« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Trust and surveillance

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 11 Aug 13 5:49 PM | 46 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 14384 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 14383 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

"I'd go even further than that and argue that a big part of the reason the American people are having a hard time trusting their government is that the public's trust in government is harmed every time the American people learn that their government is secretly doing something they not only assumed was illegal but that government officials specifically told them they weren't doing. Hint: When the American people learn that you lied to them, they trust you less.

...

I think the American people would be more likely to trust the President when he says these programs include safeguards that protect their privacy, if he -- or anyone else in his administration -- seemed to care about privacy rights or demonstrated an understanding of how the information being collected could be abused. Seriously, how are we supposed to trust safeguards devised by people who don't believe there is anything to safeguard against?

I think it's understandably hard for the American people to trust the President when he says his Administration has the legal authority to conduct these surveillance programs when one of the few things that remains classified about these programs is the legal argument that the administration says gives the NSA the authority to conduct these programs. This is the document that explains why the Administration believes the word "relevant" gives them the authority to collect everything. It's also the document I'd most like to see since it's the document my former boss has been requesting be declassified for more than half a decade. (A reporter recently asked me why I think the Administration won't just declassify the legal opinion given that the sources and methods it relates to have already been made public. "I think that's pretty obvious," I said. "I believe it will be much harder for the Administration to claim that these programs are legal, if people can see their legal argument.") ...

Which brings me to my final point (at least for now) I think it's awfully hard for the American people to trust the President and his administration when their best response to the concerns Americans are raising is to denigrate the Americans raising those concerns. Because, you see, I have a hard time understanding why my wanting to stand up for democratic principles makes me unpatriotic, while the ones calling themselves patriots seem to think so little of the people and the principles that comprise the country they purport to love."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

This astonishing article is worth reading in full. It provides an insider's view of how Obama has systematically frustrated the surveillance debate in Congress. Clearly she was incensed by Obama's claim to have been pushing for such a debate to happen.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re:survailence and the "back door"
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Sun, 11 Aug 13 5:27 PM
Msg. 14383 of 54959

"Fear not, says the NSA, we “touch” only 1.6% of daily internet traffic. If, as they say, the net carries 1,826 petabytes of information per day, then the NSA “touches” about 29 petabytes a day. They don’t say what “touch” means. Ingest? Store? Analyze? Inquiring minds want to know.

For context, Google in 2010 said it had indexed only 0.004% of the data on the net. So by inference from the percentages, does that mean that the NSA is equal to 400 Googles? ...

Keep in mind that most of the data passing on the net is not email or web pages. It’s media. ...

HTTP — the web — accounts for only 11.8% of aggregated up- and download traffic in the U.S., Sandvine says. Communications — the part of the net the NSA really cares about — accounts for 2.9% in the U.S.

So by very rough, beer-soaked-napkin numbers, the NSA’s 1.6% of net traffic would be half of the communication on the net. That’s a fuckuvalota “touching.”

And keep in mind that by one estimate 68.8% of email is spam."

http://buzzmachine.com/2013/08/10/nsa-by-the-numbers/


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next