Privacy and Government Surveillance: Are We Willing to Sacrifice Our Rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The recent revelation that the US government has been collecting daily phone records from Verizon since 2006 raises significant concerns about privacy and government surveillance. Critics argue that such blanket data collection undermines the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The discussion highlights the potential for abuse of this information, suggesting that it could be used for political leverage rather than solely for national security. Many participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of checks and balances when such programs can operate in secrecy for years. Overall, the conversation underscores a growing unease about the erosion of privacy rights in the name of security.
  • #31
nsaspook said:
In most places eavesdropping phones, email or private digital conversations of a third party is illegal.

I think not. If someone is working on a laptop in public, it isn't illegal for me to look at his screen. If someone is talking on a cell phone in public, it isn't illegal for me to listen to him or to for me to listen to both sides of the conversation if I can hear that well.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Office_Shredder said:
No, I don't think this is right. In fact federal law requires at least one party in the phone call be aware that the call is being recorded

Do you interpret that to mean that an ISP cannot keep a record of packets transmitted over its networks because some of them might contain phone calls using voice-over-internet technology - even if the information in those packets is encrypted?
 
  • #33
Office_Shredder said:
...federal law requires at least one party in the phone call be aware that the call is being recorded...
Those are civilian laws; they do not apply to or are not followed by national intelligence agencies.

Both address and content is intercepted and recorded, including domestic communications. I believe the legal rationale is this itself doesn't constitute interception, only when a human must interpret it is that an interception requiring a warrant.

Former NSA official William Binney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official ) estimated the NSA's new one million sq. ft Utah facility can hold 5 zettabytes (5E21 bytes, or 5,000,000 petabytes), which would only be needed for mass recording of content, not just address information. He further estimates the NSA's capture rate of all intercepted text on Earth and targeted audio is 20 terabytes per minute: http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20...ratus_whistleblower_william_binney_speaks_out

As demonstrated by IBM's Watson, the sophistication of lexical & semantic analysis is rapidly increasing. It's not a simple case of pattern matching a list of keywords. As increasingly human-like computerized reasoning is leveraged against recorded private communications, it ceases to be any consolation that a human hasn't yet examined it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Office_Shredder said:
If they declare a program unconstitutional and the government says "eff it, we're going ahead anyway", what happens? The court becomes pointless, or do they have some leverage to actually stop it (since they aren't allowed to tell anyone apparently)

This has already happened, try Andrew Jackson. He totally ignored supreme court rulings and send the Army into move the Cherokees off of their land.
 
  • #36
Stephen Tashi said:
I think not. If someone is working on a laptop in public, it isn't illegal for me to look at his screen. If someone is talking on a cell phone in public, it isn't illegal for me to listen to him or to for me to listen to both sides of the conversation if I can hear that well.

That's not the usual technical meaning of Eavesdropping "to listen secretly to what is said in private". Someone in a public place talking or working in public has no expectation of privacy from the sight and hearing of a normal person near them.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
The legal definition is supposed to come from the Supreme Court and (apparent) violation of that check by the executive branch is the main issue at hand.
I don't think the US Supreme Court has ever defined technically what an intelligence "intercept" is. There may be dictionary definitions, or common-use definitions, but USSID (United States Signals Intelligence Directive) 18 has it's own definition, and this is apparently what governs NSA activities.

According to USSID 18, an intercept only happens when the previously-acquired communication is processed into intelligible form and listened to or read by a human. By this topsy-turvy definition, every private voice and data communication in the US could be tapped, recorded, and data mined, and provided no human listened to it or read it, it's not an intercept hence not subject to wiretapping laws.

There is all kinds of wording in USSID 18 and other documents about destroying domestic data which is accidentally intercepted. At first it sounds very comforting -- until you realize they've defined "intercept" to be something totally different.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/o...ity-agencys-domestic-spying-program.html?_r=0
 
  • #38
nsaspook said:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/

That's a definition of the crime of eavesdropping. If you assume it is a crime, it naturally has a definition of being a particular sort of crime. The actions I described are not crimes.
 
