The Problem With the 'Privacy Moderates'

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/the-problem-with-the-privacy-moderates/277561/



What if I told you that the surveillance state goes too far in secretly spying on innocent Americans... but that Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who exposed the scope of data collection, and Glenn Greenwald, the recipient of his leaks, shouldn't be regarded as exalted heroes?

That sort of non-sequitir isn't my style. But if I wrote such a sentence in earnest, you'd know to identify me as a "privacy moderate."

These are the Americans who acknowledge, as a consequence of recent revelations, that the national security state ought to be subject to more oversight, debate, scrutiny, and restrictions, but can't bring themselves to rhetorically ally themselves with the people championing those reforms. Instead, they contrive frames that enable them to criticize both the surveillance state and its antagonists, as if the excesses of both sides are commensurately important and worrisome. Sometimes they even attack critics of the NSA more energetically than the surveillance state itself. To borrow a phrase, their lukewarm acceptance of the civil libertarian critique is more bewildering than outright rejection. They fail to follow their own judgment where it leads.

The "privacy moderate" has been everywhere in recent weeks, a non-sequitir always at the ready. Yes, let's debate the tradeoffs between privacy and security, they say, but "Edward Snowden's no hero," they inject, as if excessive regard for Snowden poses a threat of some kind.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. Excellent article

I think I know the type of people the author is talking about here.

[treestar]

2. Always attacking people, not the issue

Agree with you or get called something, right? There is no debate. Just agree with you. End of story.

[vdogg]

28. It's plain ridiculous

I can't believe they are attacking moderation as a bad thing. The only alternative to moderation is extremism, and the GOP has more than enough of that for all of us. No need for Democrats to go down that road.

[dtom67]

3. I think it has more to do with "Pre emptive Strike" strategy.

Any time you talk about NSA's illegal spying, invariably, someone tries to turn the focus away from the spying and toward Mr. Snowdon. That is the tactic used by many apologists; when talking about the actual issue would result in a loss for their "side". It is also a common tactic on TV court dramas ( i.e. attacking witness credibility ).

So, if you wanna talk about the "spying", you preemptively give up Snowdon to prevent the focus from changing.

( it doesn't always work)

So, it looks like "privacy Moderate" is the new defense against the "preemptive strike"

it'll never catch on; it doesn't roll off the tongue well .....

[randome]

5. That's because of idiotic phrases like this.

"...the surveillance state goes too far in secretly spying on innocent Americans..."

Where do they get the idea that this is happening? From Snowden. Without supporting evidence.

S&G are eager to present one side of the story. Their side. They conveniently never mention the safeguards and restrictions that are in place.

They don't mention them because they don't want us to think about that. They give only enough of a story to get readers up in arms.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dtom67]

7. another example of the " pre emptive strike " doctrine...

No, I do not Blame Obama for the NSA spying.

see how that works?

another popular tactic used to change the focus of the debate is to trot out the " Obama Hater","Paulbot" or "libertard" label. This seems to be done because of some perceived attack on the President. We all voted for Barack , most of us twice. None of us want a Republican in any office. we just don't like the spying.

[Amonester]

31. That's the point: there is NO EVIDENCE of ILLEGAL SPYING.

There are two or three attention-hungry loud mouths (S, G, and Poitras), but they have no evidence (yet) and I question their real agenda.

[byeya]

4. Privacy moderates are pro security state and anti the 4th amendment as understood

for over 200 years.
They can't argue on the merits so they play a game of celebrity gotcha...It's a disnonest ploy.

[longship]

6. As long as he has another group of people to malign. nt

[marmar]

8. k/r

[geek tragedy]

9. In other words, if you disagree with the Snowden cultists you suck no matter what.

Gawd the purists are an insufferable lot. They piss on literally every person who doesn't share their shibboleths, and then wonder why the great unwashed masses don't join their movement.

