Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on August 25, 2013, 08:06:20 am
-
National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.
NSA officers sometimes spy on love interests (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/)
So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?
-
So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?
They know too much dirty secrets about those members of Congress, ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
They know too much dirty secrets about those members of Congress, ;)
You know I'm really starting to wonder if that's the truth - just as many people had conspiracy theories about the NSA spying on Internet stuff (that have turned out to be true), so too do they exist about this too...
-
When the law is seen as an obstacle by some people in terms of realizing the sacred mission they are trying to accomplish (in this case officially protect a country, but this may as well be provide jobs to defense contractors), I don't see what would prevent these same people from leveraging the means they have to "help" some politicians see the world the way they think it must be seen.
Heck, isn't it something they owe their children? Why would the rules voted by a bunch of weak civilians have to prevent them from doing everything they can to be good parents?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.
NSA officers sometimes spy on love interests (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/)
So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?
Reportedly, there were few such transgressions and they were punished, including with dismissal. If that is not true, and there were instead many such instances, often with inadequate punishment, it might be worth Congress getting involved, but I get the sense that every little NSA story is getting blown out of proportion ... at the potential cost of taking attention away from issues that really do deserve high level action.
One proposal would be not having all the search authorizations done by a FIS court where every current judge was appointed by a single person (Chief Justice Roberts) leading to them all being solid "national security" conservative Republicans. I. e., lapdogs to the NSA. How about some congressional advice and consent on the appointment of these judges?
-
Reportedly, there were few such transgressions and they were punished, including with dismissal.
dear, not "were" but "were reported so far" (question is - why that was not reported before at all)... because next time it will (unless it happened, but was not reported) be not "loveint", but something else ("watergateint")
-
... every little NSA story is getting blown out of proportion ...
Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.
-
All I can offer is this thought: wouldn't it be nice for me if I had a love interest for anyone to investigate!
Smoke, mirrors, smoke without fires even, but nope, no friggin' love interest to be found. Not for the first time recently, I despair. Maybe I should get a green card; do they give them to pensioners? I've seen lots of pictures of old Americans with lovely young things on their arm; a certain Mr Hef sets a great example - so nice to think that if I move to the States I shall have one too. Perhaps that's why green cards aren't easy to get unless you are a terrorist: lovely young things would become scarce with all these new/old foreigners coming in?
It all makes having and running another 500 Hassy seem like a piece of cake.
Rob C
-
... wouldn't it be nice for me if I had a love interest...
We love you Rob!
-
We love you Rob!
Is that a promise? Is that a declaration of intent? Must I buy another, collective set of rings?
Oy vey - life she is hard!
Rob C
-
Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.
Exactly.
-
Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.
Agreed: it is inevitable that a major nation will be the _capability_ to do horrible things (e.g. use of chemical or nuclear weapons, or even just providing lots of conventional weapons to dubious governments or "freedom fighters"), so my more realistic goals are (a) strict procedures for authorization and (b) far more thorough oversight and checking that those procedures are being respected, with both done by more than a hand-picked group of "national security uber alles" people.
-
[...]so my more realistic goals are (a) strict procedures for authorization and (b) far more thorough oversight and checking that those procedures are being respected, with both done by more than a hand-picked group of "national security uber alles" people.
Hi,
But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...
Cheers,
Bart
You want essential data or just 'legally acquired' data? They can't always be the same.
I'd opt for the essential. I'd even dare to suggest that illegally acquired data that could have prevented 9/11 would have found few people amongst the victims putting forward any defence for only strictly legal methods of getting that data.
I don't think that too difficult a proposition for anyone to grasp, other than, of course, for the pedants with an obsession about the legality of such information. You know, the literalists amongst us.
Rob C
-
I'd even dare to suggest that illegally acquired data that could have prevented 9/11 [...]
I sincerely hope you are not trying to suggest that illegally acquired data is better than legally acquired data. And for the record, it was not the lack of data that made 911 transpire as it did, part of it was the organization of the data.
