CCTV, and presumes that every citizen is glued to their smartphone. Measures like CCTV and smartphone tracking observe the citizenry and this means everyone is kept in line and the system works, so fair dues, this could be seen as 1984'ish. But again, only insofar as the citizen opts in. It is said we would prefer to be watched than go about our private business alone.
(And yes CCTV can be opt in, but that is a lot harder to achieve and ironically requires Google Maps hacking to pinpoint where key CCTV hotspots are)
TL;DR: I don't negate 1984'ish elements, I'm simply saying they are opt-in only, and not as bad as the current narrative suggests.