PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”

[marions ghost]

45. I like this comment recently posted at the Vanity fair article:

@cordyc "I'm glad to see other other computer professionals are being vocal, even if they're taking the other side. The country needs a debate on this issue informed by those of us with technological skills.

I, myself, have about a decade of experience in data mining as an academic. Specifically, I work in social network analysis doing precisely the same kind of analysis that PRISM almost certainly uses on the back end. This is one of the most technologically informed articles I've read, but it doesn't persuade me to change my opinion: PRISM is awful.

Let me be clear - I disagree with the author of this article here: "I, as a civil libertarian, have no problem with data-mining programs." As a civil libertarian myself with a long record of voting as a democrat, I find PRISM grossly offensive and immoral. Immoral, not illegal... although the DNI's testimony about domestic spying a few months ago does sound like it could be perjury. To quote The Daily Show: "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
The issue here is, of course, privacy. While I'm no lawyer and only an armchair philosopher, I would argue that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if there is a reasonable expectation that no one would view the information being transmitted. Anyone, not anything. There is about as much reason to think that someone would watch my packets in transit as there is to think that someone is hanging out on a telephone pole, listening to my call. Sure, an event like that could happen that would expose my telephone call to a third party... but that does not mean I do not have a reasonable expectation pertaining to the content of my phone call - or even that I'm making a phone call. By analogy, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the packets I send out.

I have a hard time believing that the secrecy apparatus is needed either. There should be no such thing as a secret court beyond a grand jury. There should be no classified interpretations of laws. There should be no classified court rulings. I may have too much common sense, but I have a hard time seeing how the pre-9/11 framework for getting warrants can't be used. The only argument I can see is this: ZOMG! THE TERRORISTS WILL KNOW WE'RE ON TO THEM. Well, that's not out of the realm of possibility, no. However, the FBI seems to do a pretty good job when it comes to catching non-terrorist criminals and that fact makes this argument kind of difficult to buy.

Honestly, though, the thing that pisses me most off about this scandal is that it proves the idiotic Tea Party folks correct - the government really is acting like Big Brother."