US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor 411
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Arik Hesseldahl writes that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that the NSA tried to penetrate and compromise Tor, but it was only because terrorists and criminals use it, too and our "interest in online anonymity services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies." It was all legal and appropriate, Clapper argues, because, "Within our lawful mission to collect foreign intelligence to protect the United States, we use every intelligence tool available to understand the intent of our foreign adversaries so that we can disrupt their plans and prevent them from bringing harm to innocent Americans. Our adversaries have the ability to hide their messages and discussions among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same social networking sites, encryption tools and other security features that protect our daily online activities." Clapper concludes that "the reality is that the men and women at the National Security Agency and across the Intelligence Community are abiding by the law, respecting the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation safe.""
I feel safer... (Score:4, Funny)
and I don't even live in the states
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.” - John Adams
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...[they] don't even comprehend that what they are doing is wrong. They genuinely believe they are doing good!
This is the opening logic of every tyrant in history.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:4, Interesting)
"a future tyrant who will commit more atrocities than all of the terrorists combined."
Future?
The atomic detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened almost 70 years ago.
Did anyone count how many non-combatants were bombed and napalmed and otherwise killed in S.E. Asia in the 60s and 70s?
How many civilians have so far been killed by conventional warfare and by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
How about counting the number of birth defects caused by depleted uranium weapons in Iraq?
What about all the people who were tortured and kidnapped or "disappeared" by US sponsored forces in south and central America in the 70s and 80s?
I haven't done the maths but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the numbers of casualties caused by anti US terrorism even looks like a pinprick next to the hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-combatants killed by the US in the modern era, and I am really confident that still holds true even if one completely disregards the use of atomic weapons over Japan.
I don't think one can fairly describe any particular modern US president as a tyrant because domestically they have all been subject to elections and held more or less accoutable (or can be), but the behaviour of the US in relation to other nations has often been tyrannical and brutal. If Caesar came back today he could easily understand various US campaigns in his own terms, including such noble qualities as self aggrandisement, greed, cruelty, curiosity untroubled by ethics, and good old vengeance.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:4, Insightful)
and I don't even live in the states
well then you're "lucky" that he doesn't think he even needs to defend breaking laws of your country - because he thinks that's totally legal(fbi thinks so too).
hack usa sites, or just break usa law while staying out of the whole country or just write shit on the internet that american government should be bombed with predator clones since due to rules of engagement it would be totally just-> get extradited to usa if lucky, bombed from the sky along with your family if unlucky.
get hacked by usa-> can't do jack shit about it while usa shows the finger and spins bullshit about how it's legal.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:4, Insightful)
That the NSA/CIA/FBI think it is appropriate to break every other countries laws and treat their citizens as sub-human is not really their fault but directly tied back to the Imperialistic and exploitative attitude of the US Government and the Corporations that run it. Now this is bad enough but the truth is American exceptionalism based upon ego and ignorance means the majority of Americans agree with it including the sub-human and the subsequent have no rights part. So it is a core problem the United States of America and it's threat to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're under 18, I can't see how.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that a lot of countries consider you a pedo if you fuck a 17 year old, I stick with 18, just to be safe.
Yes, I know, common sense would say you're right... but then again, common sense has no room in laws concerning sex, drugs or copyright.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that a lot of countries consider you a pedo if you fuck a 17 year old, I stick with 18, just to be safe.
First, it's 15 where I live, and second, that number is called "age of consent" for a good reason, it's NOT called "cut-off for pedophilia diagnosis" or anything like that. It completely eludes me how people could consider it reasonable to mix such completely disparate notions.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I don't quite get the idea of it entirely. You're unfit for ... well, pretty much everything the day before your 18th birthday, but you're completely responsible for anything and everything the very next day.
What a difference a day makes...
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there's good evidence (National Institute of Health study among others) that the part of our brain that inhibits risky behavior doesn't fully develop until about 25.
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to draw a line somewhere
Why? Right now we basically toss anyone in prison who has sex with a person below a certain age whether or not they raped anyone. I would rather lines like that not exist at all, and that prosecutors and police be forced to prove that actual rape took place.
Not drawing that line at all would be even sillier.
After seeing the laws in place today, no one with a brain would draw such a conclusion.
