Privacy Part 2: Government Surveillance - Revision history

Ryan: /* Links */

2014-04-17T02:08:14Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 17 April 2014
Line 59:		Line 59:

	== Links ==		== Links ==

			Bruce's bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier

			Bruce "facts": http://www.schneierfacts.com

			Bruce's blog: https://www.schneier.com

			Google SSL program: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/search-more-securely-with-encrypted.html

			Metcalf's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf%27s_law

			Secret room at Folsom Street San Francisco Internet interchange facility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

			Bruce's NSA has betrayed the Internet blog: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying

			Guardian article about xkeyscore: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

			Quantum and Foxacid: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/how_the_nsa_att.html

			NSA's Turbulence program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence_(NSA)

			Some of NSA/CIA's efforts to get into computers of people they can't hack remotely: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/16/the_cias_new_black_bag_is_digital_nsa_cooperation

			The Korematsu decision in which the Supreme Court defended the internment of the Japanese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

			22 people killed by cows in the US every year: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/11-animals-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-sharks

			OTI report about effectiveness of surveillance: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/nsa-data-has-no-discernible-impact-on-terrorism-report.html

			LOVEINT scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT

			Recent Stanford study about deanonymizing metadata: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/volunteers-in-metadata-study-called-gun-stores-strip-clubs-and-more/

			Why Isn't Fourth Amendment Classified?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/why-isnt-the-fourth-amendment-classified-as-top-secret/284439/

			Google altering an election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/could-google-tilt-a-close-election/2013/03/29/c8d7f4e6-9587-11e2-b6f0-a5150a247b6a_story.html

			4th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

			Katz case established the third party doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Party_Doctrine

			Smith v Maryland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

			Mass Bar Opinion About Lawyers Using E-mails: http://www.massbar.org/publications/ethics-opinions/2000-2009/2000/opinion-no-00-1

			EFF on the Wiretap Act: https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Privacy:_Wiretap_Act

			Wiretap act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

			Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

			Access to stored communications (e.g., email): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2701

			Some people have argued against the exclusionary rule because it prevents a court from using evidence http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/346/Friend_or_Foe_Debating_the_Exclusionary_Rule_Part_II

			Compulsory access to stored records: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

			Warshak case says you need a warrant to get an e-mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

			The Church Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

			FISA: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36

			The FISC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISC

			FOIA applies to governments -- you can't FOIA for private data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)

			PATRIOT act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

			Section 215: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861

			An article about Executive Order 12333 that NSA claims gives them broad authority: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/21/209167/most-of-nsas-data-collection-authorized.html

			FISA Amendments Act of 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008

			Section 702: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a

			USA Freedom Act: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361

			Surveillance State Repeal Act: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2818

	== Class Discussion ==		== Class Discussion ==

Marissa1989 at 03:39, 9 April 2014

2014-04-09T03:39:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:39, 9 April 2014
Line 98:		Line 98:

	:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

			----

			Given the choice between Government or Corporations in regards to abuse of data - I’d like to trust the government more, as long as we reach a point where they’re transparent to citizens on how it’s being used and to what extent.
			Corporations will use the data to increase profit, which therefore means mapping out and predicting the spending habits of consumers in order to target them. I hope it’s not wishful thinking to believe our data would be more secure within Government Data centers. Data security at corporations will vary considerably and that means personal data is more exposed to hacking, theft and misuse by unscrupulous individuals or corporations. [[User:Marissa1989\|Marissa1989]] 23:39, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

	----		----

Cheikhmbacke: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T20:01:49Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 8 April 2014
Line 120:		Line 120:

	Edward Snowden released ground-shaking evidence about government surveillance. While some people claim that he released more information then he should have, others claimed that he did a great service to his country and even called on the president to grant him “some form of clemency”. While for some it may be difficult to justify his decision, his actions sparked a new way of thinking over government surveillance and how the NSA will proceed in future programs. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo\|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		Edward Snowden released ground-shaking evidence about government surveillance. While some people claim that he released more information then he should have, others claimed that he did a great service to his country and even called on the president to grant him “some form of clemency”. While for some it may be difficult to justify his decision, his actions sparked a new way of thinking over government surveillance and how the NSA will proceed in future programs. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo\|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

