
US spy device 'tested on NZ public' - SCdF
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10886031
======
polemic
Note that this alludes to the latest technique being used to erode privacy:
the idea that "metadata" is somehow distinct and less deserving of protection
than [other stuff]. The implication is "metadata" (like phone logs) is not
really "data", which is absurd and dangerous.

~~~
rayiner
Its not new. Metadata (e.g. addresses on the outside of envelopes sent in the
mail) have never been considered private.

~~~
unclebucknasty
No. Whether it's new depends on the specific meta data being captured.

Also, what is new is the scale of meta data capture and analysis capabilities
enabled by current technology. It is silly to say that authorities have
historically looked at postal addresses on envelopes, so that makes it also OK
to sniff virtually all forms of meta data for all forms of electronic
communications. You can extrapolate that point into inanity, such that
virtually anything is fair game.

Here, you are literally using what was permissible with Pony Express
technology to make the case that it should still be permissible (or is at
least no different) in today's hyper-connected world.

But, at some point, technical capabilities render safeguards in old laws
obsolete, and we must take a fresh look at long relied upon precedents. Some
of those precedents are based on capabilities available at the time, long
before many of those available today could even be imagined. When that
happens, there is a material difference in implication and meaning.

~~~
rayiner
So let me get this straight. In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we
_shouldn't_ consider how new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate
in new ways, perhaps rendering existing privacy protections obsolete, but we
_should_ consider how new technologies that allow more effective policing
might render existing exceptions to the privacy protections obsolete.

Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to
reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the
context of modern communications. Their approach boils down to "do whatever
makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." Which goes wholly
against what the founders intended when they wrote that limitations on the
power of police to search must be "reasonable."

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we shouldn't consider how
> new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate in new ways_

No one said that. The converse of that is actually what you're doing, and I
simply called you on it. That is, you are not accounting for new technology
when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail
envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications
intercept and analysis capabilities. Your argument rests on "oh, nothing new
about that. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving."

> _Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how
> to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the
> context of modern communications_

What is this term "privacy advocate"? I don't consider myself one, because I
reject it on its face. There should be no such term in this "debate", because
per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. That people like you so
casually bandy about the term, as if your fellow citizens are asking for
something foreign or not already a guaranteed right, is testament to how far
we've gone astray. If anything, we should instead call you a "privacy-
destruction advocate" or perhaps "anti-Constitution". Yours is the outlying
position.

In any event, there is a simple test for the balance you suggest and that is
whether, in keeping up with modern communications, we are affording law
enforcement with _more_ capabilities or eroding privacy. I think it's pretty
clear that especially since 9/11, that balance you reference has tipped much
more heavily in law enforcement's favor. So, as much as you may sympathize
with the government, they are doing just fine. The question is, where would
you have them stop?

> _Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the
> police to do their work."_

It's ridiculous to suggest that's the intent. That you feel the need to re-
characterize our position in such a silly manner reveals your insecurity in
defending your argument against the very real and significantly weightier
_actual_ arguments made by people like myself.

~~~
rayiner
> No one said that.

People say it all the time. It's the go-to retort whenever anyone brings up
the fact that new technologies allow criminals to coordinate and plot in new
ways. "Why do we need new laws to fight Al Qaeda?"

> That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly
> comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years
> ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and
> analysis capabilities.

It's not a silly comparison. The internet may not have existed 100+ years ago,
but people did, and the mechanics of people are remarkably stable. The
underlying dynamic: certain information not falling within the scope of
privacy rights because its made plainly visible, is mechanically similar
whether you're talking about addresses scrolled on postal envelopes or e-mail
addresses in an SMTP header.

> here should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution,
> privacy should be the default.

The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "private"
appears just once (in the phrase "private property"). The 4th amendment has
certain guarantees that protect certain kinds of privacy,[1] but not the broad
guarantee of "privacy" that you imply. Specifically, the 4th amendment
protects your house and your person from unreasonable searches. It's not a
blanket right of privacy that protects your communications, even in contexts
where those communications are disclosed to numerous third parties.

