# Snowden talks about govt's eavesdropping powers



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Guardian has a 12 minute interview. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

It's really worth watching the whole thing. Michael Geist also explains why Canadians should care about this too, and how government has very similar powers in Canada (we should not assume this is a "US-only" issue)

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's an interesting part from his interview. Personally I think this has the greatest implication for young people, since so much of (our) lives will exist totally on the digital record. We young people are particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse he describes:



> Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. The storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude. To where it's getting to the point you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion by somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you have ever made. Every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of wrongdoing.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

It would seem that one can find more information about someone on FB.

By all means, listen all you want, so long as I don't get falsely arrested. I can accept that 'privacy' has a different meaning today, so I'm neither concerned nor mind the 'inconvenience' as Obama put it, for the sake of security.

No doubt that Mr. Snowden's only goal was to protect the 'basic liberties for people around the world', otherwise he would not have sacrificed so much, like his family, right?

Escaping to Hong-Kong is laughable, however, especially considering the fact that, the matter at hand is very much under Chinese jurisdiction, so no autonomy there. I say let the man get asylum and enjoy the laws there! 

This is also funny:

'The Chinese could also refuse to hand over Snowden if they believe an extradition request is *"politically motivated*," or designed to *punish a suspect for "political opinion*," or if they believe complying would *deny him a fair trial,* the agreement says.'

*"My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland."* - So why did he not go to Iceland directly considering that as per 
'Icelandic law, a person can only submit such an application once he-she is in Iceland.'


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> By all means, listen all you want, so long as I don't get falsely arrested. I can accept that 'privacy' has a different meaning today, so I'm neither concerned nor mind the 'inconvenience' as Obama put it, for the sake of security..'


And that's the rub - as long as the system works exactly as promised and never makes a mistake we are all good. Got it.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

none said:


> as long as the system works exactly as promised and never makes a mistake *we are all good.* Got it.


No need for sarcasm.

I didn't say *you* need to be ok. with it, I said that I'm ok. with it. Can you ever just accept/respect someone's else opinion? It does not mean that you need to agree.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

As an aside, fans of Benedict Cumberbatch ("Sherlock") might enjoy watching him play the leading role in an earlier (2008) TV series for BBC, "The Last Enemy." It's set in a world in the not-too-distant future where everyone's movements, whereabouts, online activities, and other data are tracked in a national database.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

brad said:


> As an aside, fans of Benedict Cumberbatch *("Sherlock") *might enjoy watching him play the leading role in an earlier (2008) TV series for BBC, "The Last Enemy." It's set in a world in the not-too-distant future where everyone's movements, whereabouts, online activities, and other data are tracked in a national database.


I think you mean "Khan." :chuncky:


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> I think you mean "Khan." :chuncky:


Hah, I need to watch more Star Trek! But actually the character he plays in "The Last Enemy" is very similar to the character he plays in "Sherlock." In "The Last Enemy" he plays a genius mathematician, with the same Sherlock intensity (but with his natural brown hair instead of black). Kind of a nice antidote to Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind," a film that I walked out on after 20 minutes as it was way too Hollywood for my tastes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

My concerns would be how much money are these governments putting into these systems and how effective are they. Good luck trying to pick up a covert digital communications channel between two people if they know what they are doing. Wonder when the gov will get a "person of interest" machine?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> No need for sarcasm.
> 
> I didn't say *you* need to be ok. with it, I said that I'm ok. with it. Can you ever just accept/respect someone's else opinion? It does not mean that you need to agree.


When it is so astonishly naive it is difficult to swallow. 

There are many examples of completely innocent people's lives being ruined through programs like this. It's a shame that people support things like this because they are so afraid of exaggerated dangers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Toronto.gal may not be worried ("so long as I don't get falsely arrested"), but here are some examples of people who should be worried:

*Aspiring politician*. In the future they may run as opposition to a government. That becomes difficult, since whoever is government at the time gets access to all the history -- all the dirt and private information -- needed to knock down or destroy an opponent.

*A lawyer or judge* who may some time try to bring action against government, especially for being corrupt. Basically any potential opponent of the government can be ruined, or preemptively disbarred, jailed, etc. This obviously doesn't happen today in the USA or Canada but it certainly happens in many other countries, and the government's extensive data collection now makes it easier to do here.

*Academics and intellectuals* especially those who publish work, or spread their knowledge and beliefs. Let's say you are an environmental researcher and have lots of damaging information on the oil industry. Let's say the government has a significant self-interest in that industry. They could (if they were crooked) use all your private communications against you, to discredit your work and frame you in a bad light.

*Anybody who is a member of any future disliked/scapegoat group*. Is anyone here Jewish? Muslim? Maybe a minority Christian group such as Luthernans? Maybe you have Asian heritage. Any of these groups could become an unfairly treated, perhaps scapegoat group. Let's say it's now 2030 and you... the Asian-Canadians... are being blamed for all of society's problems. Well guess what. Now your fascist government has all the dirt on you, and can start jailing the strongest figures in your communities.

Toronto.gal's response reminds me of that famous poem. It's that naive response (I'm not worried because I don't do anything wrong) that doesn't appreciate how *wrong* is such a flaky definition



> First they came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
> 
> Then they came for the socialists,
> ...


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Too bad that this forum is really becoming unpleasant.

Have a different opinion, then in the eyes of some here, that automatically makes you a 'bigot, condescending/delusional/idiot/ignorant/naive/racist/stupid.'


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> Too bad that this forum is really becoming unpleasant.
> 
> Have a different opinion, then in the eyes of some here, that automatically makes you a 'bigot, condescending/delusional/idiot/ignorant/naive/racist/stupid.'


If you came out as a racist we will have issues with that as well. 

Just because you have an opinion it doesn't mean your opinion is worth anything or even very good. You know what they say about opinions after all


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

none said:


> If you come out as a racist we will have issues with that as well.
> 
> Just because* you *have an opinion it doesn't mean *your* opinion is worth anything or even very good. *You know what they say about opinions after all *


 ... yes and that includes everyone. Please, no need to get personal. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what all our opinions are, what we think, what we say, the Big Brother is going to monitor all of us. Welcome to the future! :biggrin:


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes and that includes everyone. Please, no need to get personal. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what all our opinions are, what we think, what we say, the Big Brother is going to monitor all of us. Welcome to the future! :biggrin:


+1. If we disagree, let's be nice about it. And can we take it easy with calling people racist at the drop of the hat?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Here's a very highly rated post on reddit of why this should be of concern. Spot on:

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyvie...rnment_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl?context=3

"I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. 

A few points:
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, **** it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.

3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.
You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.

4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "**** you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a fucking wound on my leg?"
"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.
Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.
You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.

This all happened in the country where I live.

You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?

You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?
Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?

I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.
I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no."


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Agreed, no name-calling!

Back to the issue though. Today's Globe and Mail explains that Canada does indeed have a parallel system for telephone and internet recording:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6870/125/


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Name calling? Who's name calling?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

we have to accept the unfortunate fact that we don't know what we don't know
we have no idea whether these measures can and do stop terrorists or not
we have to trust the government and trade some liberty and privacy for security

i am ready to accept that tradeoff to a point
i am willing to allow the government to see what numbers i call

but i am not willing to accept the secrecy and lack of disclosure
nor am i willing to accept that in most cases people who are harmed by false accusations or deprived of their liberty are unable to get swift and fair redress and to be made whole

what we accept or don't accept now will be the foundation for what happens in the future
if we don't get it right, it could easily morph into something quite sinister

we need strong oversight and disclosure and we especially need laws to make people whole who are injured by government action based on false information


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

fatcat said:


> we have to accept the unfortunate fact that we don't know what we don't know
> we have no idea whether these measures can and do stop terrorists or not
> we have to trust the government and trade some liberty and privacy for security
> 
> ...


Problem is if someone on a bad list calls you by mistake. You then get put on the list by default.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

none said:


> Problem is if someone on a bad list calls you by mistake. You then get put on the list by default.


yes, it is a problem, but problems have solutions 

if nothing happens as a result of being on the "bad" list then so what, but if you are injured (arrested, accused falsely, lose your job, are unable to fly .. whatever) then you need to be made whole in a timely fashion

we need laws that REQUIRE the government to redress injury in a timely fashion ... we can pass laws that require the government do that ... there needs to be a quid-pro-quo

if we give up rights and are injured in the process, we shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail and wait years for the government to apologize and compensate ... they should be required to do so in a timely fashion


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

fatcat said:


> we can pass laws that require the government do that ..


_Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

For me..........it isn't a single revelation that causes much concern, but an accumulation of revelations over time.

Arrests without due justice under the Patriot Act. 
Personal searches without judicial warrants.
Home searches without judicial warrants on mere suspicion of illegal activity.
Drone surveillance on the general population.
Armed forces stationed "within" the country, training for "civil unrest".
Accumulation of data about everyone.

All of the above has happened or is happening, and we aren't very far away from everyone having to carry identification with them at all times...............and having to "show their papers" on demand to an authority. That would have some really negative historical connotations.

All free people should be not only vigilant in guarding against any intrusions on the rights bestowed upon them, but they should also be willing and able to defend against government tyranny.

As millions of people throughout history were obliged to learn............sometimes the greatest danger is from within.

For those who support the right to bear arms..............this stuff is exactly what they warn about.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm very unhappy about these revelations and my belief is that since September 11th there has been a continual ratcheting up of the fear quotient mostly aimed at nebulous terrorists and almost everything now can fall under "terrorism" 

I'm completely offended by the civilian military aka police force, who wander around shooting almost randomly at minorities without any consequences. 

The propaganda and fear are thick and facts and data are ignored.

I suppose the most effective life saving change that could be made would be to provide healthcare in the US - that probably kills thousands of more people every year than terrorism. 

When this is a science test in a developed nation and not in the insane asylum http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...EOqDyAHAh4CgDw&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQ9QEwAw&dur=3572 It's time to blow up Honey Boo Boo and everything else. It's like the movie Idiocracy except with brain dead zombies


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Any of the measures taken to protect us will be abused simply because of human nature.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

These social issues will not resolve smoothly. The solutions to the problems will never gain any traction until it's become so bad that a tipping point majority of the population takes action.
Just like the stock market, social/political problems will never correct by "going sideways". It's only when the entire population thinks that things couldn't possibly be worse (or the stock market couldn't possibly go down) that a violent correction will take place.

Hopefully these tipping point changes manifest in the next 10 years while I'm building my career here in Canada. Otherwise, expatting might be in my future.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I wonder if someone at Google is having some fun. Try this. Go to http://news.google.ca/ and do a search for Snowden

On my screen it says, "They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,"

That's creepy. Because google search uses a type-ahead technology it means they read every keystroke you press, not just when you submit by hitting 'search'. Doing a search on google is like sitting on a psychologist's chair and doing free association work. Think of how rapidly your fingers think ... if you form a search phrase, and revise it, or backtrack, google (and thus the government) knows your thought process.

And now we know that government is taking in all this information, including insights into how you think day to day.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

james4beach said:


> That's creepy. Because google search uses a type-ahead technology it means they read every keystroke you press, not just when you submit by hitting 'search'. Doing a search on google is like sitting on a psychologist's chair and doing free association work. Think of how rapidly your fingers think ... if you form a search phrase, and revise it, or backtrack, google (and thus the government) knows your thought process.
> 
> And now we know that government is taking in all this information, including insights into how you think day to day.


No such thing is going on, James4.
Google uses a form of Auto Complete that many websites use these days.
The difference is that their auto-complete is based on a large volume of indexed content and common searches by billions of other users daily.

In this case, you are not the only one searching for Snowden.
Google's crawler has indexed webpages containing information about Snowden.
At the same time, they have records of millions of searches in the past few days on Snowden.
Their search engine is using that index, and the search records, to auto complete your search terms.

That is all that's going on.

Yes, sure, Google does track all search terms from all users on a daily basis and depending on your privacy settings, can associate your searches with your identity (you can turn that off, though).
Sure they have all this search data and all the indexed content.
But it is a stretch to say that the evil government is watching you _right now_.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> But it is a stretch to say that the evil government is watching you _right now_.


J4B's post 'reminds me of that famous poem'......never mind.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> No such thing is going on, James4.
> Google uses a form of Auto Complete that many websites use these days.


Yes it's auto complete. And every key you type into that box, even before you hit Search, is transmitted to Google. This part is absolutely clear, as the search results change on your screen with each keystroke.

All of that information, each keypress, is available to government. Whether or not they're using each keystroke is another matter, we can only speculate about that. But it's certainly available to them.

If you started typing in "bring down the government" in your search box, but changed your mind, erased it wrote "criticize the government", don't you think that reveals useful information about you? What makes you think the government wouldn't be interested in that?

They already have all the access to that search box, from a technical standpoint.

And I didn't say the government is evil. But yes they are certainly watching you, haven't you been paying attention to all the news? It's not like a guy is sitting there sipping his coffee, watching your screen. But every piece of data you create goes into a permanent storage, tied to you. This may include all the half-assed thoughts you started typing into google search boxes but then erased.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

It would be hard to believe they could *watch* everyone, just think of how much human & computing power that would take, even for google users alone. But if you believe that, or even care, start typing in key words that would raise a "red flag", maybe get eveyone to add them to their signature so the amount of false data gets to much to handle.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> It would be hard to believe they could *watch* everyone, just think of how much human & computing power that would take, even for google users alone. But if you believe that, or even care, start typing in key words that would raise a "red flag", maybe get eveyone to add them to their signature so the amount of false data gets to much to handle.


It's not hard to believe at all. Go take a look at the research going on in computer science. Look at the jobs, and how much salary is paid to PhDs who are experts in data mining, database, big data, etc. There is tons of brain smarts that (instead of going to solving diseases or suffering) is instead going to find ways to efficiently capture, filter, store, and relate information.

And yes - again - this is pretty explicitly out there. They are recording information from everyone. Because anyone could be a target in the future, that's the point of pervasive monitoring. It's not like they just go after a handful of people they are concerned about. They go after everyone, especially foreigners... such as Canadians, who have no protection at Google or Microsoft servers.

This isn't a matter of simply adding every piece of text to a big file. It's far more complicated than that. Various forms of filtering are done. Data is stored and represented based on relationships to other data, in hierarchies, etc. Filtering and pruning is done to dramatically reduce the actual storage burden. These are VERY complex systems and it's hard to appreciate just how effective this kind of data mining is. Think of how for example Google is able to show you ads relating to your interests, based on your gmail content. Think of how a department store figured out, through activity patterns, that a girl was pregnant before the girl even knew it herself. 

Data mining as an industry has ballooned. Tons of research money has flowed into it. I'm an electrical engineer for instance and while I can hardly find a proper engineering/production job, I get inundated with job offers relating to big data and mining.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Oh I know what's involved, I've been working with computers most of my life. I doubt they are in as deep as you think they are, they do probably have their high volume areas, ones most likely used for *bad* purposes but not to store "every piece of data".


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Think of how a department store figured out, through activity patterns, that a girl was pregnant before the girl even knew it herself.


OK, but it wasn't because she was typing out emails that said "I'm pregnant" and those emails were being read by third parties - it was based on her purchasing patterns tracked through a loyalty program. You can avoid all those tracking programs if you pay cash, and then your purchases are untrackable! 

I know that isn't really your point BUT Canadians willingly allow so much "spying" on purchases (through loyalty programs, credit card affinity programs, etc.) plus willingly give/share so much information over social media sites (Facebook) that I find it a little problematic to suggest that all purchase tracking is sinister. 

Also: if there were true spying on individuals, data mining wouldn't be necessary in a strict sense. Instead, you'd just read what people actually said and wrote. Data mining is necessary to draw inferences and patterns when you don't have access to direct data.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This may be slightly off-topic, and a warning that there is some crude content on this page, but I found it funny:

Letter to Snowden's Girlfriend


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

More off topic, but still relevant (I'm going to read the "girlfriend" letter next): last night I took the streetcar come (new bike has a chain problem; I needed to reposition the back wheel) - and a woman was shopping by calling merchants and giving her CC information over the phone. All parts, including verification number. Out loud.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here is an interview from CBC's The National yesterday, regarding what we've learned about the NSA, the amount of monitoring in cyberspace, and implications for our society.

It's an excellent 10 minute interview with a very sharp guest, and I recommend everyone watch it!

CBC video: Amanda Lang talks to security expert Ron Deibert about the fine line between the need for security and the right to privacy.

Good job, CBC. Wow.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

He gave a good desciption on the data available based on the devices used and where the likely gathering points are. Nothing ground breaking mentioned but makes a good point about the need for oversight ... well, asumming you can really trust an oversight committee. 