Re: (Score:3)
So what will happen when some sicko has sex with a six-year old? Four year old? A toddler? Either the age is not a factor at all, in which case you're asking for lynch mobs to take justice in their own hands (and for good reason); or it is, in which case you need to define the cutoff line where it stops being a factor to ensure equality before law.
The very fact that you felt the n
Re: (Score:3)
It is difficult to prove actually took place
Yes, it is. And? Should we just throw away the entire concept of justice simply to make the jobs of prosecutors and police easier? I think not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I can agree that a "line", however you want to call it, makes sense, but I would most certainly not tack it to something as arbitrary as age. Depending on life circumstances, I'm fairly sure that you'll find 30 year olds that are more immature than some 13 year olds, to pull some extreme examples.
Look around yourself. At your coworkers, at people in the street, wherever you want. Talk to people and you'll learn that a fair lot of them is by no means fit to "handle their own life". If anything, the current e
Re:I feel safer... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, maybe he did! The author William Burroughs postulated that by cutting up and rearranging information, you could find what it actually meant.
Let's give it a go, shall we?
"Tor writes that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that the NSA tried to penetrate Arik Hesseldahl, but it was only because terrorists and criminals and compromise, too and our "respecting in online intelligence services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the safe fact that these are the our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate anonymity attacks against the United States and our foreign adversaries." It was all legal and appropriate, Clapper argues, because, "Within our lawful mission to collect foreign to protect the United States, we use every intelligence tool available to understand the intent of our allies so that we can abiding by their plans and prevent them from bringing reality to innocent Americans . Our adversaries have the undeniable ability to hide their features and discussions among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same social networking sites, encryption tools and other security messages that protect our daily online activities." Clapper concludes that "the harm is that the men and women use it at the National Security Agency and across the Intelligence Community are disrupt the law, interest the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation tools.""[CC] [CC]
Not a word was wasted, and I dropped the excess [CC]s at the end to be dumped in the bin or recycled later.
Police State (Score:4, Informative)
People misunderstand what a police state is. It isn't a country where the police strut around in jackboots; it's a country where the police can do anything they like.
Similarly, a security state is one in which the security establishment can do anything it likes. [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Says the white guy, proving he don't get it.
Bunch of fucking liars and criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
The people that work in the NSA are a bunch or criminals. From the top leaders down to the last analyst.
They're undermining democracy this is the reality. The few good men that worked there and that tried to expose all the illegal acts going on (including of course Snowden) were ostracized, kicked out and prosecuted.
Fuck them, Osama should have droped a couple of 747s on their HQ instead of the WTC. He'd done a great service to democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Only shows that the average terrorist organization sorely lacks a PR department. Just ponder what would happen if they blew up the NSA HQ and some of its branches, then release whatever secrets they store. Yeah, sure, every country on this planet would condemn it to hell and back, but if you're looking for an "alliance of the willing", you'd be very lonely, I betcha.
Why slap the hand that does your dirty work?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what is shows is that the NSA needs a better marketing team. If someone were to offer perpetual backups, free to everyone in the country (including foreigners ), available anywhere, anytime and encryption (well, some encryption) allowed - any half decent marketing drone ought to be able to spin that into the hottest company this side of Google.
Oh.
Wait.
US committing hostile acts on the world (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world just sees the US committing hostile acts on every citizen of the planet, and also that the US is undermining freedom and communication across the world. You have to stop what you're doing, because you're wrecking everything, and your "justifications" are hollow.
Stop it.
Now.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't. Who could make them?
There is no need to play nice guy anymore, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, we don't need to pretend that you want to be our friend because the other side is so evil, we have found a new "other side" that's SO terrible that even our atrocities look like we're nice in comparison.
People look strangely when I claim the Soviet Union ensured our liberty, but I think it becomes more and more obvious that it did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, growing up, I kept hearing about how wonderful and free the US is, so much more than the rest of the world. I kept hearing about the Second Amendment, but it only seems to be used in cases of killing a whole bunch of innocent people instead of being used to take back the government.
Frankly, enough of you weren't paying attention, or were caught up in partisan politics to see that you've been duped.
Now that it's time to do something, no one seems willing to step up. I don't think the "Founding Fathers"
Re: (Score:2)
Tell your government to stop too.
