I did titter when Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page announced that there was no way Facebook & Google would allow the NSA to harvest information.

Of course they wouldn't but only because the NSA wouldn't pay the commercial rate

What a paranoid lot you are. The very fair reasoning is that, if the government knows, sees, hears and reads everything you say or do in your entire life, without exception, then it can eliminate crime. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

Steve Bell in today's Guardian



Don't have nightmares folks

Is it the extent of phone-tapping etc that is seen as the problem, or the lack of control and accountability? I thought they were able to do this sort of data mining previously, just with court permission?

Reminds me a bit of Christopher Boyce from the Falcon and the Snowman (great movie BTW). He supposedly had similar motives for his leaks, but ended up in the slammer. Mind you, after he escaped he also started robbing banks...

I think it's more that nobody really knows what these agencies are actually doing or what they're allowed to do. It feels, even if its not true, that they can do virtually what they like.

If its as I've heard that they cannot read the content of these communications without a specific warrant and its just the details like who you're contacting, duration, volume etc then that doesn't worry me too much as I believe that's just extending current powers of surveillance from the physical to the digital/electronic world. I'm sure I read somewhere that the FBI has had the power to record the number of and who you were sending anything through the post to for decades in America.

However, if that's not the case and they can or do read content then that bothers me very much for obvious reasons. As does the concern about how easy it may be to obtain warrants from "tame" judges.
It's obviously a difficult one, because if the government come out and explain exactly what these agencies do then it obviously leaves loopholes open immediately for people to avoid being caught. If they don't then it merely adds to the feeling that no-ones in control of these agencies.

Whatever the reality is though, I think there needs to be much stronger parliamentary control and more transparency, though I understand some things are always going to need to be secret.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:What a paranoid lot you are. The very fair reasoning is that, if the government knows, sees, hears and reads everything you say or do in your entire life, without exception, then it can eliminate crime. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:What a paranoid lot you are. The very fair reasoning is that, if the government knows, sees, hears and reads everything you say or do in your entire life, without exception, then it can eliminate crime. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

It's the lack of accountability in that the courts in the US that issue warrants are not a grand jury or equivalent (as they should be according to the constitution) but are secret courts set up specifically for the job. The argument is all they do is rubber stamp warrant applications.

There is also the problem that the various acts are vaguely worded in in a legal sense. For example it's entirely plausible for the NSA to be saying they want to tap into communications of someone who they think is outside the USA (which would be legal if they were) when the suspicion is they are being deliberately disingenuous to use apparent non-residence as the excuse to look at someone within the USA. They breaks the 4th amendment and is also what leads to accusations of rubber stamping warrant applications.

DaveO wrote:If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html I think he just might have been taking the p!ss.

DaveO wrote:If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html I think he just might have been taking the p!ss.

DaveO wrote:If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html I think he just might have been taking the p!ss.

DaveO wrote:If I am paranoid you are naive. Read these two links and then come back and tell me you still think the "nothing to hide..." position is still valid. http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html I think he just might have been taking the p!ss.

Good post.

To add, though: I think it helps to create a paranoid climate – not just in terms of 'security' and its supposed needs, but also in terms of the sort of comments about us having to accept that privacy is dead.

It seems quite extraordinary how many people are so easily lulled into the belief that (to whatever degree it is happening) widescale surveillance is acceptable: 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' etc.

I bet the same people still:

• think that the kind of surveillance operated (for example) by the Stasi in the DDR was wrong;

• wonder how people in the DDR (and other countries) could be lulled into accepting and going along with such levels of state surveillance.