
NSA: It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say if We Spied on You - mtgx
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/
======
kevinalexbrown
Regardless of whether spying on US citizens is good from the standpoint of
security or civil liberties, it is a problem when two elected Senators don't
know the extent of what they're voting on. This would turn the power of the
government from elected officials to appointed ones. Imagine if the US Army
wouldn't divulge the capabilities of a new fighter jet to the very people who
were authorizing the money for its construction. The civilian-military
hierarchy has long been recognized as a cornerstone of American government. I
find it hard to accept an NSA (preceded by the DoD) that has the ability to
say no to two Senators, and answers only to the President.

This makes me wonder if the Wired article got a little jumpy when it wrote
"the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators
how many Americans have had their communications picked up." Perhaps they've
been told, but are not allowed to disclose the number publicly? Even if the
latter is the case, it is disconcerting that elected officials cannot convey
basic information about the laws they vote for to their constituents.

~~~
jfornear
> _Imagine if the US Army wouldn't divulge the capabilities of a new fighter
> jet to the very people who were authorizing the money for its construction._

No need to imagine. This happens. Covert areas of defense spending have always
been conducted in the dark, often with blank checks.

The military, NSA, CIA, etc. are in the game of accumulating hidden
capabilities. This is the job the American people have given them, and yes, it
is a constant arbitrage at odds with, among other things, their own privacy
and fiscal responsibilities.

A fascinating read on this topic, regardless of accuracy:
[http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-The-History-
CIA/dp/030738...](http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-The-History-
CIA/dp/0307389006)

~~~
scalable
There is a difference in doing things overtly and covertly. If they are doing
it covertly they will probably think it through a lot more carefully, since
the stakes are higher. And if some things that were previously done covertly
but are now done overtly, it doesn't sound so far fetched that other things
that were earlier not done at all are now done in secret.

EDIT:speling

~~~
startuplulz
> _And if some things that [were] previously done covertly but [are] now done
> overtly, it doesn't sound so far fetched that other things that were earlier
> not done at all are now done in secret._

Citations?

~~~
scalable
I have only stated my beliefs, and have not claimed to have the facts. I base
my belief on this idea <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>

------
nathan_long
The headline is misleading - it's worse. The question isn't "did person X get
spied on?", it's "how many people in the U.S. have been spied on?"

The answer to that question cannot possibly violate the privacy of any
individual.

>> What’s more, McCullough argued, giving such a figure of how many Americans
were spied on was “beyond the capacity” of the NSA’s in-house watchdog...

So, either: 1) They are totally disorganized ("dang, it's not like we keep a
database we could SELECT COUNT(*) from, you know...") or 2) there is no way to
estimate because they're doing wholesale collection of all the phone calls,
web traffic, etc that they can get their hands on.

Pretty sure it's #2.

~~~
fragsworth
I don't even see why "did person X get spied on?" would violate anyone's
privacy anyway, especially if person X didn't know about the spying to begin
with. They're not asking _why_ anyone got spied on.

~~~
rmc
Knowing that someone was the target of investigation/spying-on of one
particular person would be very damaging to the credibility of a person. It
doesn't matter if you don't tell the public _why_ , the mere fact of telling
the public _that they were spied on_ is enough to damage someone's carrer &
life.

It's debatable whether this falls under "privacy" or general "right not be
slandered" etc.

------
grandalf
The world is changing.

Facebook and Google are the new Halliburton and Lockheed of the age of
behavior tracking and counterterrorism...

Both companies spend millions per year to provide elaborate back doors into
their network for the NSA, FBI, and other government agencies.

Both firms are too important not to become members of the military industrial
complex... Their behavior tracking technology is trusted, ubiquitous, and has
far broader reach than government systems.

It starts with backdoors and warrants, then backdoors without warrants, then
massive data mining and "preemptive" search of personal data, then installing
government payloads on customer laptops, etc. etc.

I don't see how anyone can trust firms that go along with warrantless backdoor
policies not to install government payloads on customer machines when asked.

First counterterrorism, then the IRS and immigration policies (better not
mention your cleaning lady in a gmail message), then GPS data harvested and
speeding tickets retroactively issued.

~~~
tcpekin
Could you provide some references please? I'd like reading up on the things
you mentioned.