OK, maybe I'll buy that... (Score:2)
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that...the NSA tried to penetrate and compromise Tor, but it was only because terrorists and criminals use it, too...
Well, he's right. As far as that goes. Trouble is, there's a disconnect between investigating terrorists/other criminals and wholesale spying on honest citizens. One can only suppose the term "honest citizen" is a term entirely alien to their comprehension...
Re:OK, maybe I'll buy that... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does citizenship have to do with anything? The rights not to have your privacy trampled by any government should be universal, and not dependent on citizenship.
Officials learn terrorist and criminals use cash (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Officials learn terrorist and criminals use cas (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored (serial numbers on every bill, cameras in every ATM and store), and controlled (demanding proof of ownership for depositing cash at a bank, removing the possibility to actually use cash for buying travel documents).
Much like they are working hard on trying to make sure Tor can't be used anonymously.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. TOR's solely purpose is to provide anonymity. If they remove that aspect, all that's left of TOR is adding delays to your network connections and allowing exit nodes to sniff your traffic. There is no value left, thus they're destroying it.
Also, considering LOVEINT, there's no reason to assume that you're just anonymous to everyone except the US agencies. The NSA agents have no reason why they wouldn't sell any intel to the highest bidder, since there's no traceability nor accountability (rememb
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored
You know what the classic solution to all this is, right? Allow me a quote from a movie made a long time ago, called Enemy of the State;
Brill: In guerrilla warfare, you try to use your weaknesses as strengths.
Robert Clayton Dean: Such as?
Brill: Well, if they're big and you're small, then you're mobile and they're slow. You're hidden and they're exposed. You only fight battles you know you can win. That's the way the Vietcong did it. You capture their weapons and you use them against them the next time.
Guys.
All power to them (Score:3)
I wouldn't trust Tor at all if national intelligence agencies didn't expend considerable resources to break it. Competition is what drives this technology forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Then reality unfolds years later
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/let-us-count-the-ways-how-the-feds-legally-technically-get-our-data/ [arstechnica.com]
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST YOU? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I pointed out above, there is no reason at all to trust them. Actually, there's plenty of reason to revoke any trust put into this entity in the first place. It does not conform to any requirements for a trusted security partner.
From a security point of view, trusting the NSA is impossible.
Sure. (Score:3)
The same thing can be said for opening all the letters, listening to all the phone calls since the postal office actually allows anonymous letters and the phone companies anonymous calls. Some even operate anonymous public phone booths, the bastards!
or... (Score:3)
Anyone else feel that is NSA says they tried to compromise Tor but didn't, that means they know someone's about to release something that shows they were working on it.. and I'd guess they have not failed.
Re: (Score:3)
Top-secret presentation says 'We will never be able to de-anonymize all Tor users all the time' but 'with manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users'
Re:or... (Score:4, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/04/162254/how-the-nsa-targets-tor [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Its just other traffic on the NSA internal network we know as the internet.
Any message sent could be seen at the first ip changing hop, travel the Tor world trip, then seen at its final destination ip connection (lets say US to US or US friendly nation).
Might be hard in real time, but give a few days of total internet use to sort...
The other aspect is the FoxAcid idea. You would need tame ("US") antivirus vend
There you have it, folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government explicitly says, privacy is a threat to our safety, and it is the duty of our government to prevent privacy from being possible at all costs.
Go ahead, people. Keep voting for the republicans, because at least they are not democrats. Oh, I mean, keep voting for democrats, because at least they are not republicans. NOTHING is going to change that way. They'll keep boning us up the ass with this "oh noooo... can't have privacy.... TARE! Fnord! War on TARE!!!!"
Actually y'know what? Fuck y'all. YOU are responsible for this. Not me. I have not voted for either major party in DECADES. YOU... YOU are responsible for allowing this to happen. YOU have gotten the government you deserve, you half-wits. Sadly, I am the one who has to suffer for you turds voting for the jackasses (Bush, Obama, whatever) who allow and enable shit like this.
Re:There you have it, folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
If voting could change anything, I guess it would have been identified as a threat to our safety as well.
Re:There you have it, folks... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no REAL difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both want to take away our rights and give them to the government. They both want to spend too much. They both want to grab more and more power. They both ignore the Constitution. They are both working very hard to to turn our nation into a fascist police state.
