Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

Here's the thing about US citizens who are paranoid that the US government is spying on them when they make international phone calls:

Any government could be spying on you. The CIA has various rules about the restricted circumstances under which it can spy on US citizens, but MI5 doesn't, nor does ASIS or CSIS or the DGSE or whatever the KGB is called nowadays or whatever the Chinese equivalent is or... well, any other damn spy service in the world. If you're a US citizen then there's dozens of countries which could be spying on you at any given time, and one that can only do so under certain circumstances.

Think it's unlikely that the French secret service want to spy on you? Think they probably have better things to do? Yeah, so does the CIA.

Oh, and let's not forget that the police and FBI could be spying on you too. Sure, they need a warrant. But convincing a judge that you need a warrant is surely no more effort than convincing your superiors at the CIA that it's worth devoting effort to spying on this random dude.

In conclusion, this guy has weird, single-target paranoia.

edit: Also, afaik, none of the stuff he's talking about is actually in the Patriot Act. That's why it was controversial when the warrantless wiretapping scheme was revealed, because it was both secret and not specifically authorized by any law.

> "Any government could be spying on you."

How many governments have a direct line to his local network exchange and an automated data gathering system that operates on that data?

> "convincing a judge that you need a warrant is surely no more effort than convincing your superiors at the CIA that it's worth devoting effort to spying on this random dude."

If the CIA's data mining project went through bureaucratic layers to enable the tracing, if that step was proactive and required effort, you would have a point. But all accounts suggest it's 100% automated.

He may well be inconsistent in his paranoia. But you seem to be judging that based on an either overly generous/naive faith in official government statements, or an ignorance of what the CIA and the Patriot Act really do.

This guys is an American. The FSB (what the KGB turned into) can't do much to him without an elaborate process (either a diplomatic one, or inserting agents onto American soil.)

The FBI, however, can have him hauled away with a minimal amount of effort.

This is like saying that you shouldn't worry about your neighbor being a peeping tom, since anyone could just buy a gigantic telescope or a surveillance satellite!

This guys is an American. The FSB (what the KGB turned into) can't do much to him without an elaborate process (either a diplomatic one, or inserting agents onto American soil.)

For the actual circumstances he's talking about (international phone calls and transfers) there's always at least one other country involved, so their secret service is at least as likely as the US's to be monitoring it.

The FBI, however, can have him hauled away with a minimal amount of effort.

Uhh, the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror... that's what the FBI is designed to do.

The point is that if you put anyone under the microscope, they are probably violating at least one or two Federal laws. There have been numerous articles written about this. The Patriot Act is all about making 'putting someone under the microscope' as frictionless as possible, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

there's always at least one other country involved

You seem to be arguing that everyone's personal security should be set at the level of the lowest possible endpoint - a race to the bottom for security. We should be arguing for improving the security on the other side, not lowering ourselves to that level.

the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror

False, in two important ways. First, it used to be that suspicion was insufficient: the required standard was probable cause. Second, the required standard today, thanks to PATRIOT, is far lower. There's no requirement that there be any suspicion of a crime, or indeed that there be any crime at all. If they don't like you, you're done for.

there's always at least one other country involved, so their secret service is at least as likely as the US's to be monitoring it.

Not really. Just because two entities have the same capability does not mean they are equally likely to exercise that capability.

I have two hands. Therefore, I am at least as likely as Michaelangelo to paint a masterpiece.

Don't forget, too, that our spying agencies have RIDICULOUS budgets. The NSA has tens of billions of dollars per year to spend on spying on people.

Right. And this idea that spying on international communications is something new is ludicrous.

We pushed to have the first United Nations conference in San Francisco specifically so that we could intercept outbound telegraph messages, and have the upper hand in negotiations.

Not to mention, if what you've got going on is so interesting that other governments want to spy on you, does it make sense for your own government to be the only one that doesn't know what's going on?

If the French secret service really wants to know what I have to say to my relatives overseas, maybe I really want my government to know too?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com