[1] But the 4th amendment need not be interpreted in terms of a broader
concept of "privacy" at all.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _People say it all the time._

Perhaps you can stick to what the real people to whom you are replying here
are actually saying vs. what those imaginary people are saying somewhere in
the universe. That was probably the most obvious straw man I have ever seen on
HN and definitely the first admission of having constructed one.

> _The mechanics of peope are remarkably stable...the underlying
> dynamic...mechanically similar..._

No. None of that. I mean those words really sound great when strung together
that way, but you've just repeated yourself and it is no more true now than
before. You have already acknowledged that technology has changed, but you
don't want to acknowledge that so called "keeping pace" by the government can
and does amount to additional privacy intrusions. You just offer up a blanket,
"oh, it's all the same", as if sniffing every packet of every electronic
communication would be the same as human beings reading addresses on postal
envelopes. Sorry. Still silly, no matter how many action-packed adverbs you
throw in.

Of course, your tutorial on how infrequently the actual word "privacy" appears
in the Constitution is silly as well. Obviously, much of what the Constitution
expresses in so many ways with regard to protection from the government rolls
up under "privacy". That you are arguing the _privacy_ word count is spurious.
Citizens simply cannot have protection from the government or liberty itself
without privacy, including the right to communicate with other private
citizens without having virtually any or all such communications intercepted
and analyzed by the government. How you can divorce such basic, common sense
tenets from the very spirit of the Constitution is remarkable.

But, I guess when it became clear that enhanced capabilities do amount to a
further intrusion on privacy, your only recourse was to redefine privacy and
the Constitution itself. It is amazing watching you contort and move the goal
posts, as much as it is a frank admission that your position is not tenable.

I seldom agree with the usual rayiner posts, but at least the arguments are
somewhat cogent. The rayiner posts on this thread, however, make me wonder if
the "regular" rayiner is on vacation and someone else is running the "privacy-
destruction advocate" account.

I kid. Of course.

------
Matsta
"DC-based author Tim Shorrock revealed ThinThread was sent to New Zealand for
testing in 2000-2001"

This is news? It happened 12 years ago.

I would also note to whoever posts these NZHerald links, they are basically
like the Fox News of New Zealand. None of the reports have a clue what the
talking about when it comes to technology subjects, and they are known for
writing about complete garbage which half the time isn't true at all.

Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.

~~~
leohutson
>Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.

I find just about everything published under the Fairfax banner is of pretty
poor quality, not necessarily factually incorrect or even politically biased,
but presented in a overly sensationalist manner and with a populist and
oversimplified analysis where any is provided at all.

Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have similar problems as well.

Radio NZ seems to have more freedom to ignore certain demographics (the lowest
common denominator), and IMO has better quality news and opinion than other
sources.

~~~
duncan_bayne
This isn't a new problem. Lindsay Perigo quit TVNZ in the early 90s, accusing
it of being 'brain dead':

"I sometimes ask myself what would life be like if I had just stayed at TVNZ,
and there is no doubt that materially life would be a lot richer. But I do not
regret for a second the fact that I forsook that career. I was dying within at
TVNZ. The dumbing down that was going on. Plus the fact that for twenty years
I had made a career of listening to other people spouting mainly nonsense. I
had also become aware of what scumbags they were."

<http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/36/36jesson.php>

------
gwright
Thin on details, but it just sounds like traffic analysis applied to the cell
network and/or Internet, which would obviously require multiple taps into the
networks (for wired communication) and multiple listenting posts (for wireless
communication).

Note, I'm not commenting on the legality or wisdom of this, just that the
underlying analysis technique isn't anything new.

------
stefantalpalaru
It could have been worse. In 1951 the US tested LSD[1] on the French public.

[1]:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-
bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html)

------
mtgx
The NZ government basically responded to the spying claims with "Whoops..you
caught us. Guess now we'll have to make the spying legal..."

------
aunty_helen
New Zealand is just a testing ground for the US. The sooner you realize this,
the sooner you can go back to sleep.

------
vaadu
So who is watching the watchers?

~~~
pekk
The people who regurgitate shallow, flip bumper sticker slogans in the place
of anything resembling facts or analysis.

~~~
white_devil
I'm not sure which side you're trying to discredit.

