SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:43PM
from the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste dept.
from the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste dept.
A U.S. senator plans to introduce legislation that would delay the end of the bulk collection of phone metadata by the National Security Agency to Jan. 31, 2017, in the wake of security concerns after the terror attacks last Friday in Paris.
Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, believes that the termination of the program, scheduled for month-end under the USA Freedom Act, "takes us from a constitutional, legal, and proven NSA collection architecture to an untested, hypothetical one that will be less effective."
The transition will happen in less than two weeks, at a time when the threat level for the U.S. is "incredibly high," he said Tuesday.
The obvious answer to doing something that doesn't work is to do more of that something.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
In Wake of Paris Attacks, Legislation Aims to Extend NSA Program
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:20PM
The whole discussion here reminds me of the debate around DRM, [wikipedia.org] especially in the videogames industry.
DRM is incredibly draconian, causes headaches for numerous legitimate users, can be gamebrakingly bad under some DRM schemes if you're internet connection is the tiniest bit flaky, and will lock users out of legitimately purchased content due to issues on the publisher's end. They can even be used to lock users out of their legitimate content for reasons that are unrelated (EA, for example, at one point decided they could lock users out of legally purchased, downloaded content because they were being a jerk on their forums. [cinemablend.com])
The problem with DRM isn't that it's draconian. It's that it DOESN'T WORK. Because within a day or two of a PC game being released, a DRM-free cracked pirate version is available. Which is actually objectively better than the retail game in not having all this baggage coming along with it.
So, the PC gaming industry subjects ALL their customers to annoyance, wastes their time, and actively impinges on the enjoyment of playing the game, all so they can hold the pirate version at bay for a matter of HOURS at launch time. The strategy is absurd on its face. And still it's "the way things are."
The parallel? Weakening encryption hits EVERY user of technology. Demanding every app have a security hole is begging for problems. It will be abused, data will be stolen, and everyone will suffer. And the terrorists? They'll just use some other technology that WILL allow end-to-end encryption. Because that technology is not hard to build. The genie is out of the bottle here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:32PM
The problem with DRM isn't that it's draconian
False. The problem with DRM is that it's draconian and unjust. Another problem is that DRM almost certainly implies that you're using non-free proprietary user-subjugating software, which is foolish in and of itself.
The main problem with mass surveillance is that it violates our fundamental liberties and the constitution, not merely that it doesn't work. If your problem with mass surveillance is simply that it doesn't work, then you must not value freedom. If the government discovers a way to make massive surveillance work, then you will become an enemy to freedom as you have no choice but to support the now-effective mass surveillance. Be concerned with much greater things than mere effectiveness.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:54PM
The main problem with mass surveillance is that it violates our fundamental liberties and the constitution, not merely that it doesn't work. If your problem with mass surveillance is simply that it doesn't work, then you must not value freedom. If the government discovers a way to make massive surveillance work, then you will become an enemy to freedom as you have no choice but to support the now-effective mass surveillance. Be concerned with much greater things than mere effectiveness.
Exactly. Arguing that surveillance doesn't work grants the premise that if it did, it might be something worthwhile for the government to impose. By granting that point, you're weakening your argument. The exception is when someone makes a statement about how effective it is, and you can point out that it's a lie.
You see the same kinds of debates about torture and about how "effective" it is. My argument in this case continues to be a moral one, and I'll debate on those terms.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]