The NSA has gone too far... again...

[vodka vision]

emotion_facepalm In a recent leak it's been revealed that the NSA considers anyone who uses what they classify as "Privacy enhancing software," as an exremist. What constitutes privacy enhancing material, you might ask? Well, anything from TOR, which encrypts any and all data coming and going to and from a computer, all the way down to a simple OS, my OS, in fact. Anything linux based. The reason Linux is considered privacy enhancing software, is because of a few simple code designs that make it my OS of choice.

Viruses have an extremely hard time running on a Linux based OS
Linux doesn't allow for any keystroke / data recording software.

Now, does this truly warrant more than just the metadata they take from everyone else? Yes, the NSA operates on a full take policy -all the data transmitted is recorded and stored- for just average people who use a Linux based OS?


Discuss:

Security vs. Liberty trade offs
Is such scrutiny justified?

[The Herald of War]

I'm pretty sure I *had* to use Linux for some of my classes at university. And it's just plain convenient for some things. If this thing's true then they're pretty stupid.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

There were people on a particular linux forum, not everyone who use's linux. xP

NSA isn't spying on everyone, the argument is the 9/10 people were random people, so they could be spying on a lot of unconnected/innocent people. [1][2]However, the vast majority were strongly connected to the individuals they were investigating, just they weren't in on their plans. "Other valuable material reportedly revealed by the messages include information about "a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into U.S. computer networks,"


The second argument is that they have the technology to potentially spy on everyone.

But two officers and a van have always had that ability, so it's not really that big of a deal imo. They don't have the manpower even if they tried, so I'm not too concerned.


In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

[Corrupting Clay]

vodka vision

Discuss:

Security vs. Liberty trade offs
Is such scrutiny justified?

Can I add in, "We can't trust what the NSA does because they just classify all the illegal stuff they do?"

If we were to say that this security tradeoff was worthwhile and justified, we would still have no way of knowing the NSA weren't just spying on everybody instead of just a few. Frankly they probably are, and that'll just be a later Snowden leak revelation.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Corrupting Clay

vodka vision

Discuss:

Security vs. Liberty trade offs
Is such scrutiny justified?

Can I add in, "We can't trust what the NSA does because they just classify all the illegal stuff they do?"

If we were to say that this security tradeoff was worthwhile and justified, we would still have no way of knowing the NSA weren't just spying on everybody instead of just a few. Frankly they probably are, and that'll just be a later Snowden leak revelation.

Well if the information was released publicly then the whole investigating people's private information would be no longer private to them, so, that wouldn't really work.

I suppose removing the NSA's internal court could be useful, but that again runs into the same problem.


Also can =/= are.

There's no intelligence value in spying on random people, and there's not enough man power to sift through all the data, so they likely at least try to choose people who are probable targets.

[Corrupting Clay]

Suicidesoldier#1

Well if the information was released publicly then the whole investigating people's private information would be no longer private to them, so, that wouldn't really work.

I suppose removing the NSA's internal court could be useful, but that again runs into the same problem.


Also can =/= are.

There's no intelligence value in spying on random people, and there's not enough man power to sift through all the data, so they likely at least try to choose people who are likely targets.

Well, then. If there's no way to morally or legally accomplish the NSA's mission, with no assurance that it won't be illegally and unethically abused, it should be disbanded, benefits be damned. Don't you think? We should only keep around those parts of the government that have some chance of actually doing their job and not becoming rife with unaccountable criminals?

Edit: Also, the snowden leaks = are. A bunch of are's, in fact.

[Yoshpet]

Suicidesoldier#1

In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

Our legal system assumes innocence. We do not investigate people to prove innocence.

Being a "close associate" is not probable cause.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Yoshpet

Suicidesoldier#1

In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

Our legal system assumes innocence. We do not investigate people to prove innocence.

Being a "close associate" is not probable cause.

We do, actually.