  • #39
nsaspook said:
Most people will just say "I don't care" until they are in the dragnet and have their personal information used as a hammer on the kneecap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-unknowingly-legalized-prism-in-2007/?hpid=z3
Crippling the NSA isn't going to stop that kind of behavior by police and the FBI. In my opinion, programs like this are a necessary evil in the world that we live in. And, as others have noted, I can't do anything about the telecom companies selling the same information so why wouldn't I expect the government to use the same data? Why is it suddenly so much different that it isn't a corporation attempting to make a profit from your data?

As for Mr. Snowden, I don't think that it's right for a disgruntled individual to decide for himself what national security policy should be. As someone with a clearance, he took an oath to protect the nation's secrets and he chose to violate that oath. I have no respect for people like that.
 
  • #40
There are quite a few pundits that want to hang the spying on the Obama administration only, but they are sadly misinformed. About 25 years ago, I was working for General Physics Corporation with an attractive mathematician. We had gone out for drinks with co-workers and I asked her what her husband did for work and she said that he was a numerical cryptologist. Since GP was headquartered in Columbia, MD, it wasn't too hard to figure out where her husband was employed. Even back then, intercepts were being broken down and decoded.
 
  • #41
Borg said:
Crippling the NSA isn't going to stop that kind of behavior by police and the FBI. In my opinion, programs like this are a necessary evil in the world that we live in. And, as others have noted, I can't do anything about the telecom companies selling the same information so why wouldn't I expect the government to use the same data? Why is it suddenly so much different that it isn't a corporation attempting to make a profit from your data?

As for Mr. Snowden, I don't think that it's right for a disgruntled individual to decide for himself what national security policy should be. As someone with a clearance, he took an oath to protect the nation's secrets and he chose to violate that oath. I have no respect for people like that.

I agree: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4407725&postcount=1

My main objection is not that these programs exist but their level of secrecy and scope invites abuse without real public oversight to decide if it's in the best interest of the people of this country.

Mr. Snowden is just the messenger, if the security at the facility was so lax that a 'tape ape' could walk out with TS/SI material he is the least of their problems in protecting the nation's secrets. As long as he sticks to just outing 'sources and methods' what he is doing is illegal but might not be wrong if it results in real public oversight.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tape ape
 
  • #42
Borg said:
...I can't do anything about the telecom companies selling the same information so why wouldn't I expect the government to use the same data? Why is it suddenly so much different that it isn't a corporation attempting to make a profit from your data?
Individual telecom companies don't have access to the same data -- they have pieces of the data. They also have no authority to prosecute you.

Borg said:
As for Mr. Snowden, I don't think that it's right for a disgruntled individual to decide for himself what national security policy should be. As someone with a clearance, he took an oath to protect the nation's secrets and he chose to violate that oath. I have no respect for people like that.

Snowden did nothing like the Walker Spy Ring, which sold (for money) specific military secrets to the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

Snowden's actions are much more similar to NSA whistle-blower William Binney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official ) or Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsburg Neither of them were successfully prosecuted.

Snowden's actions may be related to the recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling "Clapper vs Amnesty International": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International. The plaintiff alleged illegal NSA eavesdropping on US citizens. The narrow decision favored the government because of one specific item: the plaintiff could not prove by actual documentation the NSA was doing this.

Dissenting Justice Breyer said concrete documentation wasn't necessary; the likelihood of NSA domestic eavesdropping was enough to accept the case: "Perhaps, despite pouring rain, the streets will remain dry (due to the presence of a special chemical). But ordinarily a party that seeks to defeat a strong natural inference must bear the burden of showing that some such special circumstance exists. And no one has suggested any such special circumstance here." So a significant minority objected, even without additional concrete documentation.

That documentation now exists. The basis for the 5-4 decision has now been changed. If the case is revisited and reversed, some of those in the NSA advocating Snowden's prosecution may themselves be prosecuted. If the telecom immunity ruling is overturned, this could include them also. There is more at play here than Snowden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Borg said:
Crippling the NSA isn't going to stop that kind of
Borg said:
As someone with a clearance, he took an oath to protect the nation's secrets and he chose to violate that oath.

I don't know about contractors, but the the only oath that government employees swear is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ( A good oath, I think.)
 
