General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnder what circumstances is spying acceptable or essential and why?
I'm not going to include any personal opinions on this post. I want to get an understanding of how people think about spying.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Or are you referring to espionage, gathering data on the activities of other nations?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Applied by the FISA court?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The FISA court is an unconstitutional joke. Wrapping totalitarianism in legalities is part of the authoritarian bag of tricks.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Is it ever necessary? If so, when should it be used? Under what circumstances is it an acceptable activity?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In other words, against hostile nation states. Stasi State 2.0, which basically treats the entire population as hostile, is on the other hand totalitarian nonsense.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)to make sure there were no more cells out there but not indefinitely and not as a new "normal."
sibelian
(7,804 posts)IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)There's no pleasing some people!
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)whenever one has a desire to know empirically something that isn't shared openly.
What makes spying acceptable seems to depend on the assessment that the activity of spying (seeking unshared information) is better than suffering the anxiety/risks that surround doing nothing while not knowing the unshared information.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)That pretty much includes both foreign and domestic spying.
The tortured parsing of legal terms that justifies the current programs we actually are being told about is not in the best interests of our democracy. See Krugman's commentary on this week which basically explains there would be two ways to do domestic surveillance: in an open, limited "democratic" fashion in which the data collected is limited and the populace informed and in a closed, secretive "authoritarian" manner which is the opposite. We have so obviously chosen the latter route, with rumor and whistleblowers having to motivate the conversation instead of an open and honest discussion. This is not the way a democracy functions. I did not have a say, even one overwhelmed by popular opinion on the other side, in this matter and I resent that.
And once this data exists, it will certainly find new uses which we will not be told about up front. Yesterday the Washington post ran a story about drivers license photo databases. Originally created solely to prevent fraudulent use of the licenses, they are now being used to conduct "virtual lineups" of suspects and also being used to match surveillance video with facial recognition technology. This means every US citizen in that database, regardless of circumstances, are de facto suspects in police investigations now. So much for presumptions of innocence.
And even now, the facts about what is being done are still being hidden from us "in the name of national security." I see estimates of a trillion phone calls per year in the US. If each call has 80 characters of "metadata" (number called, duration, only a couple other things as we've been told), 80 trillion bytes would be 80 Terabytes/year. This "database" would easily sit 4-5 blade servers in someone's office. Furthermore if we are to trust what we were told just yesterday, only 300 numbers were targeted. My personal research data takes 20 TB so I can say with certainty that the project officially described is easily capable of being run out of a single office room on a single server by a team of 4-6 people.
So why do we need a bunch of new multi-billion buildings in Utah capable of holding 5 zettabytes (10 years of EVERYTHING by a quick pencil and paper calculation) if the program truly is this small? Why are there stories about the U.S. government being interested in all kinds of commercial databases? Why does a quick perusal of the DARPA website talk about opportunities to do "anomaly detection" in massive databases.
Nope, this is so obviously about more than a limited collection. Someone, somewhere made the successful sales pitch to these guys that you could build a system like the ones we see on CSI on teevee. When you know the name of the bad guy, press a button and on those massive floor to ceiling monitors on the "command center" wall up pops their picture and every significant bit of data ever collected on that person like you'd had a gumshoe on their tails for a decade. Worse, there are probably promises that you can take all that data, put it in a pot, wave a magic wand and out pops all the bad guys (people who don't fit the mean behaviors of the population). Once again, we are all suspects who will need to prove our innocence rather than them proving our guilt.
The problem is oversight at that point -- given that of those in "the know" have split opinions about whether oversight is sufficient I am not mollified. It is too easy to remember the massive misuse of the limited resources available in the 60's to ever think that this will not grow into stifling anyone who might become a threat to the power structure in place now. Already, both Snowden and DiFi outline procedures which seem to indicate that an individual analyst has a lot of query power on the data available. The potential for personal and systemic abuse is massive, the stakes and payoffs high so it *will* happen.