So let's stop and suggest that more data is better. Only better data is better, and it should be legally acquired, supervised and prevented from being inappropriately used (thus meaning destroyed) when not immediately (in a reasonable period) necessary.
The fallacy that data-mining will reveal meaningful patterns is not a general given. What is a given is that the more data one collects, the harder it is to find really meaningful connections, and the sooner errors will creep in that lead to the wrong conclusions and will cause damage, and the harder it is to keep from falling into the wrong hands.
It's not about the quantity, but about the quality. As it usually is with everything else.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, that's selective editing at its worst - or best!
I didn't claim that such data existed, just that had it existed, from whatever source, if its use had prevented the outrage, there would be no complaints about sourcing other than from fellow terrorists and their friends: this ain't no game on a pitch or around a table; rules of play in these matters of mass killings are bullshit.
Neither am I saying what you feared: it doesn't matter where the data comes from, just as long as it's reliable and arrives in time. That it may or may not be used to best advantage is, in this context, immaterial, because that applies to all data, however sourced.
I agree about quality; but what makes you imagine that 'legally' acquired intelligence is the only one that is of quality? I certainly don't put much faith in the product of torture because I, for one, would admit almost to anything I have not done at first sight of rubber gloves and a set of pliers. Introduce a saw and I'm out cold, incapable of admitting anything. You see the problems with torture?
;-)
Rob C
-
[...]rules of play in these matters of mass killings are bullshit.[...]
While sadly true, it's also what promotes the next wave. Think Guantanamo, think illegal rendition (handing over prisoners to countries where torture is allowed), think religious discrimination, etc., etc.
Neither am I saying what you feared: it doesn't matter where the data comes from, just as long as it's reliable and arrives in time.
Which is purely a judgment at given moment, and by a given prejudiced entity. Without checks and balances it means nothing, think WMDs.
That it may or may not be used to best advantage is, in this context, immaterial, because that applies to all data, however sourced.
But this is exactly one of the main issues with unstructured data-mining. Very material!
I agree about quality; but what makes you imagine that 'legally' acquired intelligence is the only one that is of quality?
I don't. But at least there are checks and balances which, if applied correctly (and there is an issue with that), might filter out some errors.
You see the problems with torture?
Well, torture is illegal. Nuf said.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...
Cheers,
Bart
My item (b) is intended to address the problem of illegal collection by the improved and less lap-doggy oversight, to better deter, detect, and delete inappropriate data collection. Of course there will be a significant amount of unauthorized collecting if there is inadequate oversight and the collectors have the typical self-rightious attitude that they are doing an important job that mere politicians are not competent to meddle in.
-
What happens to an organization such as the FBI or CIA or NSA when any dirty secrets about their boss (or the politicians who decide their budgets) can be leaked to the press at any time those with the knowledge see fit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
What happens to the political leadership of a nation if politicians must be selected among a small population of people who have never said anything silly on a phone, never did anything silly while drunk and who did not subscribe to some non-mainstream political view at 20?
What happens to a nation when people stop accepting that hazards in life are very real, no matter what intrusive rights we grant our leaders to "protect" us?
Why is it that peoples value the right to own a bathtub so dearly (even though plenty of people slip and die in one), while the right to talk and think without the state spying on you is worth little compared to the faint possibility that giving up on it might reduce your chance of being killed by terrorist from 20 million to 1 to some smaller ratio?
(http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp322/Telexer2/Stuff1z/OddsOfDying_zps43ad9694.png)
-h
-
Why is it that peoples value the right to own a bathtub so dearly (even though plenty of people slip and die in one), while the right to talk and think without the state spying on you is worth little compared to the faint possibility that giving up on it might reduce your chance of being killed by terrorist from 20 million to 1 to some smaller ratio?
-h
For starters, it might be nice being able to fly without getting an unwanted scan or having to take your shoes off in public. You can get to hate people wearing trainers. You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient. The implication that terrorism only counts if it kills you is naïve and simplistic.