  • #44
joema said:
Individual telecom companies don't have access to the same data -- they have pieces of the data. They also have no authority to prosecute you.
Do you think that they don't buy each other's data? The federal government is just getting a better deal on the cost (for once) by forcing the telecoms to provide the data. As for being prosecuted, these programs are designed to catch people who would commit terrorism. Nobody is listening to actual phone calls to see if you were talking about robbing a 7-11.
joema said:
Snowden did nothing like the Walker Spy Ring, which sold (for money) specific military secrets to the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

Snowden's actions are much more similar to NSA whistle-blower William Binney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official ) or Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsburg Neither of them were successfully prosecuted.
So it's OK as long as the government can't successfully prosecute you? Who do I sue when a train that I'm riding is attacked because the government wasn't able to connect the dots because of his 'actions'?

joema said:
Snowden's actions may be related to the recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling "Clapper vs Amnesty International": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International. The plaintiff alleged illegal NSA eavesdropping on US citizens. The narrow decision favored the government because of one specific item: the plaintiff could not prove by actual documentation the NSA was doing this.
...
That documentation now exists.
From everything I've read, there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims about what exactly is being collected. Examining metadata for patterns is not eavesdropping and it's still legal for the government to buy the data.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Stephen Tashi said:
I don't know about contractors, but the the only oath that government employees swear is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ( A good oath, I think.)
They both sign documentation that they will not release classified material to unauthorized persons.
 
  • #46
I feel like "oath" is more weighty than "signed a document" though, regardless of whether one takes legal precedence over another.

If you don't want them to uphold the Constitution against what they perceive to be domestic enemies then don't make them promise to do that!
 
  • #47
Borg said:
From everything I've read, there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims about what exactly is being collected. Examining metadata for patterns is not eavesdropping and it's still legal for the government to buy the data.

I don't understand why people are reluctant believe the NSA does bulk data collection on all the data/communications links they have access to. The NSA charter gives them the mandate under the cloak of signals intelligence, every leaker from the 1970s to present says it's happening and it technically the only efficient way to create useful metadata keys of information to search for links. The company metadata is valuable in reducing the required internal processing requirements but IMO it also provides a useful cover for the internal classified metadata systems when a legal means is needed to release internal data to law enforcement.
 
  • #48
Taking this to the extreme of simplicity -

There's a bustling market of pirate TV descramblers .
They operate on the ethic "If you don't want me decrypting your encryption, then don't let your radio waves fall on my property."
Where's the public outrage?

This is just the Xerox machine taken to its logical extreme.

Myself, if I want something secret I won't put it into any electronic medium be it bytes on a computer or an RF transmission. Even some office copy machines keep an electronic copy of images scanned.

Anybody remember when we were kids, the phrase "Don't Broadcast it! " ?
 
  • #49
Borg said:
From everything I've read, there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims about what exactly is being collected. .

Which brings up an amusing thought. In government work, Powerpoint briefings are often full of technical errors. Even if they are created by people who know the facts, they get vetted and "improved" by other people who don't. Suppose the slides that Snowden released are genuine but that they exaggerate the capabilities of the contractor's system. Didn't Google officials deny that NSA has "direct access" to the Google servers?
 
  • #50
jim hardy said:
Where's the public outrage?

The same place that outrage over traffic law violatons is ... or is not. It seems to vary from person to person and never to apply to one's self.

This is just the Xerox machine taken to its logical extreme.

I don't think your simplification to TV piracy is apt. The TV signals aren't private communications between two persons.

Myself, if I want something secret I won't put it into any electronic medium be it bytes on a computer or an RF transmission. Even some office copy machines keep an electronic copy of images scanned.

That's a good point. When they discard a copy machine, people often forget that a copy machine may have a hard drive inside it.
 
  • #52
Stephen Tashi said:
Which brings up an amusing thought. In government work, Powerpoint briefings are often full of technical errors. Even if they are created by people who know the facts, they get vetted and "improved" by other people who don't. Suppose the slides that Snowden released are genuine but that they exaggerate the capabilities of the contractor's system. Didn't Google officials deny that NSA has "direct access" to the Google servers?

