Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-for-a-rigorous-national-debate-about-surveillance-1451856106

by AlexCoventry • 10 years ago

71 88 10 years ago

wsj.com

kensai• 10 years ago

Oh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?

ProAm4• 10 years ago

Pick up that can.

fixermark2• 10 years ago

For what it's worth, quite a few citizens consider other armed citizens a red flag, 2nd Amendment be damned.

daheza• 10 years ago

Maybe this is just false security, but I at least feel comfortable knowing apple and I are on the same side in this fight.

r00fus• 10 years ago

Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this?

I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.

ProAm4• 10 years ago

Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this?

Of course we did, we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president. However sometimes before you can rebuild you need to burn the existing structure to the ground first. We're tired of the status quo and want significant change in how we're represented. Sometimes you have to endure a little pain before things get better.

EDIT: I think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.

immobilenopass• 10 years ago

think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.

Oh? How do you see this happening? Both parties are still here, alas.

buckbova2• 10 years ago

we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president.

I heard the EXACT same thing said about President Obama. The results were debatable.

EDIT: I think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.

You're projecting. Plenty of Americans are very happy with the way the elections went and suspect more republicans taking power in the midterm elections. Historically republicans do better in midterm elections.

adiabatty• 10 years ago

I'm not surprised by this.

I also wouldn't have been surprised if a Clinton appointee had said this, either. Remember that her husband was trying to mandate key escrow and she herself, on the campaign trail, said that she wanted to monitor everything possible to prevent terror attacks.

lintiness• 10 years ago

i voted for trump because hacker news told me the universe would unravel when he won. i'm still here, but apparently i'll be wearing a leash soon.

matwood• 10 years ago

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with this, since the government has been fighting/arguing against the populace having strong encryption for awhile.

Miner49er2• 10 years ago

The title of this post was changed, but the title originally pointed out that the author of this article is Trump's pick for director of the CIA.

shawn-furyan• 10 years ago

Down voted. I don't think this is a constructive question. Encryption wasn't even a minor policy stance of the 4 most major parties' nominees for president.

It's not very reasonable to <strike>blame</strike> pointedly question voters for actions their candidate didn't take a stance on.

[edit], thought better of using the word 'blame'. It's not an accurate characterization, but didn't want to erase the history of having initially chosen that word either.

venomsnake4• 10 years ago

I suspected (disclaimer, didn't vote, because has no right to, but supported Trump since the first dilbert articles).

But I thought that in the long run the identity politics and social justice gone berserk are the greater danger.

And breaking the spine of Apple, while probably wrong would have given me great satisfaction.

chrissnell2• 10 years ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right.

It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.

ChuckMcM• 10 years ago

I think that is a more accurate characterization. There are lots of things which can indicate you're trouble. One or even two of them is probably not an issue, once you get to three or four it starts to be harder to explain away.

Miner49er2• 10 years ago

This argument is similar to the "nothing to hide" argument. People shouldn't be flagged just for wanting privacy.

chrissnell2• 10 years ago

Not really. I'm saying that it's one of many factors, some typically benign (like "gun owner"), and some not benign ("has a brother fighting for IS in Syria"). To do a better job at intelligence, our government needs to look at these holistically.

My argument also extends to things like the TSA. We all like to complain about having to wait in line for security at the airport. Why can't they do better threat assessment? Well, it needs a holistic approach. Why should I, chrissnell, an officer in the Army Reserve, with no criminal record whatsoever, be subjected anything more than a magnetometer at the airport? If the TSA would look at my profile holistically, they would see that I am not a significant threat and that should mean that I would be able to go on my way without interference.

digler9993• 10 years ago

someone might want to keep an eye on you

what good will that do if the suspect is using encryption. thats the whole point!

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

"red flag" has a pretty strong connotation of "worth consideration all on its own".

Like in your example, I bet recent association with known drug traffickers is so much of a stronger signal that looking at encryption or felony history is basically worthless. Associating with known criminals is worthy of the label 'red flag'.

yup1233• 10 years ago

I imagine that if criminals know that a product has a backdoor they'll start meeting in person, then what?

JshWright• 10 years ago

Is locking your door a red flag?

buckbova2• 10 years ago

Probably not, but hand delivering/receiving packages in secret probably is.

venomsnake4• 10 years ago

Locking my door no. But building 4 meter concrete fence with barbed wire and armed guards around my house probably is.

Is encryption door lock(which in the real world are trivial to bypass in case of valid warrant) or Bond villain's lair?

Encryption is red flag because so few people are using it.

TeMPOraL5• 10 years ago

Indeed. People are forgetting we have a whole piece of math - called probability theory - for dealing exactly with that stuff. It can tell you whether or not doing X is an evidence for you being Y (or evidence against it).

The important thing is - probability theory doesn't depend on rhetorics. Someone speaking the "nothing to hide" argument, or someone else finding arguments against it convincing, doesn't suddenly invalidate Bayes' theorem! Trying to argue from principle is a mistake because reality doesn't listen to principles. The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is.