Rob C
-
For starters, it might be nice being able to fly without getting an unwanted scan or having to take your shoes off in public. You can get to hate people wearing trainers. You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient. The implication that terrorism only counts if it kills you is naïve and simplistic.
Rob C
If I interpret your text correctly, then you seem to have misinterpreted my text. My point was not that terrorism does not affect society (it clearly does).
My point was that our fear for terrorists is largely irrational, our reactions to terrorism are probably the largest effect of terrorism on our society. If we have the choice between using "X" resources that decrease the chance of being hurt in a terrorist attack from 1/20000000 to 1/21000000 or using the same "X" resources to decrease the chance of being hurt in a traffic accident from 1/300 to 1/500, then it would seem to be a lot more sensible to do the latter.
Part of the problem is that we (the voters) usually don't get to know the cost vs benefit of such security. Security agencies may tell us that they have "stopped 100 potential attacks" due to a new surveilance system, a new law etc. Problem is, they may have an interest in lying to us. They may be lying to themselves. The politicians (often a select group of politicians) that have supported these changes also have an interest in sugar-coating the results, when have you ever heard of a politician saying that "the bill that I sponsored had only negative consequences, so I suggest we reverse it"?
I don't get to vote in the US, and the politicians of my country have little practical control over the levels of airport our security. But is there anyone anywhere that can say "no" to excessive airport security with a democratic vote? Or is this off the table for democracy?
I fear that illiberal politicians, bureaucrats and police (-like) people just love the opportunity that these terrorists gave them to increase their control and power over societies that have had (historically) unprecedented levels of true freedom. Of course, those of us who never did anything wrong don't have anything to fear when big brother knows our most intimate details. Yet.
-h
-
... You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient...
My dear friend, you do realize that is one thing terrorists are not responsible for. These are actions of our governments, too eager to show they are doing something, at best, or using it to inflame terrorism hysteria, as a smoke screen for power grab, at worst.
Those measures, our government forced upon us, as intrusive and inconvenient as they are, are equally inefficient (for their stated purpose, that is). Government own inspections have found that there is still a 40% chance of smuggling a gun or bomb into a plane. No, I am not dyslexic, it is not 0.4 or even 4.0, it is a whopping 40%.
One man put explosive in his shoes... millions are required to take them off year after year.
Tens of thousands die from guns every year... millions are required to do... nothing.
Go figure.
-
Indeed, it's our governments that give us airport security systems.
But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes? Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive? I mean, whodda thunk a flask could hold anything other than tea, right?
From my own point of view, if I am ever obliged to go on an aircraft again, I shall still resent the security inconvenience but understand absolutely the security man's job description. And be thankful that he offers whatever help that he can.
No, it's terrorism that created the travel situation, fogged enough of my film to be a problem; whether the security we have is miniscule in its effectivity isn't a reason to abandon it, it's a reason to improve it. Virgins in the promised land are still no great alternative to staying alive, even if popular conception suggests many believe the opposite.
I guess this is just another of those discussions where right and wrong depends on which moment in time you take to be the datum from which everything that follows begins.
Rob C
-
Thanks hjulenissen,
according to that data, it is time for a War On Bees. And Lightening. And, dare I mention Firearms In The Hands of The Incompetent, Angry, or Stupid. Or actually, a War on Junk Food: see item #1.
-
Thanks hjulenissen,
according to that data, it is time for a War On Bees. And Lightening. And, dare I mention Firearms In The Hands of The Incompetent, Angry, or Stupid. Or actually, a War on Junk Food: see item #1.
That is the core of my argument. There are many dangers in the world. We would be well advised to take actions against the most prominent ones (eat reasonable healthy, get some exercise, drive safely etc) if we want to have a long life without excessive pain or discomfort. Having absolute safety is impossible. Wasting your life, wealth, spare-time etc obsessing with miniscule threats is counter productive, as you are wasting e.g. time that should have been spent on the things that makes your life worthwhile. Our lifespan is, after all finite.