The only way they do an investigation to prove you're guilty or innocent in the first place is by doing preliminary investigations into you; it's not as if they know you're a murderer and then do an investigation to prove it, they have to do the investigation *first* to prove you are a murderer, so the assumption is that this person they're looking into is innocent to begin with, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

They need probable cause, but just being a suspect can be enough to get a warrant. It has to go through a judge but, it's how they do it. So if you're the husband, they find gambling debts, recently pulled out a life insurance policy etc. it's enough to get a warrant to figure out if you'e the guy. Granted most of the time the people aren't, but it's sufficient to warrant a preliminary investigation.


How they'd know you had a gambling debt, a 6 month year old life insurance policy to get a warrant for more investigation in the first place...?

They obviously had to look into this person's information. There's varying levels of privacy they're privy to at different stages of an investigation, but, at some level yes, they can probe around, and typically it's known associates.


How then, do you perceive they're able to figure out who's a murderer/guilty and whatnot unless they're first allowed to start gathering information from suspects, like DNA and hair for instance? And who do you think their first pool of suspects likely are?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Corrupting Clay

Suicidesoldier#1

Well if the information was released publicly then the whole investigating people's private information would be no longer private to them, so, that wouldn't really work.

I suppose removing the NSA's internal court could be useful, but that again runs into the same problem.


Also can =/= are.

There's no intelligence value in spying on random people, and there's not enough man power to sift through all the data, so they likely at least try to choose people who are likely targets.

Well, then. If there's no way to morally or legally accomplish the NSA's mission, with no assurance that it won't be illegally and unethically abused, it should be disbanded, benefits be damned. Don't you think? We should only keep around those parts of the government that have some chance of actually doing their job and not becoming rife with unaccountable criminals?

Edit: Also, the snowden leaks = are. A bunch of are's, in fact.

We can never be 100% sure that any group in the government will be ethical, so that basically means we can never have a government. There's always a potential for a risk.

No more than the "police" should be disbanded because there's no assurance it won't be illegally and unethically abused. Or the EPA for that matter, or NASA.


There's also the potential for failure.

[Yoshpet]

Suicidesoldier#1

Yoshpet

Suicidesoldier#1

In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

Our legal system assumes innocence. We do not investigate people to prove innocence.

Being a "close associate" is not probable cause.

We do, actually.

The only way they do an investigation to prove you're guilty or innocent in the first place is by doing preliminary investigations into you; it's not as if they know you're a murderer and then do an investigation to prove it, they have to do the investigation *first* to prove you are a murderer.

They need probable cause, but just being a suspect can be enough to get a warrant. It has to go through a judge but, it's how they do it. So if you're the husband, they find gambling debts, a life insurance policy etc. it's enough to get a warrant to figure out if you'e the guy. Granted most of the time the people aren't, but it's sufficient to warrant a preliminary investigation.


How they'd know you had a gambling debt, a 6 month year old life insurance policy to get a warrant for more investigation in the first place...?

They obviously had to look into this person's information. There's varying levels of privacy they're privy to at different stages of an investigation, but, at some level yes, they can probe around, and typically it's known associates.


How then, do you perceive they're able to figure out who's a murderer/guilty and whatnot unless they're first allowed to start gathering information from suspects, like DNA and hair for instance? And who do you think they're first pool of suspects likely are?

No, people are not investigated to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent and investigated to look for evidence of guilt.

Um, because an enormous amount of information on people is held in public records and doesn't require a warrant or probable cause...? Being a suspect or having a motive is not the same as probable cause either.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Yoshpet

Suicidesoldier#1

Yoshpet

Suicidesoldier#1

In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

Our legal system assumes innocence. We do not investigate people to prove innocence.

Being a "close associate" is not probable cause.

We do, actually.

The only way they do an investigation to prove you're guilty or innocent in the first place is by doing preliminary investigations into you; it's not as if they know you're a murderer and then do an investigation to prove it, they have to do the investigation *first* to prove you are a murderer.