~~~
WestCoastJustin
I remember reading somewhere about the "google aurora hack" that the hackers
were able to access gmails built-in backroom and were monitoring email
accounts. I cannot find the link right now but here are a couple for google
and facebook.

Google: <http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/>

Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/>

~~~
runn1ng
When I tried to find more about this once, I found out that all "sources" were
basically Bruce Schneier opinion pieces.

------
lubujackson
The answer is simple - everyone is being spied on. Not to tinfoil hat the
issue but: <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/>
EEEVVERYONE

If you want to really get a feel for the situation, read Crypto:
[http://www.amazon.com/Crypto-Rebels-Government-Privacy-
Digit...](http://www.amazon.com/Crypto-Rebels-Government-Privacy-
Digital/dp/0140244328) It's a book about how cryptography was finally accepted
and allowed in the U.S., and how the NSA handled the growth of everyday crypto
(hint: not without a fight).

It's not about a government agency trying to control everything and turn the
U.S. into 1984, it's about an agency getting swept up in their own mission of
secrecy and surveillance, and sometimes (in my opinion) using it as an
argumentative technique to advance their agenda. This is just another obvious
example of that.

------
uptown
Is there anybody here that doesn't assume they're analyzing everything?

~~~
rdtsc
We know they do it. They know we know they do it. But they still cannot
acknowledge it. It is just how things work.

When the Wikileaks leak happened, there was an article (or comment on HN)
about how seemingly obvious things are still classified. Say that US govt.
knows about the crimes some dictator is committing against his own people. The
locals in that country know it (and experience it). The world, including US
citizens know it or can very easily find out, yet the fact that US government
knows is classified.

The reason is because an official acknowledgement would also demand some sort
of official denouncement or some other similar action in order to maintain a
certain propaganda-ready image (universal support for human rights, democracy
& freedom promotions etc etc)

~~~
bennylope
There are seemingly obvious things that are classified for valid reasons, too.
Sometimes the motivation is not to shield the information itself or
propaganda-driven feigned ignorance, rather what matters is protecting the
classified source from which the information was obtained.

This still only applies to a small portion of classified material, much of
which is simply subject to classification inflation.

------
drharris
I think we can safely assume the answer to "how many US citizens" is "all of
them". The fact they're not even willing to give a suggestion of magnitude
speaks volumes.

~~~
gavinlynch
I think it's just an indication that they don't want to be fired or prosecuted
for leaking sensitive information.

------
mindcrime
This _really_ makes me want to launch a new "Government Information
Awareness"[1] initiative. The tagline should be "Snoop unto them as they snoop
unto us." Seriously, if these assholes are gonna spy on us, we should spy
back.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Information_Awarenes...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Information_Awareness)

~~~
chc
This is probably not a great idea due to the difference in capabilities at
work. For instance, they can get big corporations to cooperate and offer them
indemnity, while you can't. Even more importantly, their ability to lock you
up and smack you around with a pipe wrench when they catch you spying greatly
exceeds your ability to do the same to them.

~~~
mindcrime
Doesn't matter, somebody still needs to do it. I mean, if you look back at the
American Revolution, you'd have been nuts to bet on the revolutionaries,
right? At some point it becomes simply a matter of principle and you accept
the consequences, hoping it leads to a better day in the future.

I'm not eager to go out as a martyr, but with every passing day I'm closer and
closer to saying "fuck it" and accepting that that may happen anyway.

But, then again, I've always been a bit of a radical and a hot-head.

~~~
chc
The American leaders had an endgame planned. "Let's spy on them" is not an
endgame. Unless it's part of a much more detailed plan, I don't think the
comparison holds up. Spying on your own government is more akin to a couple of
18th-century Americans saying, "Hey, I know, let's go shoot a couple of
British soldiers." Outside the context of a revolution, it's only good at
getting you killed.

