
Administration Using the Full Power of the Surveillance State on Whistleblowers - humantiy
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/04/whistleblowers-surveillance-fbi-trump/
======
komali2
> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the
> United States

There are two versions of the United States.

1\. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not
injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight
they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government
officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the
government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be
revoked.

2\. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and
probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to
union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be
deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets
out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys
trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the
people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters
don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of,
it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal
ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody
challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1.
Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely
Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not
drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's
another example of enemies of #2 but not #1).

As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously
being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2"
above.

~~~
Clubber
>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to
realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism
that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest,
illegal and immoral ones if needs must.

Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.

~~~
komali2
Speaking from experience with them, they seem to think the 2nd amendment must
necessarily be respected by the very government they think is allowing them
the guns to threaten said government with in the first place. That's the
cognitive hole I'm pointing to - if they stockpile weapons to eventually
potentially overthrow the US government, they must do so knowing that it will
be illegal to do so regardless - the 2nd amendment won't protect them in that
case, and is thus practically useless for what they think it's useful for.

AKA, the life of a militiaman that intends to use weapons to overthrow the USA
is, to the USA, the life of a terrorist/rebel/enemy of the state. It's not a
constitutionally protected state of existence.

~~~
rayiner
The 2A doesn’t protect the use of arms against the government, and I don’t
think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that. The point is to prevent the
government from disarming the populace _before_ such action might be required.

~~~
dragonwriter
Actually, no, the point is to prevent the government from deciding it needs to
rely on professional police and military forces for day-to-day defense against
domestic and international security threats, instead relying on _ad hoc_
levies from the general population for those purposes, making it unthinkable
both in terms of capacity and inclination that the “government security
services” could suppress the general civilian population, since the former as
a separate group by profession, class, etc.—but for very small standing cadres
providing institutional knowledge and continuity— _would not exist_. But that
ship has rather sailed, and the 2A failed in its purpose, but it still hangs
around, and even it's defenders have forgotten what it was there for.

------
caf
As I read through I didn't think there was too much to this - if we're going
to have big classified databases then strong auditing is absolutely essential
and I'm glad it's happening (people selling the data in them to corporations
and governments is absolutely a valid concern).

I'm happy I kept reading though, because I thought this bit down near the
bottom was insightful:

 _Authentication, which often involves sharing information about the contents
of a forthcoming story with the government, is a common journalistic practice
that allows the government to weigh in on any risks involved in publishing the
material of which the journalist may not be aware. By turning that process
into a trap for journalists and sources, the government is sacrificing an
opportunity to safeguard its legitimate interests and tell its side of the
story._

------
apo
> On August 8, 2014, dozens of FBI agents raided Hale’s house with guns drawn
> and searched his computer and flash drives. This all happened during the
> Obama administration, which declined to file charges. Five years later,
> Trump’s Justice Department revived the case.

The article fails to point out that it was the Obama administration that
really turned up the heat on whistleblowers:

[https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-
tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/)

I suspect that at the time many Obama supporters simply didn't care. Their guy
was in charge and that was that.

Short-sighted to be sure.

Far too few considered the possibility that the opposition was watching and
learning what new things might be possible.

~~~
dmix
Plus the expansion of power and side stepping of normal legal process by the
executive branch became normalized under the George Bush administration which
was well documented by one of his top White House lawyers, which he well
documented in the book ‘The Terror Presidency’ and who later started the
excellent Lawfare blog.

[https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-
American/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-
American/dp/0307456293)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith)

[https://www.lawfareblog.com/](https://www.lawfareblog.com/)

This included a big expansion of the black budget agencies and their power
since it was the one thing the exec has strong control over and little public
blowback because of the secret courts and classified nature.

~~~
dmix
Looks like I linked to the wrong book on mobile:

Correct link: [https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-
Adm...](https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-
Administration/dp/039333533X/)

------
carapace
I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The
technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits
are clear.

If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane
and self-referential.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling
effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the
premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane
system, maybe, but no humans in it.

Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance
restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a
degree, it's like outlawing books with more than 10 pages. Humans as we
cherish them today -- ones with agency and spontaneity -- cannot exist in such
conditions, meaningful social progress will stop.

~~~
carapace
Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance.
Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption
in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be
lemon-soaked paper napkins."

At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you
have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular.

So, since we cannot (I believe) do without the surveillance, can we remove the
chilling effect?

For example, in Star Trek the computer always knew where everyone was (unless
the script called for a mysterious disappearance) and no one felt stifled, eh?

~~~
dmix
We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for
protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the
name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than
enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge.

Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the
whole purpose.

~~~
clubm8
>We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for
protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

Do you have a citation for that claim?

There are vast[1] systems in place that violate laws and norms, so much so the
IETF has labeled pervasive monitoring as an "attack"[2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_\(2013%E2%80%93present\)#Global_surveillance)
[2] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258)

~~~
dmix
None of the things you linked to use the traditional warrant system.
Particularly the whole FISA system and our terrorist laws here in Canada which
sidestepped criminal courts entirely.

~~~
clubm8
not really sure what your point is so maybe you can clarify: are you saying
it's ok to have a separate type of warrant for terrorists?

"traditional warrant system" is not a legal term. FISA warrants are warrants.
Highly problematic, but warrants.

You may be interested in reading about how even FISA felt the NSA overstepped:

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7axey/this-is-the-
secret...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7axey/this-is-the-secret-court-
order-that-forced-the-nsa-to-delete-the-data-it-collected-about-you)

------
Elpomm
Conservatism should be about maintaining checks and balances that keep the
government honest. IMO this is something that even Trump's supporters should
be concerned about, especially if they themselves lean a bit libertarian.

~~~
detcader
The most profitable central principle for a party of corporations is
deregluation of _industry_. Scaling up of the military and authoritarianism is
a profitable choice as well. Those are two main incentives of many
conservative parties and groups. The unifying principle of conservatism is:
survival of the fittest. The strongest, toughest country, business, and
individual has the right to survive. Helping and trying to understand other
countries, situations, people? Irrational, weak.

~~~
481092
>The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest

This isn't just a principle of a party but a natural law. This is displayed in
liberal politics also. Life is a fight using powers as a utility, hard and
soft powers. Liberals tend to bank on using the powers of certain ideologies,
many as vague as conservative ideologies, in order for those ideologies to
survive. Some use the soft power of love which may prove sometimes to be
fittest when that power gathers enough political support, some use the hard
powers of war and competition which may seem fittest in some occasions. And of
course, love and warfare is seen and used in both/all parties even when they
don't seem to realize it, sometimes hypocritically on the surface but often
when you look deep enough, you see the forces of natural law shining through
and it's not just love and war against each other, it's just organisms which
may be ideological, biological, etc competing in what some would view as a
thermodynamic machine racing towards entropic neutrality.

But to say only conservatives employ 'survival of the fittest' is such a vast
simplification.

~~~
detcader
If everyday human life must echo the eons-long process of evolution, can we
say the same for other natural laws? Gravity is a natural law; so people
inevitably bow to their superiors? People bowing to each other is gravity
shining through! But capillary action is another natural law, so it means
people inevitably rise up to best their superiors...

When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight' law
falls to pieces. Beings are capable of generosity without a gaining idea, and
most of us have encountered this as part of our lives. I have found that
lovingkindness and compassion are boundless in every sentient being's heart.

I think self-identified 'liberals' generally don't have any concrete
principles about power itself. As long as it is illegal to not treat all
people equally, liberals seem to think government power should increase to the
extent that it can relieve suffering and foster generosity. Parts of the left,
with its civil libertarians and Proudhon anarchists, think about power in a
deeper and more heterodox way...

~~~
maximente
> When my cat cuddles up to me on the bed, this natural 'life is a fight' law
> falls to pieces. Beings are capable of generosity without a gaining idea,
> and most of us have encountered this as part of our lives.

devil's advocate: your cat does this so that you continue to feed/protect/pay
attention to it.

you may not like that negative point of view, but it seems like a reasonable
strategy for survival in a really tough world pre-modern era (still is tough
for many).

~~~
detcader
My partner feeds and plays with ours cats (I don't have as much time)

------
sarcasmatwork
Obama started, Trump continued. Not good for anyone.

~~~
cronix
Bush started after 9/11.

~~~
ralusek
Patriot Act and the NDAA are nails in the coffin of a free society.

~~~
Arubis
This does strike true. A useful inquiry would be: what can we do about it? The
technological sidestepping game seems to be running out of steam.

~~~
maximente
one thing i've been thinking about is one issue political parties.

"our mission, once elected, is to..."

US example: thinking about medical care here: what if a political party came
out and said, "we don't care about marijuana, gay marriage, federal debt, ...:
only getting medical care for all.

you'll say, well that's impossible, people won't vote for them without knowing
e.g. what their stance on abortion is.

but... i'm convinced those wedge issues are what keep the 2 party system
intact. they'll just ruin you by pitting the other k % of people against you
as mortal enemies, demonizing and alienating those voters. easy example is
abortion, who probably have a lot of bright line voters.

anyway, it'd be really tough, as would any new political party in the US,
would be attacked endlessly by the RepubliCrats. but, seems like an
interesting thought nonetheless.

~~~
bo1024
You'd be interested in alternative voting systems, for example direct
democracy or liquid democracy, proportional representation, ....

------
auslander
There is a contradiction: "Although Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, doesn’t
have access to the content of those backed-up messages, Google and Apple do."
and

" 'iMessage communications are end-to-end encrypted and Apple has no way to
decrypt iMessage data when it is in transit between devices,' the guidelines
state."

I would say it is the other way around, FB and Google _can_ access the content
of messages, Apple can not.

~~~
SanchoPanda
They may be referring to messages which were sent as end to end encrypted, but
were later backed up in Google drive or Dropbox etc. in plaintext. This is
something I have done in the past.

