Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really don't think it would be a long-term issue. The really determined guys like Snowden leak anyway, and if a couple of small fries take this as a licence to leak, you prosecute them and that shuts that up.
Prosecute the small leaks not the big ones? I'm not sure I follow.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In the same way that the torture of Bradley Manning discouraged Snowden?
Uh, yes? The fact that he's running all around the world is evidence that what happened to Manning in on his mind. If leaking carried no punishment way more people would do it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Prosecute the small leaks not the big ones? I'm not sure I follow.
You prosecute the opportunists, if necessary. But people like Snowden would never be stopped this way.
The decision to prosecute is already making the US look foolish. Snowden could have been a forgotten nothing, but now he'll become an anti-American symbol, and the decision does nothing to dissuade serious leaking.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Uh, yes? The fact that he's running all around the world is evidence that what happened to Manning in on his mind. If leaking carried no punishment way more people would do it.
this might be nit picking, but I'd say he is following the route of Assange moreso than Manning.
Manning plead guilty and made a fantastic statement about his motives and behaved in a far more heroic fashion. Snowden could learn a lot from Manning, imho.
I'm not sure he should be charged as a traitor - MLK, after all, broke laws left and right, saying that there is a responsibility for humanity to perform civil disobedience when a law is truly "wrong."
Not trying to equate the two men at all, btw. But if he ever shows to trial, civil disobedience is a damn good defense.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the premise of innocent until proven guilty.And in situations where a person may be guilty, a warrant should still be required to wiretap or use surveillance.
Some call this too bureaucratic but it really isn't. That "system" of virtual checks and balances is there to ensure resources and time are not wasted on innocent people because you must first have a reasonable suspicion to get a warrant from a qualified judge.
That said, there is still room for corruption in such a system...it is just much harder to do than just blanket spying on everyone.
not only do we agree about this, I think the evidence is abundantly clear that such traditional policing methods are in fact more effective at fighting terrorism.
Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative is using an AI to monitor everyone and no humans are involved, at all, unless the AI sends up a red-flag monitor. Certain filters could be used (definitions) and heuristic algorithms used to catch coded behaviors (code speak or bad behavior that is masked).The kinks would have to be worked out to reduce false-positives at a tolerable rate of false-negatives.
That's a mildly fascist system, however. I wouldn't want that. The technology loving side of me says it is okay. The libertarian (live and let live) side of me says that's wrong even if the intentions are right.
I'm not 100% against such a system, I would just prefer it be discussed and debated in a democratic manner, not done with no oversight and in secret. If such a system is needed to fight terrorism, I'd love to hear the argument.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think if we lived in a more "reasonable" world the way it would have gone is that Snowden goes through the proper channels, the government is exposed, the government admits their wrongdoing, some people are fired, Snowden is given a light sentence for breaking his oath and compromising government security, and the public gains some insight and is reminded that we must be vigilant about government power.
the unfortunate problem in reality is that there is such bi-partisan agreement about these NSA programs that the "proper" channels are almost certainly going to produce something similar to Manning's incarceration. Snowden doesn't strike me as a man with the courage of his convictions to stand up for people's privacy in such a circumstance.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Instead Snowden tries to pull an Assange, the government brushes off criticism and claims that this is all necessary, and China capitalizes on it and does the "you got your hand caught in the cookie jar" dance, even though the worst allegations from Snowden's leak aren't even as bad as the day to day reality of Chinese internet surveillance and internal affairs.
indeed, then flies to Russia and is rumored to be headed to Cuba or Venezuela (among other nations). Not really the top destinations of people concerned about government spying on their people.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In a representative system this is a complicated issue. Elected representatives were told about the program which means that "the people" were informed. State secrets are done this way in an effort to follow the principle of democracy without compromising the secrets. Of course, since the public didn't know about these programs when they elected the representatives one could argue this standard is critically flawed.
given the approval levels of all branches of government in America, I don't see how one could possibly make such an argument.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The attitude of Chinese bloggers toward Snowden is puzzling. I wonder if their admiration for him is due to him embarrassing the foreign devil United States, or if it's out of a desire for a homegrown leaker.
if they are the bloggers the Chinese state employs as part of its propoganda arm, likely the former
Originally posted by Oliver Norththe unfortunate problem in reality is that there is such bi-partisan agreement about these NSA programs that the "proper" channels are almost certainly going to produce something similar to Manning's incarceration. Snowden doesn't strike me as a man with the courage of his convictions to stand up for people's privacy in such a circumstance.
indeed, then flies to Russia and is rumored to be headed to Cuba or Venezuela (among other nations). Not really the top destinations of people concerned about government spying on their people.
It seems to be a problem that befalls even brilliant people like Noam Chomsky, who became a camp follower of Hugo Chavez because he stood for land reform and opposition to American intervention in Latin America--that it's difficult to avoid binary thinking with geopolitics, as if in any given situation one country must be right and the other must be wrong, and if you don't like a certain country then you have to support that country's opponents. I'll admit I fall victim to this all the time. I support the Syrian rebels even while it seems more and more clear that the moderates are being crowded out by radicals.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought it was set up so that the computers scanned everything for keywords.
It may be. But the difference between what I proposed and what happens now: the suggestion I have is to only "save" the information if the active scans return a positive result.
Whereas, now, the big hoopla was it was all being stored AND scanned. The current setup is more "everyone is guilty" than my suggestion. However, even my suggestion can be argued to be "everyone is guilty" because it is still actively scanning.
