Well, as others have pointed out, this might be out of date. It's quite possible the NSA can access your phone without physical access now. They were also doing this by rerouting phone shipments and actually hacking into them prior to the customer even getting them.
This isn't much ado about nothing - it's a serious attack on everyone's civil liberties. That it involves Apple is tangential, but will possibly have ramifications for Apple as people (politicians, judges, business leaders) in other countries will have second thoughts about using Apple products.
And that where NSA will leave companies in the dust, sorry Apple you are on your own oh and thanks for the info.
I don't think anyone is disputing that they can do this if they get hold of your phone, but that is not a simple matter itself, which probably makes it just as difficult to pull off as any other kind of covert surveillance operation. The phones don't get shipped from the factory destined for an identifiable customer. Maybe with a court order they can intercept online order deliveries, but if you buy it in a store then it's just not going to be feasible at all.
Causes one to question the possible roles of FedEx and UPS in this. Do they divert flagged shipments to NSA facilities? If so, are there thousands of NSA locations always at the ready to perform these modifications?
No - I doubt very much that they have that kind of extensive infrastructure, and I'm pretty sure that these would have to be individual covert operations. They may bend the rules and run dubious operations at times, but they can't just set up large-scale illegal facilities that rely on the collusion of major multinational companies.
Causes one to question the possible roles of FedEx and UPS in this. Do they divert flagged shipments to NSA facilities? If so, are there thousands of NSA locations always at the ready to perform these modifications?
Yes, under the patriot act all companies can be strong armed into submission easy.
This statement is incredibly naive. Do you actually trust your government? And how about tomorrow's government? Turn off your tv for a while and follow Appelbum and his whistleblower friends like Thomas Drake, former NSA official who's been completely ruined for telling the truth. They accused him of leaking classified information that had actually been on the net for years. When they found that they RETROACTIVELY classified the documents! By the time all was said and done Drake had lost an excellent income, a pension and now works at an Apple store. See the new documentary War on Whistleblowers for more and on Twitter follow Appelbum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, and Laura Poitras for a start.
This statement is incredibly naive. Do you actually trust your government? And how about tomorrow's government? Turn off your tv for a while and follow Appelbum and his whistleblower friends like Thomas Drake, former NSA official who's been completely ruined for telling the truth. They accused him of leaking classified information that had actually been on the net for years. When they found that they RETROACTIVELY classified the documents! By the time all was said and done Drake had lost an excellent income, a pension and now works at an Apple store. See the new documentary War on Whistleblowers for more and on Twitter follow Appelbum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, and Laura Poitras for a start.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> (</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">http://www.gchq.gov.uk) </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?</span>
At least in America, government was supposed to be restrained by our Constitution. Unfortunately so many are uneducated about these restraints that they have since birth been given the idea that their government fills the role of parent and police to the world. It's disturbing how far afield things have gotten.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
Tough choices.
It's not a question of whether government should have access to private information but the circumstances under which that access is allowed.
Law Enforcement may enter my home and search for evidence of a crime, but to do so they have to convince a judge that there's a good reason to believe such evidence exists at that time and place. That introduces at least one layer of potential sober consideration, and notifies ME that I'm under investigation. Why should policies regarding interception of electronic communications be any less stringent or subject to less scrutiny? No one is saying law enforcement shouldn't be able to investigate bad guys, we're just saying they're not allowed to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want however they want. There has to be someone in charge, who is ultimately responsible for what each cop does, and a level of transparency to the process that prevents abuse.
I don't want the bad guys to be protected from law enforcement either, but I'd honestly rather accept the Twenty-Million-to-One odds of dying in a terrorist attack over constantly worrying that anything I write or say may be misinterpreted and get me in trouble, or more likely and much, much worse, provide other less-bad-but-still-not-good guys with the means to unfairly oppress innocent people.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> (</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">http://www.gchq.gov.uk) </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?</span>
The government can and should go after terrorists according to due process, but that has nothing to do with the government illegally spying on the general population.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
Tough choices.
It isn't tough if a citizen/company hasn't committed a crime you the government don't get to go on fishing trips. Without a warrant issued in the light of day, served to the person or company before hand easy.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples).
Oh please. FYI the laws of physics don't take a break. The only people who believe the official story are those who (a) didn't look into it seriously or (b) suffer from cognitive dissonance. There are excellent documentaries that cover this. This new Italian production is the best. Here's the trailer for the English edition: http://bit.ly/1clc98q
And here's the table of contents for the series. Warning: It's 5-hours long: http://bit.ly/1hU554P
Dear! You Americans are the problem, not Apple nor Google. You democracy is rotten and you folk don't control the system.
