Re: [privacy] U.S. Government to Ask Courts to Toss Phone

[coderman <coderman () gmail com>]

On 6/12/06, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
> ...
> Still, it surprises me how pissed off this minority of folks is about
> this level of snooping, but how silent you were before when the war
> was on drugs - that was probably the single largest power grab by the
> government since the civil war and until the "war on terror".

agreed.  and we're starting to see programs designed for terrorist
surveillance now targeted at drug dealers and child pornographers.  to
me it doesn't matter what $evil is being discussed, the ethical
boundaries should be consistent.
(or do some here feel that if a nuclear weapon was potentially in
place at a US port, it would be ethical to abduct and torture any
suspects to attempt to avert such a tragedy?)


> Other companies, what about other countries? For all we know, the US
> is spying on the UK for the UK - and vice-versa - as an attempt to
> bypass domestic spying laws. I think this theory has been floated
> thousands of times before and usually in conjunction with an old,
> non-existent spy program.

sure, this is common echelon fare and sufficiently debunked i think.
it is interesting to note that James Bamford has previously come to
the NSA's defense on matters like the mutual domestic spy
backscratching, while he recently has denounced the actions of the
agency.


> Who is supposed to provide that oversight, elected criminals? In the
> day of professional politicians, do you honestly believe you can trust
> some kind of "oversight committee" not to got along to get along (or
> to get something, anyway)?

the judicial branch, not the elected officials with a biased self
interest.  that is part of the furor here, that FISA was not involved,
as it is their sole purpose to oversee actions like these.  (i'll
avoid the legitimate arguments about FISA rubber stamps, and note that
bypassing an agency that has been so accomadating only makes this
situation look that much worse).

this isn't perfect, but traditionally having an independant review
from judges well versed in the law keeps the enforcers on their toes
(within the bounds of law) and provides a measure of accountability
otherwise absent.


> Unless everything is done in the open, transparently, there isn't any
> real oversight and I'm not sure what value such programs would have if
> they were transparent.

this is an interesting discussion that was touched upon a while back
in funsec i think.  i too would like public preventative surveillance
to all be public.  let the police cam feeds be torrented out to any
interested party.  this would increase oversight and there is no
legitimate reason why the public view should not be available to the
public.  the reason there is backlash (and even statutes against
photographing police / other servants) is that they like this balance
skewed heavily in their favor.

as for invasive private surveillance _when there is legitimate purpose
with evidence to support it_ you don't want this public and open to
all for obvious reasons.

and again, while a separate judicial review is not perfect or ideal,
it is a lot better than no external oversight at all, or oversight by
only those "elected criminals" with a biased self interest.


> Would you argue against profiling in at least airport security? I
> mean, does granny and granddaughter really need to be cavity searched?

i'm not sure i get this question; are you saying that a grandmother or
a small child would never be used to carry weapons by proxy?  i agree
that the odds are rediculously slim, but anything that plays by known
odds can be gamed by those odds.

this is also why i think the 'SSSS' designation on tickets is
rediculously stupid.

i haven't flown in years and continue to refuse to do so, thus i'm
probably not the best person to ask about airline security tactics.
i'll let Bruce Schneier describe the ways most "security" implemented
these days is for theatrical enjoyment only.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy