Slashdot Mirror


Unintended Consequences: How NSA Revelations May Lead To Even More Surveillance

Lauren Weinstein writes with a slightly depressing end-of-year prediction. An excerpt: "This then may be the ultimate irony in this surveillance saga. Despite the current flood of protests, recriminations, and embarrassments — and even a bit of legal jeopardy — intelligence services around the world (including especially NSA) may come to find that Edward Snowden's actions, by pushing into the sunlight the programs whose very existence had long been dim, dark, or denied — may turn out over time to be the greatest boost to domestic surveillance since the invention of the transistor."

23 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Does it matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody will want to have anything to do with USA. Have fun on your own. Just stay where you are and don't come here, ok?

    1. Re:Does it matter by ranulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense. People in general don't care about in privacy, right up to the point where it suddenly works against them. It's just the laziness and apatheticness of human nature. It'll take a lot more than these leaks before people are really enraged, because at the moment everyone is still happy that "it's catching terrorists".

      It's just another example of "First they came..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

    2. Re:Does it matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't care because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they called me a terrorist, and nobody cared because I was a terrorist. I hear rumors that some people might consider becoming enraged someday, but enraged people are terrorists and nobody listens to terrorists.

    3. Re:Does it matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A big issue next election will be privacy.

      By the time of the next election, no one will remember who Snowden was, and the big issue will be whether to elect a woman or a homosexual.

    4. Re:Does it matter by flyneye · · Score: 3, Funny

      I blame food additives...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:Does it matter by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Soapbox, ballot box, ammo box - prescribed in that order.

      How many letters to the White House have you sent?
      How many times have you written to your congress critters?
      How many of your friends, relatives, and acquaintances have you educated, relative to these issues?
      Are you speaking to your children and their friends?
      Have you encouraged all of those friends, relatives, acquiantances, and children to write to the PTB?
      Have you involved your state representatives in the discussion?
      Have you approached your local representatives?

      I promise you that if you consider the issue to be an administrative issue, you're in for a rude awakening. It isn't Obama - it is GOVERNMENT. Obama may be a rather large and obvious cog in the machine, but he is still just a cog.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Does it matter by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah I can't believe all this stupid PATRIOT ACT shit Bush is doing, I mean his administration won't last forever. I tell you what, next election I'm voting for the other party, this Obama guy promises transparency.

    7. Re:Does it matter by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even a close comparison? Really?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

      Adolph chose to tabulate data that was largely based on race and ethnic criteria. The US government is tabulating data based on other criteria. The US really isn't very "racist" anymore, so it may be safe to ASSume that they won't go after citizens based on ethnic and racial grounds. But - they do keep tabs on race, religion, ethnicity, age - EVERYTHING.

      The US government certainly won't round up tens or hundreds of thousands of people in each state based on race. Instead, they will round up TERRORISTS.

      Let us examine that term, "terrorist". http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005
      Definitions

      There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

      The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

      Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
      International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

      I have heard a lot of people described as terrorists. Edward Snowden immediately comes to mind. Check up on the incident at Ruby Ridge. And, the one at Waco, Tx. Over the years, a lot of people with a political agenda have been described as "terrorists". Funny - an awful lot of those persons have never used a weapon against another human being.

      The US is most certainly engaged in some of the same activities that Hitler's Germany engaged in, in the 1930's.

      I can only extrapolate from the facts where the government MIGHT be headed with all this information.

      We also know for certain that the United States has an industry based on imprisoning people for profit. We already imprison more people than all the rest of the world. We imprison people for some awfully stupid reasons - like toking on a joint. Or growing plants. Or, "distributing" copyrighted material. For looking at pictures which other people disapprove of. For supporting movements deemed to be "terroristic" by the government. For possessing a firearm or other weapon.

      You go on and stick your head in the sand. Ignore what is happening around you. Some of the rest of us will continue to sound the alarm. For many of us, it is alarming that the government can intrude into our private communications, and cherry pick our words to build a case of terrorism against us. But, you need not be alarmed - all you need to do, is keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Keep your head down, and don't think any "treasonous" thoughts. Don't make any friends who might have "terroristic" ideas. You'll be perfectly fine - until you're not.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. Countermeasures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes this is true, But now those that wish to deploy countermeasures can now do so. I am not an American Citizen, the USA is collecting metadata on me and others and has no desire for my well being, so Encrypt and mask is the way to go. I'm not intending to do anything illegal, but I will do my damnedest to make it harder for them and their illegal spying game.