Why do you allow your representants to control you life? Why does nobody in the US stop this privacy violation? Does your democracy not work?
From the European point of view we would love to support an entire new designed web.
Why are you Americans are just discussing in non impact forums like Apple Insider? Get action. Control your system. Stop this "we can do what ever we want" NSA.
Dear! You Americans are the problem, not Apple nor Google. You democracy is rotten and you folk don't control the system.
Why do you allow your representants to control you life? Why does nobody in the US stop this privacy violation? Does your democracy not work?
From the European point of view we would love to support an entire new designed web.
Why are you Americans are just discussing in non impact forums like Apple Insider? Get action. Control your system. Stop this "we can do what ever we want" NSA.
First things first... America is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic and I'm sure you knew that.
Second, it's absolutely true Americans are under the misimpression that they are subservient to government, instead of the other way 'round. This is what results after government insidiously seeps into all aspects of life and law after law dictates every aspect and detail of behavior. The fears of 9-11 have been allowed to drive all federal activities at the cost of adhering to our Constitution. It is a shame.
Third, I have no idea what you mean by Europeans wanting a new Internet, but I am aware of Germany's efforts to "sandbox" Germany from NSA spying. I view that as a political pipe dream.
Oh please. FYI the laws of physics don't take a break. The only people who believe the official story are those who (a) didn't look into it seriously or (b) suffer from cognitive dissonance. There are excellent documentaries that cover this. This new Italian production is the best. Here's the trailer for the English edition: http://bit.ly/1clc98q
And here's the table of contents for the series. Warning: It's 5-hours long: http://bit.ly/1hU554P
Thanks for the links (though I've not watched the 5 hours worth).
We shouldn't digress onto 9/11 in this topic, it was an example only. Considering the broader point, I'm not sure how cognitive dissonance helps here: it describes a tendency to try to maintain consistency in one's beliefs so we could conclude that those that fundamentally trust the US government will see NSA as a force for good and those that distrust will see them as a means of oppression. I'm not sure that's a new insight.
None of this answers the question of what tools are legitimate for these agencies to have, except to express the extremes ('all' or 'none').
It's not a question of whether government should have access to private information but the circumstances under which that access is allowed.
Law Enforcement may enter my home and search for evidence of a crime, but to do so they have to convince a judge that there's a good reason to believe such evidence exists at that time and place. That introduces at least one layer of potential sober consideration, and notifies ME that I'm under investigation. Why should policies regarding interception of electronic communications be any less stringent or subject to less scrutiny? No one is saying law enforcement shouldn't be able to investigate bad guys, we're just saying they're not allowed to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want however they want. There has to be someone in charge, who is ultimately responsible for what each cop does, and a level of transparency to the process that prevents abuse.
I don't want the bad guys to be protected from law enforcement either, but I'd honestly rather accept the Twenty-Million-to-One odds of dying in a terrorist attack over constantly worrying that anything I write or say may be misinterpreted and get me in trouble, or more likely and much, much worse, provide other less-bad-but-still-not-good guys with the means to unfairly oppress innocent people.
I agree, I think you're describing a rational oversight regime. In terms of interception, I believe that is how English law already works (don't know about the US) with the exception that the suspect is not told that their comms are being monitored. I think the last bit has some logic to it.
Your last paragraph is about balance and I sympathise with that too. My only concern is knowing what the odds really are and how much they change when the agencies' capabilities change. A worrying analogy would be the Year 2K 'problem' when the world worried about an IT meltdown as ageing computer systems crashed worldwide on being presented with a date whose year didn't start with '19'. Lots of money was spent changing systems and the millennium changed with nary a hiccup. There is a tendency recently to regret the 'waste of money since there wasn't a problem'... In that case, being in the industry, I can say that the opposite interpretation (a lot of people did a lot of well executed preventative work that was ultimately successful) is actually the truth. Trouble is, we're not in a good position to judge on the security agencies.
I'm confused what the problem is. Is it since the general population as well as terrorists use iPhones, NSA shouldn't try to hack into it? If so, that seems rather naive of real life.
Over the past several years I've seen various news articles of criminals hacking into phones. Is it OK for criminals but not those trying to catch them?
Comments
Well, as others have pointed out, this might be out of date. It's quite possible the NSA can access your phone without physical access now. They were also doing this by rerouting phone shipments and actually hacking into them prior to the customer even getting them.
This isn't much ado about nothing - it's a serious attack on everyone's civil liberties. That it involves Apple is tangential, but will possibly have ramifications for Apple as people (politicians, judges, business leaders) in other countries will have second thoughts about using Apple products.
And that where NSA will leave companies in the dust, sorry Apple you are on your own oh and thanks for the info.
I don't think anyone is disputing that they can do this if they get hold of your phone, but that is not a simple matter itself, which probably makes it just as difficult to pull off as any other kind of covert surveillance operation. The phones don't get shipped from the factory destined for an identifiable customer. Maybe with a court order they can intercept online order deliveries, but if you buy it in a store then it's just not going to be feasible at all.
Causes one to question the possible roles of FedEx and UPS in this. Do they divert flagged shipments to NSA facilities? If so, are there thousands of NSA locations always at the ready to perform these modifications?
No - I doubt very much that they have that kind of extensive infrastructure, and I'm pretty sure that these would have to be individual covert operations. They may bend the rules and run dubious operations at times, but they can't just set up large-scale illegal facilities that rely on the collusion of major multinational companies.
Causes one to question the possible roles of FedEx and UPS in this. Do they divert flagged shipments to NSA facilities? If so, are there thousands of NSA locations always at the ready to perform these modifications?
Yes, under the patriot act all companies can be strong armed into submission easy.
If you have nothing to hide, who cares. ....
This statement is incredibly naive. Do you actually trust your government? And how about tomorrow's government? Turn off your tv for a while and follow Appelbum and his whistleblower friends like Thomas Drake, former NSA official who's been completely ruined for telling the truth. They accused him of leaking classified information that had actually been on the net for years. When they found that they RETROACTIVELY classified the documents! By the time all was said and done Drake had lost an excellent income, a pension and now works at an Apple store. See the new documentary War on Whistleblowers for more and on Twitter follow Appelbum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, and Laura Poitras for a start.
This statement is incredibly naive. Do you actually trust your government? And how about tomorrow's government? Turn off your tv for a while and follow Appelbum and his whistleblower friends like Thomas Drake, former NSA official who's been completely ruined for telling the truth. They accused him of leaking classified information that had actually been on the net for years. When they found that they RETROACTIVELY classified the documents! By the time all was said and done Drake had lost an excellent income, a pension and now works at an Apple store. See the new documentary War on Whistleblowers for more and on Twitter follow Appelbum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, and Laura Poitras for a start.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
Tough choices.
At least in America, government was supposed to be restrained by our Constitution. Unfortunately so many are uneducated about these restraints that they have since birth been given the idea that their government fills the role of parent and police to the world. It's disturbing how far afield things have gotten.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
Tough choices.
It's not a question of whether government should have access to private information but the circumstances under which that access is allowed.
Law Enforcement may enter my home and search for evidence of a crime, but to do so they have to convince a judge that there's a good reason to believe such evidence exists at that time and place. That introduces at least one layer of potential sober consideration, and notifies ME that I'm under investigation. Why should policies regarding interception of electronic communications be any less stringent or subject to less scrutiny? No one is saying law enforcement shouldn't be able to investigate bad guys, we're just saying they're not allowed to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want however they want. There has to be someone in charge, who is ultimately responsible for what each cop does, and a level of transparency to the process that prevents abuse.
I don't want the bad guys to be protected from law enforcement either, but I'd honestly rather accept the Twenty-Million-to-One odds of dying in a terrorist attack over constantly worrying that anything I write or say may be misinterpreted and get me in trouble, or more likely and much, much worse, provide other less-bad-but-still-not-good guys with the means to unfairly oppress innocent people.
False dilemma.
The government can and should go after terrorists according to due process, but that has nothing to do with the government illegally spying on the general population.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?
Tough choices.
It isn't tough if a citizen/company hasn't committed a crime you the government don't get to go on fishing trips. Without a warrant issued in the light of day, served to the person or company before hand easy.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples).
Oh please. FYI the laws of physics don't take a break. The only people who believe the official story are those who (a) didn't look into it seriously or (b) suffer from cognitive dissonance. There are excellent documentaries that cover this. This new Italian production is the best. Here's the trailer for the English edition: http://bit.ly/1clc98q
And here's the table of contents for the series. Warning: It's 5-hours long: http://bit.ly/1hU554P
Cognitive dissonance is covered here, among other places: http://bit.ly/18XqZDU
Enjoy.