The two-party system is broken and has been for a very long time. Nothing can really be fixed until we have a fundamentally different kind of voting system that allows other parties to participate. And since that is not in the interest of the two-parties, it will be a cold day in hell before that changes either.
And yes, I vote at every election. And usually it is for any non-Democrat non-Republican I can find. I might be throwing my vote away, but at least I am trying.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up, if only for the first sentence. I've been watching the US from outside for many years. I see all these comments about the huge gap between the two parties, the differences that make it impossible for a Republican to ever vote for a Democrat and vice versa, the Incompatible Values (TM)... And I just cannot see it. I mean I get the difference in high-level declarations, just not in actions. The actual differences between the two sides in practically any discussion I've seen would easily fit wit
Re: (Score:3)
or waste their votes
I doubt you have a clue what wasting a vote looks like. But I kept hearing of people who said that they voted for Obama only because the other guy was somehow worse - or vice versa. That sounds like a wasted vote to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Half the eligible adults don't vote, or waste their votes on non-entities like the "Green Party"
If that many people 'wasted' their votes on third parties, we probably wouldn't be in such a mess right now. Sending a message is not a waste.
I'll start listening to what this guy has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you listen to a convicted felon if you don't want to listen to one not convicted yet?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When does Clapper tell the truth? (Score:2)
The pope has the infallibility thing, in which he tells us when he's infallible, so we don't go confusing his regular fallible musings.
How about Clapper? When do we know he's telling the truth? Could he not wear some kind of special hat on the rare occasions when he's speaking truthfully on matters of great import? I'd suggest he wink when he's not telling the truth, but he'd be winking so often during congressional hearings he'd seem to be having a stroke.
You keep using that word. (Score:3)
lawfull (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA is tasked with gathering foreign intelligence, and to accomplish that objective they sometimes have to decrypt encoded messages. How is the attempt to decrypt TOR traffic "illegal"? Is TOR only used by US citizens, for lawful purposes and between domestic end-points?
OMG! The NSA tried to decrypt TOR traffic?! (Score:2)
Oh, wait, isn't that kinda their job? The value of TOR lies in it's inability to be cracked, why is anyone surprised that the NSA tried to crack it?
Now, if the report was that the NSA had been able to successfully crack TOR that would be noteworthy...
A Justification for Anything (Score:2)
This is more or less a justification for any action the NSA might take.
They already have access to pretty much *all* communications in the world. I for one am sure glad that helped prevent the Boston bombings and the recent attack on the mall in Kenya.
If they are already unable to detect and prevent bad things from happening at the hands of terrorists, what justifies attempting to crack one of the few means of privacy we have left? In their rampant pursuit of obtaining *all* communications they have trample
This could be a good thing (Score:2)
three words (Score:2)
"Only terrorists and criminals use it" (Score:3)
It's impossible to rule a nation of innocents.
News Flash! Spy agency wants to spy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, an organization tasked with intercepting and interpreting electronic communications wants to intercept and interpret electronic communications! Who woulda thunk it?
The NSA has certainly done a poor job keeping it's nose clean, but personally, I'd be rather disappointed if they weren't trying to de-anonymize Tor! Figuring out who is talking to who, and how often, called Signals Intelligence, is the bedrock of intelligence analysis (and has been even before the NSA existed), and in many ways is more important than knowing what they are saying.
In addition, if the NSA were to suddenly be hit with a clue-by-four by federal judges actually doing their job, they would need the de-anonymizing information to perform proper filtering of domestic communications.
Re: (Score:3)
but personally, I'd be rather disappointed if they weren't trying to de-anonymize Tor! Figuring out who is talking to who, and how often, called Signals Intelligence, is the bedrock of intelligence analysis (and has been even before the NSA existed), and in many ways is more important than knowing what they are saying.
You'd be disappointed if they weren't so evil? I'm disappointed that people say such idiotic things.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA has certainly done a poor job keeping it's nose clean, but personally, I'd be rather disappointed if they weren't trying to de-anonymize Tor! Figuring out who is talking to who, and how often, called Signals Intelligence, is the bedrock of intelligence analysis (and has been even before the NSA existed), and in many ways is more important than knowing what they are saying.