[Android3.14]

11. It's more the starting point than any sort of purist attitude

It begins with the question, "Do you think spying on innocent Americans without public oversight is in line with the Fourth Amendment?"
The refusal to bring the debate forward from that point, however nuanced the answer to the question would be, is exactly why the discussion degenerates to cowards vs. those with thoughtful conviction.
I'd love to cross rhetorical swords with anyone who has the conviction to answer that question. Otherwise, any supporter of the Fourth Amendment has a comical and simplistic task to shred the arguments of the Snowden pointers/Obama-can-never-ever-do-anything-wrong.

[geek tragedy]

13. Might as well ask if I stopped beating my wife.

How do you define spying?

[Android3.14]

15. How about we use the Oxford English definition

secretly collecting and reporting information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
keeping watch on others secretly.

[geek tragedy]

16. Is possession of or access to this information enough to be considered spying?

If my metadata goes through the NSA supercomputer but never gets flagged or noticed by a human being, have I been spied upon?

[Android3.14]

17. Still ignoring the essential question

We can go for the "does this count as spying" in a bit. I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I contend that, unless we first establish whether or not you think spying (using the Oxford English definition) on innocent Americans without public oversight is in line with the Fourth Amendment, everything else is moot.
The reason is that, if you think it is in line with the Constitution, then we have a debate of the the Fourth Amendment. If you think that spying without public oversight infringes on the Fourth Amendment, then we debate over definitions of spying, public oversight, innocent, and American.

[geek tragedy]

21. Obviously, having the government create files on people and examine their

private lives without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing is not something that should be tolerated.

It is very much unproven that this is going on, however, beyond the extent to which it always goes on.

[Android3.14]

22. Now we are getting somewhere

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that 1. The government should not spy on innocent people, 2. that spying on a person must include the existence of a file about the person's private life for it to constitute spying, and 3. You have yet to see proof that the government is doing so, beyond what "always goes on."
I'd like to examine point 2 first.
As a school teacher, I would make a sociogram to help me build cooperative groups from the population of my students.
It is a very powerful tool.
I would hand out index cards and ask students to put there name on it, and the names of three people with whom they would like to work on a class project. From the data, I could build a map with the names of the students, (boy's names in squares and girl's in triangles) with lines and arrows connecting those squares and triangles showing me who was the most popular kid (multuiple lines pointing to him), who was the isolated kid (no lines pointing to him, but lines pointing to others), the cliques (kids who have names pointing to each others in a daisy chain that includes few outsiders). That collection of metadata (just four names) would provide me with amazing amounts of information about the individuals in the classroom.
When I took that data and combined it with the school records (think tax records and other government data), I could determine even more information about a student's possible internal landscape, from possible child abuse, neglect, ugly divorces, socioeconomic status, romantic interests and more.
I never kept the map or the cards, except for a list of names to put together in cooperative groups. Yet I would bet there are people out there who could have used that information for purposes that had little to do with protecting the welfare of the child.
All the data on the lives of those kids came from simply examining the small additional information of who they wanted to work with, similar to a list of phone contacts or Facebook "likes".
A file on an individual is unnecessary. The collection of the data is all that needs to happen, because the individual information is within the metadata.

[geek tragedy]

23. Point 2 does not represent my thinking.

I'm thinking more along the lines of data mining.

Use this analogy: There's a crowd of 500 people. All of them are wearing white t-shirts. Except 1, who's wearing a red t-shirt.

If you take a picture of the crowd, are you spying on all 500, or just the person who stands out?

A lot of it involves pattern recognition, etc.

Kind of like water that passes through a sieve.

[Android3.14]

30. Then why did you state

"having the government create files on people and examine their private lives without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing is not something that should be tolerated."?

[geek tragedy]

32. That is a starting point. It does not follow that everything else is ok. nt

[Android3.14]

34. Are we still trying to agree on terms?

If "having the government create files on people and examine their private lives without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing" is the starting point, but you say it is unnecessary for there to be a file, then it appears that you are trying to posit two contradictory statements.
Regardless, we'll try to grapple with your analogy.
The problem with it, is that it is far less than what the NAS is doing and is a weak example of data mining. If they were playing a game of Where's Waldo, few would have an issue.
My example of the sociogram shows a basic example of how data mining actually occurs, (i.e. combing a database for additional information or combining multiple databases for additional insight or hidden structures)
So no, I wouldn't consider your example "spying". If, however, the government were continuously, secretly, without a warrant, and without public oversight, recording those 500 people's locations, contacts, emails, etc. on the off chance that someone later might determine that a person with a red hat might be in the crowd, then that would be spying.