Aside: is it still called Ad Hominum if it's the internet?
You meant the "argumentum ad hominem"?
What a worm
THAT is an argumentum ad hominem
@toysandme
The laws of physics don't take a break, but some people obviously have no clue what they are!
Why do you allow your representants to control you life? Why does nobody in the US stop this privacy violation? Does your democracy not work?
From the European point of view we would love to support an entire new designed web.
Why are you Americans are just discussing in non impact forums like Apple Insider? Get action. Control your system. Stop this "we can do what ever we want" NSA.
First things first... America is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic and I'm sure you knew that.
Second, it's absolutely true Americans are under the misimpression that they are subservient to government, instead of the other way 'round. This is what results after government insidiously seeps into all aspects of life and law after law dictates every aspect and detail of behavior. The fears of 9-11 have been allowed to drive all federal activities at the cost of adhering to our Constitution. It is a shame.
Third, I have no idea what you mean by Europeans wanting a new Internet, but I am aware of Germany's efforts to "sandbox" Germany from NSA spying. I view that as a political pipe dream.
That’s nice. Go away now.
We don’t have a democracy. Educate yourself.
That’s what you do in a representative republic.
Oh, we will. We are right now, in fact.
Again, we don’t have a democracy.
Good for you. Not happening, though.
How is this a question you can even ask?
Google- Android team worked hand in hand with NSA to allow remote backdoor access.
Apple- NSA had to steal your phone, modify software (iOS 1 & 2 only, remember 2008)
Do you have any sources for this?
Of course he hasn't. It's a conspiracy theory.
Oh please. FYI the laws of physics don't take a break. The only people who believe the official story are those who (a) didn't look into it seriously or (b) suffer from cognitive dissonance. There are excellent documentaries that cover this. This new Italian production is the best. Here's the trailer for the English edition: http://bit.ly/1clc98q
And here's the table of contents for the series. Warning: It's 5-hours long: http://bit.ly/1hU554P
Cognitive dissonance is covered here, among other places: http://bit.ly/18XqZDU
Enjoy.
Thanks for the links (though I've not watched the 5 hours worth).
We shouldn't digress onto 9/11 in this topic, it was an example only. Considering the broader point, I'm not sure how cognitive dissonance helps here: it describes a tendency to try to maintain consistency in one's beliefs so we could conclude that those that fundamentally trust the US government will see NSA as a force for good and those that distrust will see them as a means of oppression. I'm not sure that's a new insight.
None of this answers the question of what tools are legitimate for these agencies to have, except to express the extremes ('all' or 'none').
It's not a question of whether government should have access to private information but the circumstances under which that access is allowed.
Law Enforcement may enter my home and search for evidence of a crime, but to do so they have to convince a judge that there's a good reason to believe such evidence exists at that time and place. That introduces at least one layer of potential sober consideration, and notifies ME that I'm under investigation. Why should policies regarding interception of electronic communications be any less stringent or subject to less scrutiny? No one is saying law enforcement shouldn't be able to investigate bad guys, we're just saying they're not allowed to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want however they want. There has to be someone in charge, who is ultimately responsible for what each cop does, and a level of transparency to the process that prevents abuse.
I don't want the bad guys to be protected from law enforcement either, but I'd honestly rather accept the Twenty-Million-to-One odds of dying in a terrorist attack over constantly worrying that anything I write or say may be misinterpreted and get me in trouble, or more likely and much, much worse, provide other less-bad-but-still-not-good guys with the means to unfairly oppress innocent people.
I agree, I think you're describing a rational oversight regime. In terms of interception, I believe that is how English law already works (don't know about the US) with the exception that the suspect is not told that their comms are being monitored. I think the last bit has some logic to it.
Your last paragraph is about balance and I sympathise with that too. My only concern is knowing what the odds really are and how much they change when the agencies' capabilities change. A worrying analogy would be the Year 2K 'problem' when the world worried about an IT meltdown as ageing computer systems crashed worldwide on being presented with a date whose year didn't start with '19'. Lots of money was spent changing systems and the millennium changed with nary a hiccup. There is a tendency recently to regret the 'waste of money since there wasn't a problem'... In that case, being in the industry, I can say that the opposite interpretation (a lot of people did a lot of well executed preventative work that was ultimately successful) is actually the truth. Trouble is, we're not in a good position to judge on the security agencies.
Over the past several years I've seen various news articles of criminals hacking into phones. Is it OK for criminals but not those trying to catch them?