-h
-
Indeed, it's our governments that give us airport security systems.
But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes? Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive? I mean, whodda thunk a flask could hold anything other than tea, right?
They provide us with imperfect roads that cause death in the traffic. They provide us with imperfect airport security that cannot stop all terrorists. The rational viewpoint is to ask: "what is the cost, what is the benefit". If your government choose to use 1 billion on airport security that saves an expected 2 lives, while they could have spent the same billion on roads that could have saved an expected 10 lives, then they should be voted out of office.
No, it's terrorism that created the travel situation, fogged enough of my film to be a problem; whether the security we have is miniscule in its effectivity isn't a reason to abandon it, it's a reason to improve it. Virgins in the promised land are still no great alternative to staying alive, even if popular conception suggests many believe the opposite.
I guess this is just another of those discussions where right and wrong depends on which moment in time you take to be the datum from which everything that follows begins.
I am not saying that we should get rid of all airport security. I am saying that (unlike certain other things goverment do), it is very hard to _know_ if it is working and at what cost. I am saying that I _think_ that the cost vs benefit ratio is very low; it seems to me that it is largely about making us _feel_ safe. It seems to be some sort of selv-propelling "race" that is largely outside of practical political and democratic control.
If some people feel safer by being forced to wait forever in airport security and having to do various degrees of body searches, then that is fine by me. They may continue to do so as long as we others have an alternate entrance.
-h
-
They provide us with imperfect roads that cause death in the traffic. They provide us with imperfect airport security that cannot stop all terrorists. The rational viewpoint is to ask: "what is the cost, what is the benefit". If your government choose to use 1 billion on airport security that saves an expected 2 lives, while they could have spent the same billion on roads that could have saved an expected 10 lives, then they should be voted out of office.I am not saying that we should get rid of all airport security. I am saying that (unlike certain other things goverment do), it is very hard to _know_ if it is working and at what cost. I am saying that I _think_ that the cost vs benefit ratio is very low; it seems to me that it is largely about making us _feel_ safe. It seems to be some sort of selv-propelling "race" that is largely outside of practical political and democratic control.
If some people feel safer by being forced to wait forever in airport security and having to do various degrees of body searches, then that is fine by me. They may continue to do so as long as we others have an alternate entrance.
-h
AFAIK, for an alternative entrance you require a private jet.
;-)
Rob C
-
... But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes?...
Except me, you mean? And except I had in mind profit, not fun.
... Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive?...
Now consider this scenario: there already was a guy with a bomb in his briefs. The next thing would be, as many prisoners and smugglers already do, is to hide it "where the sun does not shine." The government response then? Body-cavity search for millions of passengers. But not to worry, I heard it would be a white-glove treatment. Oh, wait... latex glove... damn!
-
Except me, you mean? And except I had in mind profit, not fun.
Now consider this scenario: there already was a guy with a bomb in his briefs. The next thing would be, as many prisoners and smugglers already do, is to hide it "where the sun does not shine." The government response then? Body-cavity search for millions of passengers. But not to worry, I heard it would be a white-glove treatment. Oh, wait... latex glove... damn!
That could make some of those millions very happy fliers! However, those rubber gloves keep me away...
But just as seriously, why do you think that any and all alternatives aren't already known and possibly used? You must also know that electricity and dampness aren't good bedfellows...
" "Over five thousand years ago Moses said to the children of Israel "pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land."
Nearly 50 years ago, Harold Wilson said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the promised land."
Then Gordon Brown stole your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels, and mortgaged the promised land.
Now David Cameron has loaned my shovel to a third World country, (he hasn't realised yet that we are now a third World country), raised my fuel bills, lent my money to a crowd of incompetent, greedy "merchant bankers" and increased VAT to 20%.
I got so depressed last night I called the Samaritans, they diverted my call to a call centre in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal; they got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck." "
You see? We already have friendly enemies within...
;-)
Rob C