
NSA says warrantless searches of Americans’ data rose in 2018 - 0xmohit
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/30/nsa-surveillance-spike/
======
sfsfsf6666
If the NSA were a noble creature, we could rest easy.

There is no nobility in our governments though. No grace. They'll often trade
data, up and down, with local governments, and the local governments can
benefit from that federal warrantless data.

When the state of Arizona sweeps up all the non-licensed manicurists in
Phoenix, and you're wondering "How the hell did Sheriff Billy Bob know about
all these people..."

When you hear that really bad people will only be the targets of 4th amendment
violations, don't be naive. Don't believe a word of it. And don't forget that
government finds low hanging fruit absolutely delicious. "Look at what we got
done." -says some random bureaucrat. While collecting some of the fattest
pensions this side of the industrial revolution.

~~~
shawndumas
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological
personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the
corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a
condition to which they are quickly addicted.”

------
zigzaggy
Warrantless searches will continue to rise, as will the other forms of
surveillance, data collection, etc. as long as we let it happen. As long as
most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the
government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in
breaches.

Not many people I know would trust the government enough to let them do what
they're doing if they truly understood. I think by the time we - as a society
- realize all of the the implications, it will be much too late.

In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever
gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive
collection of intimate data.

~~~
50656E6973
>As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's
implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then
lose the data in breaches.

Why are you only concerned about the government accruing mass troves of data,
then losing them in breaches?

>In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever
gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive
collection of intimate data.

While I'm inclined to agree, there are _many_ people who happily give up the
most intimate details of their lives for extremely small conveniences.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the
population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s).

This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and
ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along.
Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.

~~~
themacguffinman
How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to
death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that
the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way?
Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are
wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant
ideas.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Not my ideas. Ideas in general. I have noted that most people don't like ideas
and aren't capable of dealing with them without getting really emotional. But
my personal observation is backed by data. In the Milgram experiments, 65% of
people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an
authority told them so.

So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to
go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about
people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy
stand?

I'm hardly a bastion of uniqueness by being part of the 35% who isn't semi-
drone-ish in following authority.

Interesting that the idea I brought wasn't addressed, though you did take the
time to try and attack my character. Oh, and put words in my mouth by implying
it is MY ideas that should be considered, when I never mentioned such a thing.

Anyway, even if your cartoonish depiction of my perspective were true, maybe
you could be so kind as to inform this horrible patronizing person why his
though process is wrong?

~~~
themacguffinman
I didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours (I can't edit my
comment unfortunately), but I'm not really sure how that would be an attack on
your character anyway.

This response misses the point though. I don't need to dispute the Milgram
experiment[1] or vague claims that "65% of people just want to go along" to
attack this "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy and self serving. In
this world and age awash with so many ideas of all kinds, hard-fought and won
by people who didn't just idly speculate that their ideas were too brilliant
for others to understand, it's a poor excuse to offer this up as an
explanation. I can say this about anything. It doesn't change or reveal
anything except some cherry picked numbers that vaguely imply the dog ate your
homework without convincing anyone else that you did your homework in the
first place (and I mean "your homework" in the general sense, not targeted at
you or implying that the homework was your duty).

[1] although you should be more skeptical of its conclusions
[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-
one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/)

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Ok, so now I'm not just patronizing, I'm lazy and self serving.

Trying to understand your post, the best I could make out, is that 'I
shouldn't use these experiments as a justification to not spread my own good
ideas or spread the good ideas of other people... or 'you in the general
sense' to mean other people spreading other peoples ideas'.

Is this correct? Like, is this the basis for your rebuttal? If not, what is?
I'm trying to un package your point, which seems muddled.

BTW, you didn't imply, you said it directly:

> your brilliant ideas

> didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours

That type of conversation reminds me of a narcissist boss I had. Whenever he
was in the wrong, he couldn't admit he was wrong. So when in such a position
(we all are there sometimes), he would explain that 'he never meant to imply
what he said, he meant what everyone else was saying that was the contrary of
what his words meant by a dictionary definition' It was a mind trip dealing
with him and his mental gymnastics.

~~~
themacguffinman
The generic "you" is a real thing [1]. I've tried to clarify this because my
stated intention is to attack the "biological" explanation as patronizing,
lazy, and self-serving, not you as a whole person.

I can't stop you from taking things all of my words personally, I can only
offer more words to say that I was speaking in a non-targeted way. I don't
think it's helpful for us to continue without agreeing on this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you)

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Don't be _nice_ 1, it is the _silly_ 2 who manage to _gaily_ 3 find truth,
even if in _senile_ 4 maturity. I'd rather have _naughty_ 5 in my bank, than
get a _myriad_ 6 of dollars per month and have to deal with people splitting
hairs. My wife may be a _spinster_ 7 who sells _clue_ 8, but in her role as
_hussy_ 9, she has taught me never to _fathom_ 10 someone who isn't _awful_
11.

 _1 - Meaning dumb, see definition 5
at[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice)

_2 - Meaning blessed, see adjective defnition 2 at
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silly](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silly)

 _3 - Meaning happy

_ 4 - Meaning elder without any pejorative connotation.

 _5 - Meaning zero

_ 6 - Meaning 10,000 exactly.

 _7 - Someone who spins yarn, not related to sexuality

_ 8 - A ball of yarn.

 _9 - Meaning mistress /master of the house, nothing related to sexuality

_10 - Meaning hug, embrace with both arms

*11 - Worthy of awe.

------
wybiral
The weird part to me is that the US Intelligence Community is using Tumblr for
communicating these reports to the public.

