
U.S. lawmakers want to restrict internet surveillance on Americans - uptown
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-surveillance/u-s-lawmakers-want-to-restrict-internet-surveillance-on-americans-idUSKBN1C92T5
======
rl3
The average surveillance reform article irks me. Most if not all tend to miss
the fact that privacy protections take effect _when the data is accessed_. NSA
has intentionally toyed with the definition of the word _collect_ to mean
_access_ to data that has already been intercepted and stored.[0]

In other words: every U.S. citizen's private domestic communications have been
rotting in Bluffdale, Utah for the past five years—and likely will remain
there indefinitely along with all future communications. If rogue actors
(insiders or otherwise) are able to get side-channel access, the fact privacy
protections exist will mean precisely nothing.

The best thing for domestic surveillance reform—short of every elected
official suddenly having the entirety of their intercepted digital
communications leaked—would be for the Trump administration to wantonly abuse
the NSA's domestic capability in a completely untactful manner, and getting
caught red-handed doing it.

The last Bush administration abused the hell out of it, but they were at least
somewhat careful in doing so.[1]

[0] [https://www.eff.org/nsa-
spying/wordgames#collect](https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect)

[1] [http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp-
content/uploads/BF.0112.T...](http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp-
content/uploads/BF.0112.Tice_20130617.mp3) (Skip to 00:48:26)

------
ChuckMcM
I have observed an astonishing correlation between leaks of information about
the Whitehouse and officials associated with Internet Surveillance, and a
bipartisan interest in curbing the various agencies responsible for collecting
that information.

~~~
FussyZeus
Oh come on that's not astonishing at all. Nothing ever changes until it hits
the lawmakers personally, that's why we don't do jack about poverty and why
people in those positions get up on podiums and tell us $1,000 more gets every
family a new car.

------
whatyoucantsay
Ubiquitous surveillance is inevitable. The prices of sensors, computing and
storage keep dropping, the number of sensors is exploding and people are
becoming less sensitive about their privacy.

The real question is if the it will be only the powerful surveilling the
private lives of the masses, or if the surveillance is more bidirectional.

~~~
neonnoodle
I can answer that question for you: surveillance will follow the same
distribution curve as capital.

~~~
Fnoord
Its already happening.

The poor can't afford a more privacy oriented phone like an iPhone, hence end
up in the Google ecosphere.

The poor can't afford a new phone every 2 years, not even a budget device of a
"mere" 200 USD. Hence, their devices aren't patched.

The poor can barely afford their bills as it is.

~~~
thomastjeffery
> a more privacy oriented phone like an iPhone

How is a phone with _no user filesystem_ more privacy-oriented?

~~~
Fnoord
That is not the only variable...

Apple does far less tracking than Google. That's not their primary business
model, and its part of the Apple tax.

Unless you run a rooted device (with the attached risks) plus Android without
GApps. You'd end up running all kind of out-of-date software from F-Droid.

------
rubyfan
It seemed like the law enabling them to capture the data is expiring and they
are adding in some controls about how an agency can access the collected data.
Doesn’t seem like mass surveillance is curbed in any way really. If anything
it seemed like they are intent to continue surveillance.

------
pukipumbam
Why its hard to believe that ? Look what obama did ?? Not even hacker news was
mentioned about it.