They are not given the right to spy on American Citizens. They should err on the side of caution, but they do not. Instead they inject machines with malware if the use Tor. There are many reasons to use Tor. For instance: The NSA is not the only agency in the world trying to spy on our data. Additionally, I may not want the government to discern who I'm considering voting for. We do have secret ballots for a reason, and in this online world the NSA has essentially ended this right. IMO, these actions
Better Idea (Score:3)
A modest proposal... (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:5, Insightful)
What dilemma? Freedom has responsibilities, and so does protection of privacy and rights.
These "justifications" are just B.S. designed to ramp up fear so funding gets extended.
You are all being played as suckers and you really should think about taking your country back.
Also, any so-called "IT" staff that go along to implement this - you are collaborators of the worst kind, shame on you.
Re: (Score:3)
Just who is deciding who is innocent? They decide who is innocent, and do so without the constitutionally guaranteed protections for the innocent.
...
I agree with the poster above and oppose the surveillance state.
Am I still innocent now? Was I ever?
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:4, Insightful)
While I have no intention to collaborate with finding out private communications between US citizens, I don't see why the NSA would not try and break TOR. TOR is a communication system that would allow terrorists to communicate without being monitored, it is a job of a spy agency to get into those communication methods. It's like telling James Bond to not try to break into the safe of the bad guy to get the secret papers because, "breaking and entering is illegal and not nice".
There is nothing wrong with breaking TOR, because TOR doesn't deserve it's reputation if it can be broken. I'm glad that they've broken it and we know about it. I've always known that, while it had certain benefits, it has always been very susceptible to being compromised if you have enough assets and the will to do so. All they've done is proven it. Now we move on to something else, or we accept the caveats that working with TOR constrains us with.
I'm not worried about what they can do, I'm worried about what they do with their capabilities. The fact is that someone is going to be able to do what the NSA is doing, sooner or later. Let's make sure that it is the good guys who are doing it, and that those people who go into that field are responsible and honest people who understand the need for privacy in the course of normal events.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between being a part of a system that you have no objective control over, and being complicit in specific activities that we have no way of having oversight over.
If I was a roofer on the Death Star, I might have no idea what the big crater looking thing was for. I'd think I was building a big battlestation, at best. Is it my fault that I didn't walk over to the other side of what was the size of a small moon and ask what they were building over there? Would I know a superlaser if I s
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it another way: free speech means some folks will say things that match your opinion (a "good" thing!), but sometimes, they dare to say stuff you don't agree with! And the latter can't be allowed.
Or, for the mandatory vehicular analogy, a car can be used to bring kittens to an orphanage, or to plow into an orphan on the street and splatter it over the pavement.
That's not a problem with the tool but with the user. And the reason James Clapper here wants to forbid you to use encryption is pretty nefarious, even if he claims to want only "your good". So he and his agency should first learn to behave before telling us what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not suggesting anything, nor defending any sort of monitoring. I'm saying that figuring out
exactly what is the best way to proceed is a hard problem, and the typical slashdotter seems to trivialize
it, ignoring the fact that both sides have drawbacks. It is completely different from "banning Tor is like
banning cars omg freedom! my feelings!".
I completely understand the mentality of "we need to allow some bad to happen because the good
we get in exchange outweighs the bad", but one needs to acknowledge th
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubbish, there's no issue (Score:4, Insightful)
" But on the other horn, there really are people out there who will use these technologies to bring harm to innocent people--for the greater good, of course (or for a profit). These people will use technology against our best wishes."
There's no use for Tor that is against my interests. None. It's just speech going down wires. You may not like the kiddie diddlers discussing their kiddy diddling, or the terrorists discussing.... well nothing, because terrorists have no reason to use it... but its all just speech. Acts are not speech, people like Clapper pretend that saying things terrorists might say is the same as committing an *act* of terrorism.
" are abiding by the law, respecting the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation safe"
No they're not. They hacked domestic communications on Tor too. No political candidate exists now that doesn't have an NSA folder full of their dirty secrets. Which means that liars like Clapper can/have been shaping US politics to be pro-military. They've certainly been interfering in Europe's politics, EU Commission pretending that US spying on Europe is a US *domestic* issue, FFS.