[geek tragedy]

36. I guess I don't see a great deal of difference between

the government recording and storing and a corporation recording and storing.

It has not, AFAIK, risen above the rumor level that the government is recording all communications like that.

[Android3.14]

37. Rumor?

Are you actually telling me that you think it is a falsehood that the NSA is doing what they themselves have reported to Congress that they are doing?
Forbes article on director apologizing for lying

[geek tragedy]

38. recording content or recording metadata?

The former is indeed a rumor, the latter acknowledged.

[Android3.14]

39. Not rumor

They are recording

[geek tragedy]

40. That story has been thoroughly debunked. It's false.

See, e.g.,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

Less than a rumor, a falsehood.

Never trust anything written by Declan "Al Gore Said He Invented the Internet" McCullagh.

[Android3.14]

43. Sorry, but no

Clapper has admitted he provided "least untruthful" answers to congress.
The EFF also has shown that the NSA has access to the actual content. Check here.
Regardless, the content is not the issue, because even the metadata is too much, as a showed in my example of the sociogram.
Should the government, without public oversight or your permission, have the ability to track your call logs, locations when you made those calls, the location of you, your friends, and your family?

[geek tragedy]

44. Without public oversight or permission, no. nt

[Android3.14]

45. Thank you

It was a pleasure to debate in a dispassionate manner. It forced me to reexamine my sources and challenge my own opinions.
Regards.

[geek tragedy]

46. Likewise. I think there is probably more agreement than

disagreement if people would talk about facts and how to address the problems that do exist.

"How do we fix this" does not get asked enough.

[kentuck]

10. Logic and facts do not matter...

It is only opinions that count.

[uponit7771]

12. ...yeap, don't trust the government with medical records either

[TheKentuckian]

14. This is a newer tact that seems to be trotted out by some.

I'll agree, if it cannot be restricted from combing through them looking for spooks, collect material for blackmail, and fodder for the drug war.

So, in the current environment a NHS is probably off the table so we are left with single payer so that government pays the bills but doesn't have to own much in the way of operations. The government can be cut out of the loop and blinded to which claims are attached to which person. A system can be designed that secures information at each step. Care management can be placed in other hands, just by going to a professional review.


That said, historic track records of abuse of surveillance and abuse of medical records in various government plans including those operated in the US are fairly divergent. Other than drug war abuse, the potential seems rather small anyway unless we are so far down the hole that eugenics and forced suicide are a problem to be wrestled with.
How is the government going to abuse you having a heart murmur or a bad knee? Is there some reason to think everyone with high cholesterol is going to be rounded up?

Actually, it is the employer system that seems to present the greater risk by making a person unemployable.

No, your blood pressure and cancer history are not a danger to power but your knowledge, ideas, and organization are.

[NoOneMan]

20. Unless having a heart murmur has a high correlation to domestic terrorism

But their algorithms will most likely focus on who browses Greenpeace's websites and calls the Occupy coordinators, rather than who suffers from restless leg syndrome.

You know what is also great about metadata beyond finding future criminals? Finding out which voters to suppress.

[NoOneMan]

19. Sure, don't.

The government can do a fine job of managing health care resources, subjected to public audits, without knowing the details of your bowel movements.

[JoePhilly]

24. They'll know if you've been treated for addiction.

[NoOneMan]

25. Depends on how you want to structure your claims department

Frankly, the very fact that scientists can run double-blind studies is a good indication we can separate personal details from claim information by creating a secure bridge between the data sets in which all access attempts is public information.

[JoePhilly]

26. But why would we expect our totalitarian government to

do that?

There is a large disconnect here for some.