~~~
oil25
It seems to be part of a larger PR effort to appear socially acceptable and
relatable in a post-Snowden world.

------
thatoneuser
Did anyone expect it to do anything but rise? They have power and they want
more. Pick up that can citizen.

------
sarcasmatwork
Has there been a single incident where the NSA stopped any terrorist attacks,
mass shootings etc? There is SO much data that its entirely possible the NSA
can't screen everything thus things slip though. This is still a clear
violation of the 4th amendment imho.

~~~
Fnoord
The more secret an agency is, the less likely you'll hear about the great
achievements they've done for your country on the short term. On the long
term, it might end up declassified. That's the conundrum of secret services.
The public cannot possibly assess their performance.

As for the needle in a haystack point. Bill Binney architected a system which
was targeted. The NSA rejected it...

~~~
mLuby
>The public cannot possibly assess their performance.

Respectfully, that's not true. Secret programs can still be judged on their
inputs and outputs: eg "we spent $50B and averted 17 attacks, saving
potentially 15,000 lives and $500B in economic damage." What possible
information can that give an adversary?

~~~
irishcoffee
I consider it more like the defense of American football. A good defense is
good. They could not allow the opposing offense to score any points all game.
What should the defense claim? "We prevented 21 points from being scored!" No.
They have no idea how many points they prevented.

NSA is a thankless organization. You don't know all the things they've done
well, and they get blamed whenever anything bad happens.

~~~
jackpirate
It's pretty straightforward to quantify how good a football defensive team is.

> We had 5 sacks, 3 interceptions, and limited the opposing offense to
> 200yards gained.

Is obviously better than

> We had 0 sacks, 0 interceptions, and the opposing offense took 400 yards.

Even if in both games the opposing offense scored the same number of points.

~~~
irishcoffee
I agree, it's not a perfect analogy. I think the point stands.

~~~
frankbreetz
I think his point is it possible to quantify what the NSA does and not reveal
anything classified. Similar to how you can quantify how good a football
defense is even if you don't know every play, or anything about their
strategies, who is on there team, how many players were on the field.

~~~
irishcoffee
Are there many/any government agencies that quantify things to validate their
existence?

~~~
frankbreetz
Schools have tests. I get a newsletter from my local government a few times a
year that says how they are spending my money, especially if they are pushing
for a levy. Any program that is in jeopardy of losing funding publishing some
sort of "this is why you should keep giving us money" like NASA or an arts
program. For example:
[https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html](https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html)

------
mkdirdaniel
Regarding data collection, it's hard to make people care. It's like smoking or
(some) drugs; as long as the effect is gradual and not immediate, people won't
care.

It takes someone who values freedom and privacy, and/or tech savvy folks that
understand the implications of data collection, to actually care.

It's unfortunate, but most are not even willing to take 15 minutes and re-
configure the settings on their phone to increase privacy. For more people to
care, I think it'll have to affect them directly, in a negative and
embarrassing way.

------
parliament32
I thought the source link was a joke at first... why is US Intelligence
publishing releases on Tumblr, of all places?

>Additional public information on national security authorities is available
at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s website, www.dni.gov,
the Intelligence Community’s public website, www.intel.gov, and ODNI’s public
Tumblr site, IC on the Record at IContheRecord.tumblr.com.

------
craftinator
I'd vote for the NSA to be disbanded, all personnel fired, all equipment
destroyed. Would anyone else vote for that?

~~~
PorterDuff
In that case, another agency would simply pick up the slack.

I'll propose an alternative idea. Repurpose the NSA towards hardening
communications infrastructure in terms of both reliability and anonymity. Use
them to help test software for vulnerabilities or even design better software.

At this rate, realistically, how many years until they (and their brethren)
are the power behind the throne. In a surveillance era, some version of
GoogleCIA will have the ability to move or alter elections in any way they
like. It's always for the best reasons of course.

~~~
sverige
> In a surveillance era, some version of GoogleCIA will have the ability to
> move or alter elections in any way they like. It's always for the best
> reasons of course.

I think we're past that tipping point already.

~~~
PorterDuff
I'm thinking more in the form of actually driving all policy rather than
merely placing a desired candidate in office.

For all I know, maybe we've already hit that point.

Even the Soviets managed a rough balance between party/army/intelligence
services, but modern surveillance and parsing have some serious mojo.

I guess it'll become more obvious once the CIA Directorship becomes an
inherited position.

------
OrgNet
Are they proud of it? What is going on? They used to lie about this stuff.
Maybe they are trying to pin this law on Trump?
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-
section-7...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-
section-702-deeply-troubling-heres-why)