Those considerations do include things like loss of utility because of false positives / false negatives, too. So for instance, it may be so that evildoers are more likely to use encryption than general population, but there's so much normal people using encryption that you can't get evidence for being evil out of just noticing that a person uses encryption (the same considerations explain why so much of what TSA is doing is security theater).

_qbxp2• 10 years ago

I agree with you in general. My issue with this line of thinking for policy decisions, is that I personally believe relying solely on objective probability theory to associate people with _______, without looking at the larger picture, and then building policies from that, could exacerbate the reason the association is being payed attention to in the first place.

Let's say theoretically, that people who wear red shirts are objectively more likely to commit a crime. Policies are made such that people with red shirts are targeted for extra policing. People with red shirts who are not criminals feel discriminated and overly watched, and because of that, generate a resentment against society and (I admit this is a jump), ultimately end up with a higher disposition towards committing crimes. And then it just goes on ad infinitum.

So in some situations, I would argue that society benefits from ignoring these objective probabilities entirely, if there's evidence that taking action based on them could cause downstream negative consequences.

pc2g4d• 10 years ago

"The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is."

I think we need to be careful not to argue law from probability theory. While as you've pointed out many things will not actually be predictive of "being a terrorist" (whatever that means) there will be things that _are_ predictive. But we mustn't let the predictive nature of the information be in and of itself justification for obtaining it. There needs to be respect for constitutional limits on the reach of government, regardless of what the math says.

pnathan• 10 years ago

There's certainly a valid argument for, "smells like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.... maybe it's a duck, ok?"

It's super clear that we're on the cusp of a total informational transformation in the West in terms of how life is lived, and a consequence is that there are deluges of personal data.... and a lawful, diligent and trustworthy law enforcement or spy officer will want to use that to do their jobs better. Unlike many in the tech world, I don't buy into either left or right anarchism: I think the office of the State is a valid one.

So we have to start looking to the future and how to properly safeguard rights in the Information Age.

libeclipse• 10 years ago

I feel that the gun debate and the encryption debate have a shared argument: in a world where X is outlawed, only the outlaws will have X.

bborud2• 10 years ago

No. Not really. And frankly, it scares me that this is even confusing to people.

nine_k2• 10 years ago

Can you please elaborate?

unethical_ban• 10 years ago

That you probably are not in favor of strong gun rights, doesn't mean the situations don't have similarities.

yup1233• 10 years ago

Just keep in mind that governments that take powers never give it back.

nine_k2• 10 years ago

Not unless some pressure is applied.

apo• 10 years ago

Do any examples come to mind?

1024core• 10 years ago

From the horse's mouth: http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=...

fixermark2• 10 years ago

And it will continue to be a red flag until and unless it becomes common among individuals to communicate that way. Really, more individual education is the only practical way to de-stigmatize strong encryption in the eyes of authority; it can't be wrong if everyone's doing it, but if everyone isn't, it looks suspicious.

dzdt• 10 years ago

Just like keeping the curtains drawn on your house is a red flag...

estebank• 10 years ago

Funnily enough in The Netherlands there's an aversion to curtains, to the point where people decorate the interior of their houses next to the window as some sort of diorama.

(Just so people don't think I'm just making this up: https://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-... )

lb1lf• 10 years ago

In Norway (and probably a few other places!) there's a sect called the Læstadians after the founder, Something-or-the-other Læstadius (19th-century Swedish preacher)

Anyway, for some reason they have an aversion to curtains, too - it is commonly said to stem from one of the significant preachers who, during a sermon, exclaimed 'One does not need curtains to go to heaven!'

The point he was trying to make was that one didn't need to be well heeled (19th century northern Norway not being anybody's idea of a well-off community!) to make it past the pearly gates; however, this has since been taken to mean that 'Curtains will not get you to heaven!' - and, hence, being useless.

This is probably apocryphical; however, it is an anecdote lots of Norwegians have heard, and sadly, I do not know any Læstadians I can ask to verify it...

samsolomon• 10 years ago

For anyone confused about the date of this article, it was co-authored by the incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo at the beginning of this year.

AlexCoventry• 10 years ago

Yes, I attempted to provide this context in the original title, "Incoming CIA Director: Strong encryption in personal communications is a red flag," but it's been changed to the title of the editorial.

The main reason this seemed to be of interest to the HN community is the following: "Forcing terrorists into encrypted channels, however, impedes their operational effectiveness by constraining the amount of data they can send and complicating transmission protocols, a phenomenon known in military parlance as virtual attrition. Moreover, the use of strong encryption in personal communications may itself be a red flag."

er0l• 10 years ago

good luck putting a red flag on the 1 billion WhatsApp users

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

Dear WhatsApp-

Per [whatever law they pass], please stop providing server capacity for any versions of your software that are not compatible with [unintentionally ironic name for surveillance system].