			------

			Personally, I am not sure if it is just me or there may be others, but I do not think that government surveillance is a bad thing altogether. Having said that, I am also a firm believer in transparency in governments' handling of data. For instance, in the internet telephony world, also known as VoIP, some third world country governments (e.g. Senegal) use internet surveillance to track and catch the fraudsters. In many West African countries, governments make it clear to their citizens that they will be spying on anyone (in order to intimidate those who would attempt to divert their international incoming calls by the use of "Sim Boxes" and other devices). Although this is not necessarily targeted to everyday citizens, their "surveillance" help them save millions of dollars annually. Therefore, I believe that as long as government internet surveillance is practiced for the good cause in a transparent manner, it could be a good thing for the society.

			[[User:cheikhmbacke\|cheikmbacke]] 14:59, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

Emmanuelsurillo: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T19:52:51Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 8 April 2014
Line 115:		Line 115:

	Whether consciously or uncosciously, Bruce Schneier in The Battle for Power on the Internet voice not only the obvious warning as to the ever increasing powers corporations and governments are gaining, but also the reason we this should not stop us from exploring new technologies may and probably will magnify that power even further in the decades to come. Yes, the magnification effect does, in the long run, give superior powers to larger actors, but as Schneier described so well, small, nimble, distributed actors tend to be at least a few years, if not decades ahead of the curve, which makes sure that as any good uses arise from new technology as the detrimental effects that follow. Privacy, liberty, and similar values are of great importances, but that should not be a reason to protest new developments such as Google Glass, cloud computing or bioengineering. The technologies we now all use daily certainly gave corporations and the government better access to our data, but they have also undoubtedly improved our lives. There is no reason to believe that things should be any different with most of the technologies that are on the horizon, that many are so concerned about. --[[User:Seifip\|Seifip]] 14:56, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		Whether consciously or uncosciously, Bruce Schneier in The Battle for Power on the Internet voice not only the obvious warning as to the ever increasing powers corporations and governments are gaining, but also the reason we this should not stop us from exploring new technologies may and probably will magnify that power even further in the decades to come. Yes, the magnification effect does, in the long run, give superior powers to larger actors, but as Schneier described so well, small, nimble, distributed actors tend to be at least a few years, if not decades ahead of the curve, which makes sure that as any good uses arise from new technology as the detrimental effects that follow. Privacy, liberty, and similar values are of great importances, but that should not be a reason to protest new developments such as Google Glass, cloud computing or bioengineering. The technologies we now all use daily certainly gave corporations and the government better access to our data, but they have also undoubtedly improved our lives. There is no reason to believe that things should be any different with most of the technologies that are on the horizon, that many are so concerned about. --[[User:Seifip\|Seifip]] 14:56, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
			----

			Surveillance is almost impossible to avoid in this age. Technology ranging from something as powerful as a Google search to simple phones, there is no avoiding be tracked, traced and watched. Governments have always been known to survey on one or two individuasl but now the NSA has a “domestic spying program” that collects millions of emails and contact information from Internet service providers. While major news reporting agencies like The New York Times have reported against corporate and government surveillance, the attacks that “The Times “ suffered by what the FBI called “hallmarks of hacking by the Chinese military” seem to justify an invasive NSA for the protection of US citizens.

			Edward Snowden released ground-shaking evidence about government surveillance. While some people claim that he released more information then he should have, others claimed that he did a great service to his country and even called on the president to grant him “some form of clemency”. While for some it may be difficult to justify his decision, his actions sparked a new way of thinking over government surveillance and how the NSA will proceed in future programs. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo\|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:52, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

Seifip at 18:56, 8 April 2014

2014-04-08T18:56:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 8 April 2014
Line 113:		Line 113:

	----		----

			Whether consciously or uncosciously, Bruce Schneier in The Battle for Power on the Internet voice not only the obvious warning as to the ever increasing powers corporations and governments are gaining, but also the reason we this should not stop us from exploring new technologies may and probably will magnify that power even further in the decades to come. Yes, the magnification effect does, in the long run, give superior powers to larger actors, but as Schneier described so well, small, nimble, distributed actors tend to be at least a few years, if not decades ahead of the curve, which makes sure that as any good uses arise from new technology as the detrimental effects that follow. Privacy, liberty, and similar values are of great importances, but that should not be a reason to protest new developments such as Google Glass, cloud computing or bioengineering. The technologies we now all use daily certainly gave corporations and the government better access to our data, but they have also undoubtedly improved our lives. There is no reason to believe that things should be any different with most of the technologies that are on the horizon, that many are so concerned about. --[[User:Seifip\|Seifip]] 14:56, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

VACYBER: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T18:53:51Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 8 April 2014
Line 108:		Line 108:
	-----		-----
	After reading all materials it seems that it is impossible to be secured from survellience in the "century of technologies". From one hand, the government survelliance aims to protect us from terrorizm and other hazards. From another hand, it restricts the people's right on freedom of speech. But, nowadays I didn't see that just ordinary citizen was killed because of the content of his message. Let's assume that the content of email is accessed by government, but it doesn't become public. But, the situation is different when it comes to active person, whose speechs/e-mail could rise threats to government. If the threat already exist, this person would be under survellience even in times BC and now, in time of technologies. So, the internet doesn't play a great role here. Still, there are some tools which could somehow prevent the cyber attacks: for example strong code combination. If the code is secure, then it will be diffucult for the computer to break your code. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel\|Aysel]] 14:37, 8 April 2014 (EDT))		After reading all materials it seems that it is impossible to be secured from survellience in the "century of technologies". From one hand, the government survelliance aims to protect us from terrorizm and other hazards. From another hand, it restricts the people's right on freedom of speech. But, nowadays I didn't see that just ordinary citizen was killed because of the content of his message. Let's assume that the content of email is accessed by government, but it doesn't become public. But, the situation is different when it comes to active person, whose speechs/e-mail could rise threats to government. If the threat already exist, this person would be under survellience even in times BC and now, in time of technologies. So, the internet doesn't play a great role here. Still, there are some tools which could somehow prevent the cyber attacks: for example strong code combination. If the code is secure, then it will be diffucult for the computer to break your code. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel\|Aysel]] 14:37, 8 April 2014 (EDT))

			----
			I thought this might be useful as well: "Big data is here to stay, as it should be. But let’s be realistic: It’s an important resource for anyone analyzing data, not a silver bullet." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/eight-no-nine-problems-with-big-data.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article [[User:VACYBER\|VACYBER]] 14:53, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

			----

Aysel: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T18:37:47Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 8 April 2014
Line 107:		Line 107:
	[[User:Lpereira\|Lpereira]] 14:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		[[User:Lpereira\|Lpereira]] 14:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
	-----		-----
			After reading all materials it seems that it is impossible to be secured from survellience in the "century of technologies". From one hand, the government survelliance aims to protect us from terrorizm and other hazards. From another hand, it restricts the people's right on freedom of speech. But, nowadays I didn't see that just ordinary citizen was killed because of the content of his message. Let's assume that the content of email is accessed by government, but it doesn't become public. But, the situation is different when it comes to active person, whose speechs/e-mail could rise threats to government. If the threat already exist, this person would be under survellience even in times BC and now, in time of technologies. So, the internet doesn't play a great role here. Still, there are some tools which could somehow prevent the cyber attacks: for example strong code combination. If the code is secure, then it will be diffucult for the computer to break your code. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel\|Aysel]] 14:37, 8 April 2014 (EDT))

Lpereira: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T18:06:17Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 8 April 2014
Line 104:		Line 104:

	----		----
			The Battle for Power on the Internet was a great talk and made some great points. I like his idea of the quick versus the strong, saying that the marginalized was quick to use the Internet to organize but although the institutions were slower, they use power more effectively. I’m looking forward to talking more about this in class.
			[[User:Lpereira\|Lpereira]] 14:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
			-----

VACYBER: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T17:59:54Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 8 April 2014
Line 98:		Line 98:

	:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

			----

			Playing Devils Advocate as well, I'm less concerned with government collection of data traffic. The massive collections that exist and increase exponentially on a daily basis are still subject to human interaction. Hiring of skilled staff with Hadoop, Hive, Pig, HBase, R, etc., are still subject to the human element. Threats are real within national security and threats are many. One might argue that we cannot handle sifting the data for agreed upon missions. I'm certainly not worried about my conversation requesting the more mundane issues of life. I am worried however, about the collection, packaging, selling and reselling of corporate collected data. The data crosses so many entities that control is truly impossible. There is a reason the Romans would hide items under a Rose bush - Messengers can always be intercepted.[[User:VACYBER\|VACYBER]] 13:59, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

	----		----

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

2014-04-08T16:19:22Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 8 April 2014
Line 71:		Line 71:

	:* The problem is that we don't know what they do with the information because that is secret, and is also used for secret trials in secret courts. The problem is that even if the use of the information is benevolent and well-intentioned, it is worrisome because we're creating the technological foundation for totalitarianism. Now, I don't actually think we're extremely close to creating a totalitarian state but it doesn't mean that it isn't worrisome or that in the wrong political environment we might eventually get there. [[User:Jradoff\|Jradoff]] 08:25, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		:* The problem is that we don't know what they do with the information because that is secret, and is also used for secret trials in secret courts. The problem is that even if the use of the information is benevolent and well-intentioned, it is worrisome because we're creating the technological foundation for totalitarianism. Now, I don't actually think we're extremely close to creating a totalitarian state but it doesn't mean that it isn't worrisome or that in the wrong political environment we might eventually get there. [[User:Jradoff\|Jradoff]] 08:25, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
			::* Ah, gotcha! No wonder I felt like I was missing something-- we all are! I didn't realize that they're actually hiding what they're doing with the information. Do you know what theory for how they are using the data is most likely?
			[[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

	----		----
Line 76:		Line 78:

	The Guardian article- informative content, but I want to comment on its amazing user interface. This is where the web should be heading. In the same way that HTML provides markup to words and sentences, the interactive features of this article help to mark up the thoughts & ideas presented in the article. Very nicely done. [[User:Deluxegourmet\|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:55, 6 April 2014 (EDT)		The Guardian article- informative content, but I want to comment on its amazing user interface. This is where the web should be heading. In the same way that HTML provides markup to words and sentences, the interactive features of this article help to mark up the thoughts & ideas presented in the article. Very nicely done. [[User:Deluxegourmet\|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 22:55, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
			:*I couldn't agree more. The interface was AMAZING! Don't think I've ever seen an article like that before.
			[[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

	----		----
Line 93:		Line 96:

	Regarding the 'huge difference between government and corporate surveillance.' \| There's so much to talk about on this topic, so I'll keep it short by playing a bit of devil's advocate. Is there truly that much of a significant difference between the two surveillance types? Both are working towards the same goal: the protection and accumulation of dollars. In the corporate sense, surveillance allows for the ability to make more dollars. With government surveillance, it allows for the preservation of the capitalist system — to maintain the corporate ecosystem. (Hence the argument that corporations still have a stronghold on our online privacy, regardless of who is responsible for the act of surveillance.) [[User:Twood\|Twood]] 09:31, 8 April 2014 (EDT)		Regarding the 'huge difference between government and corporate surveillance.' \| There's so much to talk about on this topic, so I'll keep it short by playing a bit of devil's advocate. Is there truly that much of a significant difference between the two surveillance types? Both are working towards the same goal: the protection and accumulation of dollars. In the corporate sense, surveillance allows for the ability to make more dollars. With government surveillance, it allows for the preservation of the capitalist system — to maintain the corporate ecosystem. (Hence the argument that corporations still have a stronghold on our online privacy, regardless of who is responsible for the act of surveillance.) [[User:Twood\|Twood]] 09:31, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

			:*It seems unfair to me to suggest that government surveillance is solely to preserve the corporate ecosystem-- surely, issues of national security extend to individuals as well as corporations. I think that government surveillance is much more geared towards protection of the individual than corporate surveillance, which is completely for the purpose of accumulating capital. [[User:Castille\|Castille]] 12:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

	----		----