I love the quote from Orson Welles' movie: "The job of a policeman is only easy in a police state." By that criteria, what does big data represent?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)discussion I was hoping for.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Agree, this should be it own OP for discussion
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Never how you treat your friends.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)However, if you have enemies, and they are spying on you, then you can spy back, otherwise not, lest your friends become your enemies. They might even forget to tell you about their change of heart.
telclaven
(235 posts)Spying on hostile, potentially hostile, and non-English speaking countries is pretty much accepted day-to-day operations. It's my understanding the majority English speaking nations (G.B., Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, and associates) have some type of informal or formal agreement not to spy on eachother and share data obtained with each other.
Every other nation-state on the planet does the same.
Meh, that's the Westphalian system.
Now, domestically, that's a different issue.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Does it apply to everyone else in the world too?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... contained within these words:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Parsing and spinning is for totalitarian and authoritarian propagandists. I stand for democracy.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Apply this process to a hostile or belligerent nation for me. If you believe 100% in these principles, you should be able to describe a process which accounts for the most difficult of scenarios.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I am not "a hostile or belligerent nation." I am a private citizen going about my lawful business. I have no interest in your lame attempt to muddy the waters.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... out here, but you knew that. You can't even be honest enough to fucking bother with. Run along now, there more authoritarian bull shit to peddle.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)When the constitution intends to apply to, for example, citizens only, it says so. "the people" is just that.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)But what if we're talking intercepting communications among foreigners outside the United States?
Put another way, where do constitutional protections leave off?
Wrinkle: What about electronic communications originating in another country but accessible to someone in the U.S., bearing in mind that the server that holds the information might be off-shore.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)When this NSA story broke, the term "wiretapping" was being used, even though that was not happening. As the details started to be discussed, we learned that meta data is what was being collected.
In response, the media, rather than doing its job and focusing on gathering the details, decided to move to the more general and ambiguous term, "spying".
By doing so, they allow pundits to generalize, and they are allowing one's imagination to determine what's actually being done, rather than reporting what's actually being done. And by broadening the discussion, the media can discuss "spying" in general, avoid the details, and then maintain the outrage. Details are boring.
That might be why few are taking you up on your question.
To discuss what's acceptable requires a discussion of the details. You have to discuss the fact that the telcos own the meta data, its not yours or mine, its actually theirs. But that detail is inconvenient if you want to shout "police state".
Similarly, you have to discuss warrants and how and when they are obtained. You have to discuss the history of the FISA court starting in 1978. You have to talk about the fact that there were only about 1800 FISA warrants issued last year. 1800 is a pretty low number of requests if you do in fact have a rubber stamp court. You'd use your rubber stamp more frequently in a country this size. But that detail discussion doesn't help create/maintain outrage.
As you note, even the general term spying could be divided into foreign and domestic. There's another detail that no one wants to talk about.
People don't realize that the CONTENT of their email is recorded and stored. Its would be the same as having your the CONTENT of a phone call recorded and stored. Are these the same in the eyes of the law? Should they be? Another detail discussion to be avoided.
Details are bad for propaganda. Propaganda needs to have just enough hooks such that a person can internalize those, and then use their imagination beyond.
Keep the focus on generalizations, avoid specifics.
When is "spying" acceptable ... NEVER!!!!!!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)spying has become the catch-all word. I do believe that law must be made to take into account new technologies and forms of communication. I also believe that propagandizing is not only the tool of the government, hence the interminable back and forth arguing and drill down on details on both sides. And it is happening with both sides.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)they make the debate concrete.
Speaking in abstractions allows one to expand and contract their argument.
But when you get into specific details, its tougher for either side to find wiggle room.
Same is true on issues like abortion. Discussing things like "viability" moves you towards details. Screaming "murder" does not.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I think it's pretty important to safeguard power grids, nuclear plants and all that. Someone has to be watching for intruders.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We have no laws that permit spying, without a warrant with evidence of probable cause, domestically.
We never have had such laws. Eg, it is illegal to spy on Americans unless they are suspected of a crime. In that case, we have laws in accordance with the 4th Amendment of the Constitution that require a warrant. And 'no warrant shall be issued without probable cause'.
It's an easy question to answer. Just abide by the laws on intelligence and you won't have any problems.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and I will never be one of those "other people".
That seems to be the prevailing feeling of those who justify it.