~~~
mindcrime
_Outside the context of a revolution,_

The point is, doing it, and the resulting fallout, may be part of what it
takes to instigate a revolution. And, to be honest, I'm leaning more and more
towards the idea that it's going to take a revolution to fix the problems with
the American government... I still hold onto a little bit of faith in the
democratic process, but it's fading.

~~~
dkulchenko
_And, to be honest, I'm leaning more and more towards the idea that it's going
to take a revolution to fix the problems with the American government..._

Likewise; though is a U.S. revolution even remotely possible in this day and
age?

~~~
mindcrime
It's hard to say. And I have mixed feelings about saying "I hope so" or "I
hope not." On the one hand, I think freedom is it's own end, and that we have
sacrificed far too much and given our government _way_ too much power, and
that it'll take a revolution to roll things back a bit. But, I sure hate the
idea of a bloody armed revolution and all the death and suffering that would
entail. _sigh_ I dunno man, I just don't know...

------
mc32
Well, then, if that's the only sticking point, allow people to waive this
"privacy" matter and thus indemnifying the gov't. Something like how patients
can release their own HIPAA data, if they so choose.

[edit] of course provisions for being of sound mind (as with any contract) and
being of age of majority (i.e. an adult capable of consenting)

------
pbreit
I don't really agree with the whole thing but it sort of makes sense and the
headline is quite mis-leading. The violation of privacy supposedly would occur
when they go do the research to figure out the answer to the question. The
"saying" is irrelevant.

~~~
luv2lrn
I completely agree. There are two important points here. First, they don't
currently know the answer to the question, so they would have to figure it
out, probably by examining a bunch of the conversations to identify who is and
who is not a US Citizen. That examination would mean violating the privacy of
US Citizens. (Collection does not equal examination.) Second, the wording in
the article is a bit misleading. The article says that the NSA "won't" give
this information to the Senators. Technically, that is true, but it would
probably be more accurate (and less inflammatory) to say that they "can't"
provide the information. Won't and Can't imply very different intentions. I'm
not saying it is right/acceptable that this info is not known, just saying
that the way the article is written is a bit misleading.

------
eli
Wasn't that also the justification at one point for not releasing details
about the interrogations of Gitmo detainees? That it would violate the
prisoners' rights to privacy?

------
irishcoffee
Am I the only one that noticed the exact phrasing of the question: "how many
persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA?"

Last I checked, not everyone inside the US was a citizen. In fact, I would
posit that the VAST majority of people NSA is listening in on, are non-
citizens.

I am also curious why everyone is worried about NSA and not the FBI. NSA isn't
interested in the US, they care about the rest of the world. This isn't
anecdotal information.

~~~
7952
The equal protection clause of the US constitution:

no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Also the due process clause:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law .

It does not differentiate between citizens and none-citizens.

~~~
Karunamon
The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms to "the people" - how
do you suggest we enforce that one across borders?

The US law only applies to the US. Same as in any other country.

~~~
einhverfr
Not entirely. It isn't clear that the US government can start killing
Americans when they take weekend trips to Toronto without violating the Due
Process clause.

~~~
Karunamon
Pretty sure killing people on a sovereign nation's soil might fall afoul of
that nation's laws...

~~~
einhverfr
But all that would do would be cause an international incident and expose
those who carry it out to threat of prosecution of not granted diplomatic
immunity.

The question is whether US law prevents it. THere are some cases to suggest
that the bill of rights still governs to at least some extent when a US
citizen is acted against by the US government in a foreign county.

------
wisty
> The NSA, for instance, no longer requires probable cause to intercept a
> person’s phone calls, text messages or emails within the United States as
> long as one party to the communications is “reasonably” believed to be
> outside the United States.