It's not 'TS/SI/NOFORN' information that Google complies with legal requests for information from the government. The subjects, contents and reasons for the request of the information might be. That SI/NOFORN designation is usually reserved for information on systems or devices that deal with sources or methods that if revealed could cause extremely grave damage to the national security like NSA having direct access to the Google IP backbone
 
  • #53
What surprises me about Snowden is his lack of education. He only has the equivalent
of High School diploma. I would have guessed that his position would require a degree
in computer science - but not necessarily so ?
 
  • #54
morrobay said:
What surprises me about Snowden is his lack of education. He only has the equivalent
of High School diploma. I would have guessed that his position would require a degree
in computer science - but not necessarily so ?

You need a full-scope poly clearance just to burn the trash in a place like that so his high level clearance was a given and while his job title sounds impressive the reality is something far less. I suspect that he stole most of the information not from active systems that should have audit trails, two-person integrity and require strict user access protocols but from systems used for the backup, archive and cleanup of old versions of user data partitions. The archival and destruction of classified material has been a weak link in security for ages because most professionals see it as a menial custodial job that an 'ape' could do.
 
  • #55
morrobay said:
What surprises me about Snowden is his lack of education. He only has the equivalent
of High School diploma. I would have guessed that his position would require a degree
in computer science - but not necessarily so ?

On her nationally syndicated NPR radio show last night, Diane Rehm suggested he might be a genius.
 
  • #56
Dotini said:
On her nationally syndicated NPR radio show last night, Diane Rehm suggested he might be a genius.

Today he's lying.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/305409-house-intel-chiefs-snowden-lying

The NSA leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged Thursday.

"He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

Ok, he's lying, it's all made up, so it should be easy to make it illegal for the government in the future to do the impossible things he says they are doing today.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
is there a good link that shows what Snowden said? - as opposed to what people say about what he said?
 
  • #59
I can believe that he didn't have access to highly sensitive areas, doesn't mean what he had access to isn't damaging to the NSA's image.

I handled government accounts at the company I worked for. There were many levels of security, when I got to a level that was too sensitive, I was blocked, which made working on some of my accounts difficult, I'd have to contact someone with the proper clearance to answer questions since I couldn't actually view the records. One day, someone messed up and a bunch of secret CIA operations were declassified (by our company) and they suddenly appeared on our client list and there was something very obviously "wrong" with these accounts, I can't say what, but it wasn't long before we were advised by my boss actually running over to us and telling us to close out of that particular system, he was a bit panicked, it was brought down, and the next day when it came back up, the mysterious accounts had "disappeared". I'll bet someone lost their job over that.
 
  • #60
nsaspook said:
Today he's lying.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/305409-house-intel-chiefs-snowden-lying
Re "He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actual technology of the programs would allow one to do."

Many have misunderstood Snowden's statement: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email".

At 06:10 into this NBC News discussion, reporter Pete Mitchell lambasts Snowden's claim he "had the authority" to wiretap anyone: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/52158575?lite&lite=obnetwork#52158504

However Snowden was using the term "authorities" to mean he had the technical tokens which activate those otherwise-restricted monitoring features. It's similar to an IT person saying "I have the permissions to access those files." It does NOT mean he has the official authorization -- it's a technical description.

Despite having a Stanford degree and many years experience covering security issues, reporter Pete Mitchell did not understand this, and essentially went on a rant questioning Snowden's truthfulness, credibility, etc.

In his book The Shadow Factory, James Bamford described the NSA optical taps on major internet exchange points (IXPs) which were connected to on-premises NarusInsight network monitors. These are capable of deep-packet content inspection at over 10 gigabits per second. Narus' VP said: "anything that comes though...we can record. We can reconstruct all of their emails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls."

Each NarusInsight monitor is apparently remotely controlled and programmed by NSA and can forward filtered content over a secure broadband connection.

This capability was not first revealed by Snowden, it had been widely discussed since AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed this in 2006: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html

Obviously some people at NSA control the NarusInsight devices and the downstream filtered content. Such capability would obviously enable monitoring of the type Snowden mentioned.

The NarusInsight capability was also discussed in this 2010 PC World article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/190650/article.html
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Bush's War against Civil Liberties
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
News The Patriot Act? Unconstitutional? No, never
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Is Criticizing Government Leaders Considered Sedition?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K