If you accept that democracy is the basis for stable countries, then he's destabilized the US.
Safe? Safe from a free democracy?? That's what General Alexander has done.
You can see it when the ex NSA Chief dresses up in military garb and jokes about killing critics. You can see how far away from a free democracy you've gone.
Re:Rubbish, there's no issue (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no use for Tor that is against my interests. None. It's just speech going down wires. You may not like the kiddie diddlers discussing their kiddy diddling, or the terrorists discussing.... well nothing, because terrorists have no reason to use it... but its all just speech. Acts are not speech, people like Clapper pretend that saying things terrorists might say is the same as committing an *act* of terrorism.
Sorry to have to Godwin this thread, but as far as I know Hitler never personally killed a jew. So since acts are not speech, he's a totally innocent guy right? Or can speech be orders, threats, fraud, slander, conspiracy and a host of other illegal things... never mind that bits can be many other things like botnet controls, money (Bitcoins) and so on. I'm assuming you know, since you went out of your way to pretend kiddie diddlers use TOR just for discussion and nothing else. But seriously mods, that's +5 Insightful? More like smoking crack...
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is the price of freedom. Some will abuse it. There is no moral dilemma; you don't compromise others rights for some imaginary sense of security. .
Moral dilemma for Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got news for you, friend. Information has never harmed a single soul. It takes action to do that. Information doesn't kill people, people do. The NSA does not preempt terrorist threats, and even if they did, the cost to the rest of our lives is too much. They've inundated themselves with data and can't make sense of any of it until after the actions have been performed. Besides, folks could just send post cards with stenographic messages on them, or any other low-tech solution. Tor and darknets wouldn't need to exist if we didn't feel insecure.
More folks die of heart disease every year than over fifty 9/11's... 2,996 died in 9/11. 597,689. [cdc.gov] Two Hundred Times More, Every Year! If the NSA wanted to protect us they'd be making tastier health food. Over six times more Americans take their own lives every year than the Terrorists did in their worst attack against us. The threat is fucking pathetic, and those spreading the fear narrative should be fired. Humans have deep psychological, evolutionarily encoded, desires to protect our lives and those of women and children even more. This is psychological warfare.
I know it sounds cold hearted, but we can put a price on a human life. We can look at the lifespan and the benefit to society that life may contribute, and quantify a life to some degree. This is not to dehumanize people, but to put into perspective the ethics of fearmongering. A few thousand died at the hands of terrorists, but now hundreds of millions suffer every day at their loss of privacy. The aggregate suffering is far greater than that of the worst tortures to the few. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. IMO, It's better not to live in fear of your government for your entire life than to say, lose a limb. I would give up my left leg to end this NSA spying on me, and all Americans. What I really fear that they are turning more people against us every day!
Privacy is worth something. We need private space to be fully human, and as our lives deal more and more online that privacy needs to be extended online as well. Folks wouldn't be encrypting shit if they felt they could trust the networks.
The NSA is wounding us deeply. Their actions make them seem like the other secret police we fought against. We didn't need such a police state since we were brave and good people. Soldiers took up the call to fight for our nation because we had honor. The NSA is stripping away our honor. Many would not fight for us because of it. The NSA is a Threat to National Security. These fearmongers are injecting poison into the veins of our country. They will not ever decrease the dosage, and if we let them continue, they will increase it and destroy our great nation from the inside out.
Think for a second about the lengths we've got to because of the pathetic terrorist attacks. Now, what if the NSA really did try to protect us from real harms we face? The NSA would monitor everything you ate and tax you if you more if you ate "unhealthy" food, whatever they deem that to be. The NSA would be monitoring every vehicle location and remotely shutting folks down cars. They'd be preemptively sending cops into your home to make sure your bad-day didn't turn into a suicide.
We have secret ballots for a reason. The invasion of privacy must end.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but maybe you should go back and apply some critical thinking to what you wrote.
For example:
"Information has never harmed a single soul."
The fact is information about what people are doing is a critical component of national security, in both war and peace. A key determinant of the success or failure of any action is the quality of the information available. From revolutionary war spies like Nathan Hale and Miss Jenny, to the code breakers that made the battle of Midway a success for America and
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading your post I cannot fail but realize that the terrorist behind 9/11 actually won. They have screwed American politics so bad into this fear everybody mentality that now what the US govt is doing feels like a time bomb waiting to explode.