  3. Truism by mrbluze · · Score: 3

    Nonsense. Surveillance is already growing exponentially - every organization that can is doing it already. What it may instead herald is a hot war between everybody and the three letter agencies. Everybody is beginning to care about privacy, not only the few who were awake before.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:Truism by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Counterintuitively perhaps, once these programs are made visible they become vastly easier to expand under one justification or another, because you no longer have to worry so much about the very existence of the programs being exposed.

      TFA argues:
      1) Snowden blows the lid off surveillance schemes, many of which are conducted illegaly.
      2) Intelligence agencies would like to continue these programmes and push for legislation to legalize them.
      3) Said legislation is passed.
      4) Surveillance continues unabated.
      5) Profit, sort of.

      Our "profit" is that we now know about these surveillance schemes. The problem however is that they will disappear underground again and increase in size and pervasiveness; once they are made legal, politicians (even the opposition) will no longer be much interested in attacking or exposing individual schemes, they will be attacking the legislation. And if the public forgets about the issue quickly enough, they will not succeed there.

      Only thing we can do now is push legislation the other way while we have some momentum:
      - Make "dragnet"-style surveillance illegal
      - Allow wiretapping in individual cases, after approval by a judge (and not a secret panel of judges)
      - If a company is not compelled by law to surrender information, they are forbidden to volunteer it.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. TFA is full of crap ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody will want to have anything to do with USA

    It's not about USA per se.

    The entire thing is actually a reflection of the arrogance of those so-called "UNTOUCHABLES"

    They do not need to face the voters once every x-number of years, nor they need to answer to anyone.

    They are the bureaucrats, the non-elected bureaucrats that have grabbed hold of power through the back door method.

    Even the TFA itself is full of shit.

    If the net-surveillance scheme that has been exposed by Snowden is like giving the NSA (or any other spook organization) a blank check on what they do, we might as well stop catching murderers/rapers, and let them go on raping / murdering even more people, at will.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:TFA is full of crap ! by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 9/11 occured because intelligence folks thought that wire tapping was good enough

      Which is odd, I could have sworn it happened because a criminal group that wanted to make big headlines planned something that nobody really should have expected.

      There is also with that an implicit (and also incorrect) assumption that 9/11 was some sort of existential threat that we needed to be protected from; when the reality is it was little more than one of the the most brutal tragic publicity stunts ever by a group that had no hope of ever harming us as much as we harm ourselves in response to them....little more than a peanut to an over-active immune response.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:TFA is full of crap ! by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... 9/11 occured because intelligence folks thought that wire tapping was good enough...

      How can I count the many ways that this is so, so wrong? I know a lot of Americans who feel this way, but it seems to fail to meet the facts as we know them.

      There was clear warning. Wire tapping was more than sufficient.

      ...the intelligence community provided repeated strategic warning in the summer of 9/11 that al Qaeda was planning a large-scale attacks on American interests.

      Here is a representative sampling of the CIA threat reporting that was distributed to Bush administration officials during the spring and summer of 2001:

      -- CIA, "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," April 20
      -- CIA, "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent," June 23
      -- CIA, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2
      -- CIA, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," August 3

      The failure to respond adequately to these warnings was a policy failure by the Bush administration, not an intelligence failure by the U.S. intelligence community.

  5. If you want to bend over ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snowden's job was to incite outrage, soon after which the public would grow tired of outrage, settle down, and learn to get used to business as usual.

    If you want to bend over and getting the shaft, hey, please do it privately.

    I'd wager that there won't be too many people like you, happy to be "shagged" by NSA (or any other spooks)

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If you want to bend over ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd wager that the NSA are happy with Snowden's activities, as they've found out that the majority of people don't give a fuck, and of the minority who do, hardly any are actually taking action.

      The primary outcome of Snowden is a carte blanche to the state, and the particular businesses on behalf of which it works, to do whatever the fuck it wants.

  6. I'm up next by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Coming up on Slashdot, a link to my poorly-written ramblings on my obscure blog of someone you have never heard of.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I'm up next by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coming up on Slashdot, a link to my poorly-written ramblings on my obscure blog of someone you have never heard of.

      Ignorant poster is ignorant.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Weinstein_(technologist)

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. Economic cost of surveillance by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
    The unintended consequence of overblown surveillance is the loss of vast amounts of business for US companies.

    Boeing lost a $4.5 billion fighter aircraft contract to Saab in Brazil because of the revelations about spying. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-19/nsa-spying-blowback-continues-boeing-loses-brazil-jet-order

    Cisco has also seen major losses, and lots of other companies big and small are hurting as well.