In government IT, there are guidelines and rules about gathering and storing information. Just scanning traffic is not as "bad" as storing all of it, from a digital forensics perspective. If the scanners ONLY store/create an audit file when a positive results, it is a much less intense operation. The only reason you would want to store all the phone, e-mail, and/or internet traffic for an individual is if you strongly suspected that person of truly heinous crimes. That's the step you take, in the Cyber Security community, if you know a person is guilty but need to get hard evidence on the remainder of their activities (to escalate the charges). This is part of why there is such a large outrage at what the NSA is doing: that's a pretty bad way to treat innocent people.
You probably know all of this, actually. Not sure why I am rambling. I could talk about this stuff for ages.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm curious. which evidence is that?
to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).
Whereas plots that have been stopped, the finding of the 9-11 masterminds, Bin Laden, and essentially all other counter-terrorism that has been successful has been based on traditional intelligence and law enforcement methods.
I'm not a super expert on any specific case, but I can elaborate a bit on some of the successful operations. For instance, interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11.
Originally posted by Oliver North
to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).
This may become less true as the AI is developed and matured into a more robust solution. Then it becomes a case of looking for a needle in a haystack (even if the needle is painted in the same colors as the hay) with a giant electromagnet.
Right now, the heuristic algorithms are becoming so adept at detecting impropriety that they can detect when a person using a secured network is about to initiate an attack and even proactively shut the terminal down. Quite literally, the psychology behind the actions is being heavily analyzed, simulated, tested, and then solutions deployed.*
When reading a white paper on this, they mentioned that the pace at which these solutions are improving is exponentially faster than what Moore's Law states for hardware (and exponent raised to an exponent, gaspity).
*So good, in fact, that there was work done that was adequately predicting when an attack would be initiated before the attacker knew they were going to do it...just based on their activity. Their behavior, even though they did nothing wrong, gives a "tell". That's some Minority Report level shit, right there. 😬
Originally posted by Oliver North
interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11.
lulz, "enhanced". Just go ahead and call it torture. 🙂
Originally posted by Oliver Northi see. what's curious about that is that if it's so ineffective then i have to wonder why they would continue to waste so much money and time on it. also, it makes me wonder why it's seen as such a threat to our privacy that they have collected such data. i understand the principle behind such an objection... but practically speaking wouldn't that make it sort of a non-issue?
to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).Whereas plots that have been stopped, the finding of the 9-11 masterminds, Bin Laden, and essentially all other counter-terrorism that has been successful has been based on traditional intelligence and law enforcement methods.
I'm not a super expert on any specific case, but I can elaborate a bit on some of the successful operations. For instance, interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11.
p.s.: didn't 'enhanced' methods lead in part to locating osama?
Originally posted by dadudemon
This may become less true as the AI is developed and matured into a more robust solution. Then it becomes a case of looking for a needle in a haystack (even if the needle is painted in the same colors as the hay) with a giant electromagnet.Right now, the heuristic algorithms are becoming so adept at detecting impropriety that they can detect when a person using a secured network is about to initiate an attack and even proactively shut the terminal down. Quite literally, the psychology behind the actions is being heavily analyzed, simulated, tested, and then solutions deployed.*
When reading a white paper on this, they mentioned that the pace at which these solutions are improving is exponentially faster than what Moore's Law states for hardware (and exponent raised to an exponent, gaspity).
*So good, in fact, that there was work done that was adequately predicting when an attack would be initiated before the attacker knew they were going to do it...just based on their activity. Their behavior, even though they did nothing wrong, gives a "tell". That's some Minority Report level shit, right there. 😬
as a psychologist I find that laughable, but will concede when the government decides to let the public in on how it busts up terrorist cells using such a program.
Originally posted by dadudemon
lulz, "enhanced". Just go ahead and call it torture. 🙂
I personally find the childish euphemisms more troubling
Originally posted by red g jacks
i see. what's curious about that is that if it's so ineffective then i have to wonder why they would continue to waste so much money and time on it. also, it makes me wonder why it's seen as such a threat to our privacy that they have collected such data. i understand the principle behind such an objection... but practically speaking wouldn't that make it sort of a non-issue?
stopping terrorism is only the expressed justification for such a system.
In essence, the NSA wants to be a more sophisticated version of the Stasi, but can't just say that directly, so they use "terrorism" as a way to justify their actions. Make no mistake, this system was designed to control you and the American public, not keep you safe.
Originally posted by red g jacks
p.s.: didn't 'enhanced' methods lead in part to locating osama?
no, not even close
that was the major controversy behind zero dark thirty, in fact
Originally posted by Oliver North
as a psychologist I find that laughable, but will concede when the government decides to let the public in on how it busts up terrorist cells using such a program.
Obviously, places like the NSA will not declassify information on how or what they did with that information until they are good and ready.
But, you studied criminal psychology, right? I'm pretty sure you've talked in depth about that massive area of psychology, before. I've taken a single semester and it focused more on the IT side. I would just assume it focuses much more on the terrorism aspect of it and much less on the hacker side. I would really like to spend years studying that.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I personally find the childish euphemisms more troubling
I don't get it. 🙁
Originally posted by Oliver North
given the approval levels of all branches of government in America, I don't see how one could possibly make such an argument.
It's not a secret that Americans dislike the word government. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Representative democracy is based on the belief that it is impractical or undesirable to have everyone 100% engaged in governing the people select people to represent them. The representatives of the people knew what was going on so the people still have control over these projects.
This is more of a strike against the US system of representative democracy than in favor of PRISM but it is relevant. Lots of people remember Lincoln's line about government being "by the people" and "for the people" but it starts with "of the people" for a reason. Representatives are people (in the literal sense) and part of the people (in the political sense), that's the point.