We can't claim that we live in the equivalent of a police state (which some are claiming), and also claim that the same government will respect our medical records.

Personally, I think the right would love for the left to distrust the government as much as they do because it would make it that much easier to end social programs.

[NoOneMan]

27. You can't if you don't demand accountability and privacy

So yeah, you're fucked if the totalitarian state is already set up. In the case that you want to argue the government has you by the balls, then I agree that any expansion of government results in ubiquitous ball-grabbing. And if thats really the case, we are already enemies of the state and its too late to do shit about it and we would be best getting off the grid immediately, not registering to vote, and never participating in the system again.

Another alternative is that the totalitarian state is simply being born and strengthening, and you either fight like hell now, bend over and accept it, or get ready to get out of dodge. Take your pick.

A lot of people making arguments about this are assuming that we don't have to bitch until the governments become a totalitarian state, not realizing that when that occurs there is no point in complaining at all. Anyone who is complaining now is doing so with hope that the worse can be avoided before this growing apparatus can be exploited in the worst possible ways.

[sibelian]

42. Perhaps not.

Perhaps health records need greater protection as well.

[NoOneMan]

18. The problem is that Snowden may be a narcissist with ulterior motives who is not championing reform

It is possible for someone to do something out of malice, spite, selfishness and/or narcissism that is still "good" and perceived as "heroic". That doesn't mean they are a selfless, altruistic, benevolent hero.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what Snowden is. To some he is a hero, and to others a villian. As long as we are obsessed with that point, we aren't really going to have the focus--as proven--to talk about the real concerning issue: NSA spying on citizens.

Snowden is most certainly a distraction, partially by his own making. Its easier to leave him at the door if we hope to have a serious debate about the issues. I don't think that makes me a 'privacy moderate', as I am quite extreme about my views on privacy.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. K&R for attracting the tragically handicapped. n/t

[byeya]

41. + + Snowden attracts the slugs doesn't he?

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. An excellent article!

I agree that privacy moderates have some cognitive dissonance going on, but my main observation about them is that they seem to have a great deal of difficulty giving credit where credit is due. What that's about, I have no idea.

No, I take that back. I do have a hunch... that it's about the fact that Snowden doesn't have a PhD in his back pocket, and isn't a bunch older than he is. Add to that, that he once donated to Ron Paul, and he might as well hang in their view.

I won't say here what I think of that reasoning, or the fact that things like that are allowed to take precedence over the grave issues facing us about Snowden's revelations, but it isn't complimentary.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. an excellent article for a reality based assessment of the situation

It is hyperbolic, and even hysterical, to say, as Glenn Greenwald has, that the United States has a secret plan "to destroy privacy and anonymity not just in the United States but around the world."

In fact, the U.S. government is, right this second, pouring untold billions into what is ultimately an effort to monitor all digital communications; scan all mail; amass a fleet of surveillance drones that can hover in the sky for days on end; develop technology to scan all faces in crowds; assemble gigantic databases of biometric data; break all encryption efforts; indiscriminately spy on millions of citizens in friendly countries like Germany and Brazil; and share spy technologies with allies. None of that is in dispute. What's hyperbolic is calling people hysterical because they see the endgame of various plans to impose ever broader surveillance on whole societies. There isn't a government document somewhere titled, "The Plan to Destroy Global Privacy," but that is exactly what Western intelligence agencies will do if adequately funded and left, unopposed, to their own devices. Anyone who can't see that hasn't adequately grappled with the implications of Snowden's revelations, the history of spy agencies allowed to operate in secret, or the radical new capabilities that advances in data analysis and retention have given states (and are likely to give them in the near future if they aren't stopped).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/the-problem-with-the-privacy-moderates/277561/

[KittyWampus]

47. The problem with the NSA Agitators is… they don't talk about the NSA in any relevant way. Nothing

informative or proactive.

I posted a thread last night about how the NSA gets "direct access".

Thread sank like a stone.

If DU'ers really gave a shit… it wouldn't have taken until last night for the information of how the NSA gets direct access to be posted.

And the HOW is old news, btw. From 2008.