    The US Constitution may have been put in the shredder, the courts may be rubber stamps for the US version of the STASI, and the Congress may be brain dead along with the DOJ, but now it turns out that all this useless spying has hurt the bottom line of Big Corporate American. You screw these people over, and your government funding is going to be severely impacted.

    The NSA and the other alphabet soup spying agencies have hurt the only group in the US with the clout to shut them down. The are going to be backing off big time.

    On the individual level, government intelligence insiders are going to discover that they will have a much harder time finding those cushy high paying civilian jobs that they expect to be handed when they leave the government. That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you. This could have the biggest impact of all, because the revolving door is a major motivation for the entire system in the first place.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  8. In your dreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A big issue next election will be privacy.

    No it won't.

    The next election is going to be the same old bullshit issues: gay marriage, abortion, "when life begins", taxes, guns, Israel and a couple of other distraction issues that Rush and Fox News create.

    The nutty conservative fringe - I'm not talking about rational conservatives who want to put checks on government power and spending - I'm talking mostly about social conservatives who want government to regulate what one does behind closed doors. They seem to be driving the talking points in elections because they are the most shrill and irrational.

    Acid test: if a minister (Warren or whoever) gets quoted about an issue, then it's a distraction issue.

  9. Re:Libertarians are full of crap. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is not even theoretically possible for the freedom-loving individual to win against us statists.

    On the contrary, historically, it has happened about once every couple of centuries, and usually begins and ends with a bunch of particularly egregious statists' severed heads stuck on the fence outside the palace. Then, inevitably, a new batch of statists claws their way to power, until eventually it gets so bad that the public does it all over again.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  10. Greed will stop the NSA. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me tell you how this may really backfire on the US.

    All those greedy leaders of multi-national companies that have spent hundreds of millions on armies of lobbyists to manipulate Congress and lawmakers to make hundreds of billions in revenue are now going to start feeling the sting as they start losing business.

    You think this has to do with the average citizen dealing with privacy issues as the NSA snoops in? Like Boeing could give a shit right now about you as they've lost a multi-billion dollar contract. This has to do with greed. Always has. And to ensure those greedy leaders maintain their revenue streams, they WILL start putting pressure on Congress and lawmakers to stop the bleeding and contain this as best as possible. If that means re-gaining the trust of other countries by dismantling surveillance programs, then that may be what happens. If it means impeaching a President, then that may be what happens.

    Congress has not been under the control of the American voter for a very long time. Lobbyists control our government and laws, driven by greed, which is all-powerful. When business losses start climbing up into the hundreds of billions and unemployment rockets to 15% due to all of this, change will happen. Greed will ensure it.

  11. Am I the only one who sees this differently? by gallondr00nk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every story on Slashdot about the NSA revelations has been followed by a deluge of comments who for the most part been extremely pessimistic, sprinkled with doses of paranoia that almost border on hysteria. All I seem to read now is that it won't make any difference, we're stuck in this forever, "they" won't let us have our liberty back, &c. &c. ad nauseum.

    Whether the leaks are 100% accurate or not (and I can't tell either way), something monumental has happened this year. I would tentatively suggest that we're finally seeing the edifice fall, not just of surveillance, but of our entire socio-economic system. These are the sort of paper cuts that can eventually topple an entire way of thinking.

    The two are linked. The NSA does not live in a vacuum, but as a result of economic and social policies that have consolidated power and influence in the hands of a few people.

    A panopticon cannot survive in the same way our winner-takes-all-and-debt-for-the-rest neoliberal economic system cannot survive. Both rely on holding all the cards, forever. It took one contractor to snatch the deck with Snowden, and whether other /. posters believe it or not, it will change things. In the last five years, we've seen the inevitable failure of our lunatic economic decisions. Things are actually changing, and changing quickly.

    The only question is what do we look to do next?

    We aren't beholden to continue the way things are forever. There is no obligation to constantly think within the same ridiculous boxes, to grant power to the same shitty people. We can look to the future and actually try and level the playing field. A society where power and money are not amassed in such obscene quantities would scarcely be able to enable the sort of panopticon people are now afraid of.

    It is evident that agencies that have access to so many resources cannot help but abuse them. Perhaps now is the time to think of something new, not communism or capitalism or even anarchism, but a way of preserving the pieces of our society that we want and discarding the abuses.

    This is *not* the only way things can be, no more than absolute monarchy, slavery or feudalism were in the past.

    Rather than simply being afraid, I'd rather put my energy into believing, rightly or wrongly, that we can have something better in the future.