US spy device 'tested on NZ public'
nzherald.co.nz
nzherald.co.nz
Of all the things to take from this article, to my mind, that's not the first.
Also, what is new is the scale of meta data capture and analysis capabilities enabled by current technology. It is silly to say that authorities have historically looked at postal addresses on envelopes, so that makes it also OK to sniff virtually all forms of meta data for all forms of electronic communications. You can extrapolate that point into inanity, such that virtually anything is fair game.
Here, you are literally using what was permissible with Pony Express technology to make the case that it should still be permissible (or is at least no different) in today's hyper-connected world.
But, at some point, technical capabilities render safeguards in old laws obsolete, and we must take a fresh look at long relied upon precedents. Some of those precedents are based on capabilities available at the time, long before many of those available today could even be imagined. When that happens, there is a material difference in implication and meaning.
Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications. Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." Which goes wholly against what the founders intended when they wrote that limitations on the power of police to search must be "reasonable."
It goes to show who we're talking to, and the level of discussion we can have with those who wish to control us.
Yes, we do. If you're trying to get information not accessible to the public, get a warrant. If you're not prepared to defend your request to a judge, you have no business making it in the first place.
No one said that. The converse of that is actually what you're doing, and I simply called you on it. That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities. Your argument rests on "oh, nothing new about that. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving."
>Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications
What is this term "privacy advocate"? I don't consider myself one, because I reject it on its face. There should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. That people like you so casually bandy about the term, as if your fellow citizens are asking for something foreign or not already a guaranteed right, is testament to how far we've gone astray. If anything, we should instead call you a "privacy-destruction advocate" or perhaps "anti-Constitution". Yours is the outlying position.
In any event, there is a simple test for the balance you suggest and that is whether, in keeping up with modern communications, we are affording law enforcement with more capabilities or eroding privacy. I think it's pretty clear that especially since 9/11, that balance you reference has tipped much more heavily in law enforcement's favor. So, as much as you may sympathize with the government, they are doing just fine. The question is, where would you have them stop?
>Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work."
It's ridiculous to suggest that's the intent. That you feel the need to re-characterize our position in such a silly manner reveals your insecurity in defending your argument against the very real and significantly weightier actual arguments made by people like myself.
People say it all the time. It's the go-to retort whenever anyone brings up the fact that new technologies allow criminals to coordinate and plot in new ways. "Why do we need new laws to fight Al Qaeda?"
> That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities.
It's not a silly comparison. The internet may not have existed 100+ years ago, but people did, and the mechanics of people are remarkably stable. The underlying dynamic: certain information not falling within the scope of privacy rights because its made plainly visible, is mechanically similar whether you're talking about addresses scrolled on postal envelopes or e-mail addresses in an SMTP header.
> here should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default.
The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "private" appears just once (in the phrase "private property"). The 4th amendment has certain guarantees that protect certain kinds of privacy,[1] but not the broad guarantee of "privacy" that you imply. Specifically, the 4th amendment protects your house and your person from unreasonable searches. It's not a blanket right of privacy that protects your communications, even in contexts where those communications are disclosed to numerous third parties.
[1] But the 4th amendment need not be interpreted in terms of a broader concept of "privacy" at all.
Perhaps you can stick to what the real people to whom you are replying here are actually saying vs. what those imaginary people are saying somewhere in the universe. That was probably the most obvious straw man I have ever seen on HN and definitely the first admission of having constructed one.
>The mechanics of peope are remarkably stable...the underlying dynamic...mechanically similar...
No. None of that. I mean those words really sound great when strung together that way, but you've just repeated yourself and it is no more true now than before. You have already acknowledged that technology has changed, but you don't want to acknowledge that so called "keeping pace" by the government can and does amount to additional privacy intrusions. You just offer up a blanket, "oh, it's all the same", as if sniffing every packet of every electronic communication would be the same as human beings reading addresses on postal envelopes. Sorry. Still silly, no matter how many action-packed adverbs you throw in.
Of course, your tutorial on how infrequently the actual word "privacy" appears in the Constitution is silly as well. Obviously, much of what the Constitution expresses in so many ways with regard to protection from the government rolls up under "privacy". That you are arguing the privacy word count is spurious. Citizens simply cannot have protection from the government or liberty itself without privacy, including the right to communicate with other private citizens without having virtually any or all such communications intercepted and analyzed by the government. How you can divorce such basic, common sense tenets from the very spirit of the Constitution is remarkable.
