![]()
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114712.post461660269784096871..comments2020-09-19T00:51:49.311-07:00Comments on ADD / XOR / ROL: Why Intelligence Reform is necessaryhalvar.flakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12486016980670992738[email protected]Blogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114712.post-56673196835901646002014-01-15T13:25:28.628-08:002014-01-15T13:25:28.628-08:00Thoughtful and useful. Included in a growing maste...Thoughtful and useful. Included in a growing master list of postings on intelligence reform, short url is http://tinyurl.com/2014=Intel-Reform<br /><br />If you do a second post, consider sending me an email, don't want to miss including it. Email is [email protected]<br /><br />Best wishes <br />Robert SteeleUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14267088683987642222[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114712.post-2767321214056344502014-01-13T00:40:54.459-08:002014-01-13T00:40:54.459-08:00Halvar
i enjoyed reading the first part of your b...Halvar<br /><br />i enjoyed reading the first part of your blog (over a beer) and cannot agree with what you have said so far. I look forward to the second part of this blog but i am extremely skeptical that any effective reform will be carried out. I'm more inclined towards educating the masses on leveraging technology to protect themselves. Technology cuts both ways and is a great catalyst for empowerment.<br /><br />Thomas Limthomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16315773963267178124[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114712.post-62680815897328090702014-01-12T12:59:12.685-08:002014-01-12T12:59:12.685-08:00Regarding Corporations, I want to add that sometim...Regarding Corporations, I want to add that sometimes this reduces to "People post lots of things to Facebook so why shouldn't the government be able to collect their phone records?" In fact, in the US the Fourth Amendment concept of the Third Party Doctrine treats any business record held by any third party as if it had been posted on the open Internet, for the purposes of government access. This oversimplification is worth addressing. <br /><br />People choose what they post to Facebook and there are things they choose not to post. Financial and telecom records often contain information that isn't on Facebook, and the conscious decision that people make not to put it all there is important. <br /><br />Furthermore, the third parties aren't all working together. One company may have, out of necessity, some fragment of my life, but the picture that is created by aggregating together all of the data from all of the different corporations that I deal with is different from the picture that each company has on its own. <br /><br />Finally, people expect Corporations to use the business records that they have strictly for business purposes. Often, privacy policies contractually prohibit corporations from sharing the records that they have with third parties, but for some reason our concept of government access functions as if those contractual relationships didn't exist or don't matter to people. The government's use for these business records isn't a benign effort to make my life more convenient or even advertise to me - they are watching me in order to see if I've done anything that they don't like. Their application for my data is necessarily a threat to me, not a benefit, so it has an entirely different character than the purpose for which it was originally collected. (The idea that I benefit from protection from terrorism is a canard that gets raised here. Thats an argument for targeted surveillance, not bulk surveillance. My data is not used to protect me. My data is used to investigate me.) <br /><br />In the intelligence context its incredibly important to recognize that one need not have done anything wrong in order to interesting to an intel agency. Often, intel agonies use secrets that don't represent criminal activity but that are merely embarrassing in order to blackmail people. Sometimes, particularly in the political context, the purpose of intelligence surveillance is to convey a strategic advantage to one's adversaries by providing them with private information about your associations, plans, and negotiating positions. <br /><br />While a respect for human rights demands that we consider the privacy interests of people everywhere, intelligence surveillance is particularly dangerous when it is used domestically, as it has the potential to neutralize legitimate domestic political movements that stand in opposition to the views of the party in power. In that sense, it can undermine democracy. There is a serious allegation that it was used to this effect in the United States in the late 1960's in order to marginalize opposition to the war in Vietnam, and there are well informed observers such as Mary Wheeler who have raised the concern that the domestic telecom meta-data surveillance program in the United States may have targeted opposition to the second Iraq war. The use of surveillance in the former East Germany provides a clear example of how dangerous this can be. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460787728313659162[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114712.post-67806029274930064022014-01-12T12:58:50.284-08:002014-01-12T12:58:50.284-08:00Regarding Corporations, I want to add that sometim...Regarding Corporations, I want to add that sometimes this reduces to "People post lots of things to Facebook so why shouldn't the government be able to collect their phone records?" In fact, in the US the Fourth Amendment concept of the Third Party Doctrine treats any business record held by any third party as if it had been posted on the open Internet, for the purposes of government access. This oversimplification is worth addressing. <br /><br />People choose what they post to Facebook and there are things they choose not to post. Financial and telecom records often contain information that isn't on Facebook, and the conscious decision that people make not to put it all there is important. <br /><br />Furthermore, the third parties aren't all working together. One company may have, out of necessity, some fragment of my life, but the picture that is created by aggregating together all of the data from all of the different corporations that I deal with is different from the picture that each company has on its own. <br /><br />Finally, people expect Corporations to use the business records that they have strictly for business purposes. Often, privacy policies contractually prohibit corporations from sharing the records that they have with third parties, but for some reason our concept of government access functions as if those contractual relationships didn't exist or don't matter to people. The government's use for these business records isn't a benign effort to make my life more convenient or even advertise to me - they are watching me in order to see if I've done anything that they don't like. Their application for my data is necessarily a threat to me, not a benefit, so it has an entirely different character than the purpose for which it was originally collected. (The idea that I benefit from protection from terrorism is a canard that gets raised here. Thats an argument for targeted surveillance, not bulk surveillance. My data is not used to protect me. My data is used to investigate me.) <br /><br />In the intelligence context its incredibly important to recognize that one need not have done anything wrong in order to interesting to an intel agency. Often, intel agonies use secrets that don't represent criminal activity but that are merely embarrassing in order to blackmail people. Sometimes, particularly in the political context, the purpose of intelligence surveillance is to convey a strategic advantage to one's adversaries by providing them with private information about your associations, plans, and negotiating positions. <br /><br />While a respect for human rights demands that we consider the privacy interests of people everywhere, intelligence surveillance is particularly dangerous when it is used domestically, as it has the potential to neutralize legitimate domestic political movements that stand in opposition to the views of the party in power. In that sense, it can undermine democracy. There is a serious allegation that it was used to this effect in the United States in the late 1960's in order to marginalize opposition to the war in Vietnam, and there are well informed observers such as Mary Wheeler who have raised the concern that the domestic telecom meta-data surveillance program in the United States may have targeted opposition to the second Iraq war. The use of surveillance in the former East Germany provides a clear example of how dangerous this can be. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460787728313659162[email protected]
文章来源: http://addxorrol.blogspot.com/feeds/461660269784096871/comments/default
如有侵权请联系:admin#unsafe.sh