Does that mean anything publicly viewable (like this comment) or anything
which is broadcast to a large group (like, something that your Facebook
friends can see - you can "reasonably" assume one of them is overseas) then
it's fair game?

~~~
fleitz
If you post something publicly then no one needs a warrant, not your local
police, not the state, and certainly not the NSA.

This is about private communications which would normally require a warrant to
intercept.

------
TheCondor
Top Secret America is a good if somewhat depressing read on all of this:
[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Secret-America-American-
Security/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Top-Secret-America-American-
Security/dp/0316182214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340159699&sr=8-1&keywords=Top+secret+America)

With compartmentization and the short terms of congress people (2 years and
then there could be a change, worse if the party in control switches) nobody
knows what our top secret money is spent on. It's so bad that we ask the
people we give the money to if what they are doing is worth while because
nobody knows and nobody wants to be the guy that cut the budget of x y ad z
and let the terrorists attack again.

Think on the order of a half trillion dollars that they can kind of account
for (it's black, could be more, probably not tons less) that we have no idea
what it actually does.

Funny thing, NSA might not know and probably doesn't have an easy way to find
out. This is an artistic response in that it doesn't make them sound like
idiots for not knowing. there is just a staggering amount of communication
going on, even if tried really hard to follow the rules try would still screw
up.

------
snowman41
Why would telling the American people how much you are using the powers given
by the people threaten your protection of the people? If Obama said how many
drone attacks have been carried out, that wouldnt help a terrorist evade
Drones. The idea that informing America of the amount of wiretapping that goes
on would threaten the NSA's operations is seriously wrong. Unless the NSA is
counting lack of oversight as an operation. Which is wrong.

~~~
lubujackson
Well, if you know there's 2 drone strikes a year, you wouldn't worry about a
drone strike as much. But if there's 100,000 a year, suddenly there's a whole
different problem back home defending that.

But what makes this a stupid defense is they aren't asking to make the numbers
public, it's about making some top level data available to congressmen, which
I would think should be indefensible.

------
ck2
It's amazing how the realms of secrecy for the government grows unchecked
while the rights of privacy for the citizen erodes daily.

But keep feeding that industrial war complex. Peace will certainly come from
all that.

------
zeruch
This is the one of the root reasons why sousveillance is starting to capture
public interest.

I'm personally irked at the lack of legislative oversight.

------
adventureful
They'll waste years just trying to eventually get the NSA to answer with:
"lots."

There's some twisted comedy in trying to trip up or catch the NSA though. They
already know what you're going to say, ask, or pursue.

~~~
ojbyrne
After reading the article, I tend to think the answer is going to be "all of
them."

------
its_so_on
Hey, I actually can _kind_ of see where this premise is coming from. Not
completely. But let's see how it kind of philosophically does make a tiny bit
of sense. It does violate my privacy (even more) if someone tells me they've
been spying on me.

To see this, consider: after someone spies on you, what's the least damage
they can do to your privacy? Obviously the most is to publish everything they
have on you for everyone. But what's the least?

The least damage is to completely forget it, never mention it, never think
about it, and not even acknowledge or record it - let the world be exactly the
same as if they had not spied on me.

I'm not saying this is better than ACTUALLY not ever spying on me, but it's
the best thing for my privacy once they have.

Say you're a security person and do bag searches, a celebrity comes through
and you actually see something very embarrassing in their bag, on some subject
there's been public speculation on. (Their sexuality, whether they have some
disease and you see meds for it, whatever). What's the best way to protect
their privacy after you clear them (nothing dangerous in the bag)?

Obviously, by not even mentioning/acknowledging that you searched them, just
by moving on.

If all my email (along with everyone else's) is being scanned to see if I'm
concocting a terrorist plot, then the best you can do _after_ this fact is not
even ackowledge this and in every way act and produce a world as though it
never happened.

Note that this does not make the original invasion of privacy any better. It
doesn't condone it. It may also make it harder to instate more appropriate
privacy policies in the future. But the premise "If I answered you 'every
single person on US territory who has sent an email or made or received a
telephone call in the past 36 months' then it would violate your privacy" is
not completely devoid of any merit. Should every single person's privacy have
been violated? No. We have constitutional protections against that sort of
thing.

If it has, would it violate their privacy further to go boasting about this
fact? What if it means that anyone suing you for anything can use this
knowledge to do discovery and request your communications from the government?
In this and a myriad other scenarios, telling the extent to which you invaded
people's privacy can be worse for their privacy than refusing to do so.

Not saying I'm convinced. I'm just saying there's a little something in this
line of thought. Obviously the late Martin Luther King's privacy is far worse
off now than if we never knew that the FBI kept detailed files on him...

------
commieneko
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

~~~
mistercow
Quoting _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ in Threads About Politics is Banal.