They need probable cause, but just being a suspect can be enough to get a warrant. It has to go through a judge but, it's how they do it. So if you're the husband, they find gambling debts, a life insurance policy etc. it's enough to get a warrant to figure out if you'e the guy. Granted most of the time the people aren't, but it's sufficient to warrant a preliminary investigation.


How they'd know you had a gambling debt, a 6 month year old life insurance policy to get a warrant for more investigation in the first place...?

They obviously had to look into this person's information. There's varying levels of privacy they're privy to at different stages of an investigation, but, at some level yes, they can probe around, and typically it's known associates.


How then, do you perceive they're able to figure out who's a murderer/guilty and whatnot unless they're first allowed to start gathering information from suspects, like DNA and hair for instance? And who do you think they're first pool of suspects likely are?

No, people are not investigated to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent and investigated to look for evidence of guilt.

Um, because an enormous amount of information on people is held in public records and doesn't require a warrant or probable cause...? Being a suspect or having a motive is not the same as probable cause either.

"They are presumed innocent and investigated to look for evidence of guilt."- That's entirely my point. Any investigation will delve into your private information, information not available to the general public or even public officials (as in, police can't look through your financial history at a whim, go through their ex-wife's/a friend/a random person's stuff cause it's openly available in a data base) until there is reason to suspect you of a crime. We don't presume guilt and thus justify looking through your private information, we presume innocence, and yet look through it anyways (meaning they can look through innocent people's private information).

They can't just do it at random, they have to prove a connection in some way to first get access to that information. Usually it doesn't take much though.

[Corrupting Clay]

Suicidesoldier#1

We can never be 100% sure that any group in the government will be ethical, so that basically means we can never have a government. There's always a potential for a risk.

Except with every other part of the government we can have accountability - some means to examine and check the workings of their bureaus and operations.

The NSA's mission is unaccountable and consequently untrustworthy. And a very long series of revelations continue to show us what a mistake it has been to trust an organization with an unaccountable mission. Currently we're at "Using Linux means the government treats you like a terrorist", but there's no reason the NSA will stop there because there is no degree of accountability stopping them, no oversight from the people in America who should hold power.

And it's not like we necessarily benefit from the existence of an unaccountable spy bureau. Consider the KGB. Do you think Russia has profited from their existence?

[conconconcrete wall]

The Herald of War

I'm pretty sure I *had* to use Linux for some of my classes at university. And it's just plain convenient for some things. If this thing's true then they're pretty stupid.

It's not just stupid, it's Soviet-level oppression. "If you at any time refuse to submit to total surveillance for any reason, you will be considered an enemy."

[conconconcrete wall]

Suicidesoldier#1

There were people on a particular linux forum, not everyone who use's linux. xP

NSA isn't spying on everyone, the argument is the 9/10 people were random people, so they could be spying on a lot of unconnected/innocent people. [1][2]However, the vast majority were strongly connected to the individuals they were investigating, just they weren't in on their plans. "Other valuable material reportedly revealed by the messages include information about "a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into U.S. computer networks,"


The second argument is that they have the technology to potentially spy on everyone.

But two officers and a van have always had that ability, so it's not really that big of a deal imo. They don't have the manpower even if they tried, so I'm not too concerned.


In any case, usually when they do an investigation 9/10 people they investigate are innocent. Like, take a murder; they usually first investigate the husband/wife, the friends, coworkers, neighbors, the known associates, people who could potentially have motives, and so on. Obviously the majority of these people end up being innocent; but the only way to prove that is to do preliminary searches about them to figure out information to exclude them. They need probable cause to initiate that search, but just being a close associate to this person is usually enough. There's differing levels of justifiable privacy invasion to do an investigation, however, this is more or less how they've done things for like, forever.

You can't gloss this s**t over, scumbag, give it up!

[conconconcrete wall]

vodka vision

Viruses have an extremely hard time running on a Linux based OS
Linux doesn't allow for any keystroke / data recording software.

Linux also lacks Windows' government backdoor.