Thanks.

vonklaus• 10 years ago

Trump wins largely due to poorly secured communications of his opponent. I think HRC getting hacked actually pushed this issue forward. If it can happen to someone this powerful, and it is now so easy to secure email & texts, most Americans probably are. That means; hopefully, it doesnt matter if it is flagged as security is hopefully on a mainstream trajectory

_qbxp2• 10 years ago

This, along with Sessions who sided with the FBI in the San Bernadino case, makes me very worried about the future of online privacy and communications encryption.

Can somebody please allay my fears. Besides the EFF, where can I donate to have most impact in terms of preventing the requirement of government backdoors in consumer hardware or software?

davidw• 10 years ago

The ACLU is a pretty good place to donate to as well.

renlo• 10 years ago

> "America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat."
> "Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcase their zealotry online."

This type of rhetoric really concerns me. Especially because the author tries to distance himself from beliefs that he clearly espouses by structuring his opinions into factual statements ("America is in a long war...").

He says straight out that a) Social Media is a great tool for spying on people, b) that basically we should have 'thought police' ("people undergoing radicalization" ought to be spied (with the implication that they should be sanctioned)).

0xdeadbeefbabe• 10 years ago

No kidding. I expect gov to keep me reasonably safe, and not absolutely safe.

pavel_lishin• 10 years ago

I also expect to be kept safe from the government; overbearing surveillance isn't going to do that for me.

brian-armstrong3• 10 years ago

Depends on the medium, I think. If you post it just to your friends in a protected way with a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it feels wrong for the government to do dragnet surveillance on that. On the other hand, if you start tweeting about your plans to commit an act of terror, how is that any different than going to the city center and shouting it?

shuntress2• 10 years ago

So what you are saying is, we need microphones on every street corner running natural language processing and speech recognition software to identify and record any threats someone may make?

rm_-rf_slash• 10 years ago

Time for a rigorous debate
paywall

kag0• 10 years ago

Full text not behind WSJ paywall, for convenience http://davidbrivkin.com/time-for-a-rigorous-national-debate-...

quizotic• 10 years ago

This motivated me to sign up for ProtonMail. Now I want to send Mike Pompeo a congratulatory email! He seems like a decent guy. Does anyone know where to send an encrypted email to the incoming cia director?

wakkaflokka• 10 years ago

I love the idea of ProtonMail (and other encrypted email services). I keep getting the hankering to switch to one. But then I realize how convenient and integrated Gmail is. It's really weighing my privacy vs. convenience, but I am getting close to the point where I'm ready to move it all over.

panarky• 10 years ago

MichaelBurge• 10 years ago

One of the authors(Mike Pompeo) is going to be appointed as head of the CIA. I suppose it's natural for him to want to expand surveillance, since it helps him do his job. I hope Trump speaks with Snowden at some point, which seems somewhat more likely given how a whistleblowing organization helped his campaign. I don't really like these surveillance programs.

The one good thing he said was he wants better congressional oversight. It helps him cover his ass, but I suppose it also lets concerned congressmen get more information. I don't know how much information the intelligence committee currently gets, or if the people on that committee are for or against increased surveillance.

I don't mind this guy on the CIA; I'd be more concerned about who's going to head the NSA.

jwtadvice• 10 years ago

The argument at the top of this article DEEPLY confuses the issue of mass surveillance, which I think is a very bad way to start an article titled “Time for a Rigorous National Debate about Surveillance”.

The article begins by invoking the spectral boogyman of terrorism, and doubles down on the concept that the United States can somehow be at war with a tactic.

The article refuses to admit that mass surveillance, as disclosed by the Snowden Documents, revealed that the capabilities of ubiquitous espionage were not developed and are not primarily used for a ‘war on a tactic’.

What the disclosures and investigative journalism clarified is that mass surveillance is about power and control writ large, with surveillance capabilities having been build long before terrorism became relevant and used at that time for the same power and control purposes that it is used today.

Specifically, the disclosures revealed that the intelligence is used to understand populations and how information moves through them - this helps with propaganda operations in various settings. They also revealed that the espionage was used to aide US diplomats by giving them negotiating leverage in international meetings, and was used to support domestic industries by stealing relevant market information from overseas competitors.

This slight of hand - equivocating public safety with national security - is a common tactic. There is a very specific definition of national security, defined by National Security Presidential Directive-1 (http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm): "National security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe. National security also depends on America's opportunity to prosper in the world economy.”

As the homeland is the safest place on Earth, the typical invocation of "national security" refers to the other components: a prospering economy, overseas access and interests, and protection of the current global political system for which America sits on top.

Mass Surveillance helps America to maintain it’s edge as a leading world power.

It is not about boogymen and terrorism, or about defeating certain kinds of tactics.

The article is completely ingenuous.

gorbachev• 10 years ago

Rigorous debate and the Trump Administration? Surely you jest WSJ.

Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance

Related Stories