On the tech side, I really have a hard time believing that all this potential "data collection" will be effective for the purpose intended, national security. Do you think a group of people with bad intentions are going to use valid cell phones (real names with a contract) or just pick up a $20 prepaid phone bought with cash.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

cainvest said:


> I really have a hard time believing that all this potential "data collection" will be effective for the purpose intended, national security.


The purpose 'intended' may not jibe with the purpose 'stated'.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> The purpose 'intended' may not jibe with the purpose 'stated'.


Exactly, and the point of my last statement about "general" data collection.

The other bad part, aside from privacy issues, is we're all flipping the bill for this.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

- Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet is "private" is naive.
- Snowdon has done a public service in raising public awareness about government surveillance, and generating public discussion about it. But I know government authorities in the US won't see it that way.
- I don't think it is realistic to expect our security agencies to stop doing it. They will only continue doing it clandestinely, which is worse. But we can try to control how the information is or may be used, and who has access to it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

All this encourages is systematic use of encryption. Even the government can't throw enough resources at decrypting every message.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The purpose of all this data and security is to control the population and by-pass the constitution in the US. I am for security as long as it is well in control and allows due process. 

I am also against complete secrecy in government for our so called best interests. Sure there needs to be secrets but the process should be as open as possible. The other one is the controlled media by large corporations, there should be laws against it to allow for a free press which we no longer have in the US except for the fringe sites.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The NY Times published this article, "The Criminal N.S.A.", outlining how the spy agency is violating the laws of the United States, even the laws that give broad powers to intercept communications. I absolutely agree that government agencies should not be permitted to operate outside the bounds of the law.

It also raises the question, in what ways are the parallel Canadian agencies also violating Canadian laws in their capturing of our private communications?

I'm really scared by how the government(s) seem to so brazenly violate the laws of our society. Ontario did this during the Toronto G20 protests and there was hardly any outrage. NSA has violated American laws (and its director clearly lied to Congress)



> The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This article further outlines the case of how the NSA is breaking federal laws.

I think these are really sad - and scary - days for America. It's looking increasingly like an Orwellian totalitarian state, where the government does bizarre illegal things (violating both morality and written law). And I think the worst part is that there is no outrage... most people don't care. People sit quietly at home and hum to themselves, "it doesn't affect me because I have nothing to hide", and with each passing year the government oversteps bounds even more.

Canada, like the UK, Australia, and all the other countries that mirror these American laws, probably has the same corruption of laws. Our society is being damaged before our very eyes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

So if in fact the cdn gov is doing things that are pushing the boundries, what is the average person supposed to do if they actually did want to put a stop to it?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Since the checks and balances within government don't seem to be working (at least in the USA), I would imagine the only recourse for citizens are to vote for people who say that they would repeal these kinds of laws, and clean up government agencies who abuse the law.

At the moment there isn't even enough public awareness to go down that road. Which is why I'm trying to raise awareness of the issue.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Unfortunately it'll probaby require a direct impact on people's daily lives to see some policy movement or at the very least, some sort of scandal backed by the use of the data collected. I guess admins and people using the web could make thiings more difficult for them, like always use https connections when possible.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Sometimes freedom of the many outweigh freedom of the individual...I think this is what Tgal implied and those of us that have lived thru "Duck & Cover" drills in the 60's would be OK with...it is common for youth to be emotional but seriously I find it hard to believe people puke their guts out on the net on facebook,blogs,forums etc then rail about privacy...that is really lol


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you think that government spying will only be used against 'terrorists', you're kidding yourself. With this kind of power to spy without warrants or oversight, the abuse of power grow and be used against ordinary citizens. This kind of creeping police state is very dangerous. The argument "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is insidious.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> ... The argument "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is insidious.


Especially with all the situations of prosecutorial abuse of innocent people.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*In other news ....*

*766k followers (and counting) since his first tweet 10 hours ago.
-and who is the ONE he is following? NSA of course!


First tweet:*


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

zylon said:


> *766k followers (and counting) since his first tweet 10 hours ago.
> -and who is the ONE he is following? NSA of course!
> 
> 
> First tweet:*


my response to that professionally done photo was "oh crap he's gone full on celebrity"

but i think he needs to build a brand in order to stay out of prison

"citizenfour" has some moments where the wannabe celebrity peeks out from under the noble whistleblower but still i am glad to see him doing this, i hope he doesn't oversell himself


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

^^ _*The Trumpster*_ should be able to figure out how to make a buck off him.


----------