But, I guess when it became clear that enhanced capabilities do amount to a further intrusion on privacy, your only recourse was to redefine privacy and the Constitution itself. It is amazing watching you contort and move the goal posts, as much as it is a frank admission that your position is not tenable.
I seldom agree with the usual rayiner posts, but at least the arguments are somewhat cogent. The rayiner posts on this thread, however, make me wonder if the "regular" rayiner is on vacation and someone else is running the "privacy-destruction advocate" account.
I kid. Of course.
Do you think having that should be illegal?
4G voice is just data, so that it can be end-to-end encrypted such that, as far as is known, calls can be made secure against any attack. There is no "man in the middle" with access to clear data.
So you say that should not be illegal. Good, so far. But that also means that it is out of reach of law enforcement, and can even be made safe from "rubber hose" code-breaking.
That's what I mean by a stark choice. There is no middle ground. The algorithms exist and that can't be undone. If you put your documents in a safe strong enough to keep a mafia or foreign spy agency out, you can keep anyone out.
Should that be illegal? This isn't just a hypothetical. Any businessman or government worker traveling to places that are corrupt or have repressive governments would be a fool not to guard important documents and communications this well, and the tools are readily available.
There is this idea among hackers that you should be able to trust Google, etc, to keep information private from the government. But that's not what privacy means in the context of the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment starts with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."
It's clearly referring to things that are truly private: things you keep in your house or on your person, not things you voluntarily share with potentially hundreds of people at AT&T, Google, Apple, Akamai, etc.
How many people realize they're (with the default configuration) disclosing to Google what they type into the address bar?
By your rationale, there is no warrant necessary to search the secured offices of a corporation that employs an outside cleaning staff.
Do you think it's appropriate to evaluate the meaning of "privacy" through what a 200-year-old document says? Or do you think we might need to take the Internet into account too? Does privacy have anything to do with what laws say?
The 2001 PATRIOT ACT clarified the Pen Register Act, extending this privilege to internet communications.
This is news? It happened 12 years ago.
I would also note to whoever posts these NZHerald links, they are basically like the Fox News of New Zealand. None of the reports have a clue what the talking about when it comes to technology subjects, and they are known for writing about complete garbage which half the time isn't true at all.
Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.
If you are interested in the most credible celebrity gossip news source, that is. Stuff is terrible.
I remember the headline for the Herald on Sunday last week was along the lines of:
"EXCLUSIVE: X-RAY REVEALS CELLPHONE FOUND IN INMATE'S BUM"
What?! Surely you don't mean scoop.co.nz?
I find just about everything published under the Fairfax banner is of pretty poor quality, not necessarily factually incorrect or even politically biased, but presented in a overly sensationalist manner and with a populist and oversimplified analysis where any is provided at all.
Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have similar problems as well.
Radio NZ seems to have more freedom to ignore certain demographics (the lowest common denominator), and IMO has better quality news and opinion than other sources.
"I sometimes ask myself what would life be like if I had just stayed at TVNZ, and there is no doubt that materially life would be a lot richer. But I do not regret for a second the fact that I forsook that career. I was dying within at TVNZ. The dumbing down that was going on. Plus the fact that for twenty years I had made a career of listening to other people spouting mainly nonsense. I had also become aware of what scumbags they were."
A good example is a friend of mine got mentioned on a headline of sharing naked pictures of some celebrity in a Facebook group. They mentioned all the companies he worked/associated as well to make it more juicy.
The article was complete BS as it was actually someone else and the picture itself wasn't even that bad (no naked bits). He basically got sacked from all his employers since they mentioned them.
He got his lawyer to send down a takedown notice, and they removed the article off their website and had to post a following article in the paper saying that the article was a load of BS.
Note, I'm not commenting on the legality or wisdom of this, just that the underlying analysis technique isn't anything new.
[1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415...
This tends to happen from time to time outside of the current constructs of the government at the time.
Also, America controls all the communication channels including Internet (domain assignment is done in USA, see ICANN), there is still no direct filtering and content control but politicians are slowly pushing laws to get us there.