Re:Moral dilemma for the IT community (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't that those who wants to harm us communicate in ways we have problems listening to. The problem is that they want to harm us.
Our efforts on listening in on everybody so we can classify more enemies creates more people who hate us.
When followed up with drone strikes on mere suspects not convicted of anything, and people who are guilty of being nearby, we really fuel the fire.
Yes, the thought that possible enemies are communicating without us being able to listen in burns us up. But when listening in creates animosity which grows to hatred, it's counter-productive.
You don't get fewer snakebites by digging every nearby hill to find dens, and poke the snakes to find out whether they're agressive or not. You leave them alone, knowing that they are out there, and some of them may be dangerous. Co-existing works. Paranoia doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one horn of the dilemma, we like privacy and want information to be free. So we embrace technologies like Tor, form darknets, etc. But on the other horn, there really are people out there who will use these technologies to bring harm to innocent people--for the greater good, of course (or for a profit). These people will use technology against our best wishes.
When you say "these people will use technology against our best wishes", which people are you referring to - the "people out there", or the people in the NSA, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies?
Even if you want to be an apologist for those. . . (Score:2)
Re:Even if you want to be an apologist for those. (Score:5, Informative)
It is fascinating how there are so many initiatives to change the properties of the US government and the Constitution just because it has become harder for Republicans to win elections.
- Mark Levin's desire to add 11 new amendments to the Constitution.
- ALEC's efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment
- Movements in states to secede from the Union.
- Forcing students to vote in their home districts instead of where they live 9 months of the year.
- Requiring government-issued IDs less than a year old for voting, even as the offices that issue those IDs are being closed in poor and minority neighborhoods.
All because Republicans can't get a majority of Americans to vote for them*. It's even caused guys like Smitty to stop calling themselves Republican, hoping the stink of the Party of Reagan will somehow fade.
(*In the 2012 congressional elections, half a million more votes were cast for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives than Republican, yet Republicans maintained a 234-195 seat majority. It was only because of red state gerrymandering that there is a Republican majority in the House, even as blue states move toward non-partisan drawing of congressional districts.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the biggest blue state of all, California, now has an independent commission draw legislative districts. Also Washington.
There are 37 states where legislatures draw lines.
You're finally going to get to the bottom of that birth certificate thing, aren't you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
He says they are. Now, give me one reason why I should believe him. Where's the oversight? Why should I trust him?
I'm in IT security myself, and "trust" is a big issue. Trust saves you time. If you trust an entity, you put some burden of security on someone else, the entity that you trust. E.g., you trust a CA and its issued certificates so you don't have to verify all the various certs out there yourself. We trust the CAs out of convenience and out of practicality. And in turn CAs are audited and checked constantly to ensure they are up to speed with their security. Still, security blunders happen. But at least there are means and ways to not only detect them but also to remedy them, and most importantly: It is your, and only your, decision whether or not you trust a CA. You can decide unilaterally to declare certs issued by one or even all CAs as untrustworthy for yourself (and yourself alone).
So we have oversight, security audition, breach discovery and unilateral opt-out (or even opt-in).
NONE of these features apply to the NSA. Hence there is exactly ZERO reason for me to trust that entity AT ALL, from a security point of view. I cannot audit them, I cannot determine the security of their setup, I cannot determine the actual scope of their work and most of all I cannot decide against trusting them.
Sorry, but there is no reason to trust him. On what? His word? Well, great, here's my word that I won't do anything stupid, dangerous or illegal. It's just as good as his. So he can stop spying on me now.
Re: (Score:2)
Once people know their own their gov is listening in and it will be used in court they begin to alter their habits. The social contract falters.
They quickly work out they have the legal protections a random foreigner with a residence permit. No charming diplomats and skilled lawyers.
Gone are the easy days of signals intelligence, welcome the informants.
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world just moves around the East Germany aspect.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a self fulfilling prophecy. Our federal bureaucracy and elected representatives are already full of marginally functioning paranoid personalities.
The rest of the world needs to stop enabling this behavior. Next time the NSA comes around with a joint espionage agreement, other nations' security services need to pat them on the head and send them back home.
Re: (Score:3)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin