5 ms·

The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order. Thus it is regulated by the local government. Meanwhile Huawei is

The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order. Thus it is regulated by the local government. Meanwhile Huawei is supposedly actively created a workaround: > U.S. officials say Huawei has built equipment that secretly preserves the manufacturer’s ability to access networks through these interfaces without the carriers’ knowledge.

8note 7y ago
where 'strict' is a secret court that accepts everything put in front of it?
- azinman2 7y ago
  Yes, versus your telecom provider in another country.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  FISA courts have a high acceptance rate because prosecutors don't put anything in the ring unless they're very sure they'll get approved. This has been affirmed by many ex-FISA court appointees, lawyers and those in the intelligence community. Please let the "FISA court is a rubber stamp" myth die already.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not, but I certainly would not take the word of anyone who made a living off it to tell me it's all good. I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use. I know the opinions of regular police and courts and I disagree with them too.
    - jorblumesea 7y ago
      I think if your proof is "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Also, isn't it true that every warrant is just opinions about whether someone has done something warranting investigation? I don't see what any of these objections have to do with FISA.
      - gpm 7y ago
        > "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Not trusting the government is the entire point of large portions of the US constitution...
        jorblumesea 7y ago
        The constitution is all about checks and balances. There was implicit trust in the government from the very outset of the founding of this country. It was a documented designed to guarantee trust. If you don't trust the checks and balances that the government provides, then the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. Warrants are by definition, a check and balance of sorts, although I understand it doesn't feel that way. Police (executive branch) comes to a judge (judicial branch), who approves or rejects the warrant. The judiciary has the final say over whether the police can search a home, for example. I think it's interesting how many people point to how we need to get back to the roots of constitutionalism, but also say "I never trust anything governments do or say". If that's the case, why do you think the constitution will help you there? The document itself requires huge levels of trust.
        Spooky23 7y ago
        That position is used by extreme elements to justify their pet issues. The founders distrusted the risk of tyranny, not government.
        gpm 7y ago
        Well sure, if I took the extreme position of arguing to never trust the government you'd be right. That's not what I, or the person you are originally replying to is doing. Rather we would say something like "you are asking us to trust the government when it is bypassing or ignoring the checks and balances put into the constitution precisely because of issues like this". For a few examples: Checks and balances are why the 6th amendment requires to a "speedy and public trial". Which the FISA courts are not providing. They are why the 6th amendment requires the accused to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation", which is regularly being violated by these secret proceedings by way of parallel construction. You bring up the topic of warrants, but warrants (by the 4th amendment) must "upon probable cause [... describe] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". From what little we have seen of the FISA proceedings, neither of those conditions are being respected. You bring up the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is required (by article 3 section 2 of the constitution) to hear only cases and controversies, one sided proceedings that aren't even released publicly after the fact to be challenged are neither. This clause exists (I believe) precisely because one sided arguments lack the necessary checks and balances to reach a fair verdict
    - jariel 7y ago
      " I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use." That's fine - you can go ahead and vote. There's an election coming up. Collectively, most Americans probably agree with the current use, and there are actual control and oversight by the Judicial system. Which is unlike China.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      > I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not You do now: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-page-was-surveilled-illegally https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-...
  - op00to 7y ago
    What's the alternative to high approval rate = rubber stamp? Low approval rate > prosecutors wasting time on shit that won't get approved > prosecutors figuring out what shit will get approved > prosecutors do that > high approval rate? Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    This doesn't mean that there's not widespread abuse of secret warrants/NSLs. It could easily mean that they've developed a formula to ensure that they meet* the standards set by the FISA court. Maybe every single one of them has some kind of magic phrasing that's technically true, but kinda bullshit if you're able to view it from a wider viewpoint. Maybe all it takes is to say that this person has a connection to known terrorists. The connection could be incredibly distant, but hey - there's a sworn statement from some analyst/agent/whomever saying that there's a connection. Because the courts are secret, there's no opportunity for those outside the intelligence community to review things and see whether there are routine abuses or other questionable situations.
  - chooseaname 7y ago
    > Please let the "FISA court is a rubber stamp" myth die already Maybe if there were more transparency, it would.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Gee, I can't imagine why people would lie about their own actions when they come under criticism!
vertig0h 7y ago
The other fundamental distinction often ignored is that the United States Government represents and is ultimately beholden to the citizens of the US, even if that relationship appears strained at times. The Chinese Communist Party has absolutely no such relationship with the people of the United States and is instead an active adversary to the US Government and the people of the US. US law enforcement's restricted (or unrestricted, for that matter) access to networks provides no justification - moral or otherwise - for Huawei's access to those same networks. As a US citizen I support US Government access to our networks because I know such access is used for the prosecution of criminals and helps preserve our collective safety. The CCP on the other hand uses its unrestricted access to networks in China for the brutal suppression of its own people and seeks to export that authoritarian model across the world, something which should alarm us all.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  This is on the money. All the overreaches of the US government can be viewed as what happens when the world's hegemon actually is constrained by people, and has limits to its authority. Its what a country with its power and influence does, when its restrained. Imagine the overreaches of a hegemon without those restraints. If the CCP were to replace the US/western alliances, as the dominant power - the catastrophe would be unimaginable.
Thriptic 7y ago
> The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order. The good guys have a non-transparent approval mechanism for permission which no one can audit. In reality, you have no basis for claiming it's an effective overall control mechanism because none of us can see most of the data. Further, there have been numerous documented cases of abuse like intelligence officials spying on their significant others, parallel reconstruction on cases where secret data shouldn't have been used, etc. An administrative policy control where application of the control is handled by the people holding the data with 0 auditing by anyone outside the system is not a strict control. Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei? Definitely, but that does not let American intelligence off the hook or justify what they are doing with mass data collection.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei? Why would you trust American intelligence/law enforcement more than a foreign government (unless you have something to hide from that government, like if you are fostering unrest from abroad)? There's not much reason for China to be interested in me, but there's lots of reasons I wouldn't want US law enforcement spying on me, since they are in a better position to make trouble for me.
  - Enumerating123 7y ago
    This take is essentially the "I have nothing to hide" argument except applied to China. Moreover, even if China is not interested in you in particular, it is interested in the executives, politicians, and decision makers that use our telecom infrastructure along with you. And you should care if those people are spied on by the Chinese government, probably more than about yourself being spied on by the US government. While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be. Which specific part of the Middle East are you thinking of with that little gem? I'm looking at Iran on a map and they are the last stable center amongst a sea of catastrophes from Syria to Afghanistan that all have the sticky fingerprints of American influence on them. The entire Arabian peninsula is a mess hold together only by US support and stands as a real-time embarrassment of all the rhetoric out of Washington in my lifetime. Compared to that, what exactly is China likely to do that could be worse? The US has a bunch of stuff they can be proud of, but nobody is going to (indeed nobody is) take them seriously when their ambassadors hand-wringing about the risks of foreign spies or foreign influence. The US has been doing whatever they feel like for decades with little regard for anyone else and they have not shown themselves to be particularly honourable when there are real stakes, like oil, on the table.

8note 7y ago

where 'strict' is a secret court that accepts everything put in front of it?

azinman2 7y ago
Yes, versus your telecom provider in another country.
jorblumesea 7y ago
FISA courts have a high acceptance rate because prosecutors don't put anything in the ring unless they're very sure they'll get approved. This has been affirmed by many ex-FISA court appointees, lawyers and those in the intelligence community. Please let the "FISA court is a rubber stamp" myth die already.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not, but I certainly would not take the word of anyone who made a living off it to tell me it's all good. I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use. I know the opinions of regular police and courts and I disagree with them too.
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    I think if your proof is "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Also, isn't it true that every warrant is just opinions about whether someone has done something warranting investigation? I don't see what any of these objections have to do with FISA.
    - gpm 7y ago
      > "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Not trusting the government is the entire point of large portions of the US constitution...
      - jorblumesea 7y ago
        The constitution is all about checks and balances. There was implicit trust in the government from the very outset of the founding of this country. It was a documented designed to guarantee trust. If you don't trust the checks and balances that the government provides, then the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. Warrants are by definition, a check and balance of sorts, although I understand it doesn't feel that way. Police (executive branch) comes to a judge (judicial branch), who approves or rejects the warrant. The judiciary has the final say over whether the police can search a home, for example. I think it's interesting how many people point to how we need to get back to the roots of constitutionalism, but also say "I never trust anything governments do or say". If that's the case, why do you think the constitution will help you there? The document itself requires huge levels of trust.
        Spooky23 7y ago
        That position is used by extreme elements to justify their pet issues. The founders distrusted the risk of tyranny, not government.
        gpm 7y ago
        Well sure, if I took the extreme position of arguing to never trust the government you'd be right. That's not what I, or the person you are originally replying to is doing. Rather we would say something like "you are asking us to trust the government when it is bypassing or ignoring the checks and balances put into the constitution precisely because of issues like this". For a few examples: Checks and balances are why the 6th amendment requires to a "speedy and public trial". Which the FISA courts are not providing. They are why the 6th amendment requires the accused to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation", which is regularly being violated by these secret proceedings by way of parallel construction. You bring up the topic of warrants, but warrants (by the 4th amendment) must "upon probable cause [... describe] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". From what little we have seen of the FISA proceedings, neither of those conditions are being respected. You bring up the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is required (by article 3 section 2 of the constitution) to hear only cases and controversies, one sided proceedings that aren't even released publicly after the fact to be challenged are neither. This clause exists (I believe) precisely because one sided arguments lack the necessary checks and balances to reach a fair verdict
  - jariel 7y ago
    " I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use." That's fine - you can go ahead and vote. There's an election coming up. Collectively, most Americans probably agree with the current use, and there are actual control and oversight by the Judicial system. Which is unlike China.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not You do now: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-page-was-surveilled-illegally https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-...
- op00to 7y ago
  What's the alternative to high approval rate = rubber stamp? Low approval rate > prosecutors wasting time on shit that won't get approved > prosecutors figuring out what shit will get approved > prosecutors do that > high approval rate? Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  This doesn't mean that there's not widespread abuse of secret warrants/NSLs. It could easily mean that they've developed a formula to ensure that they meet* the standards set by the FISA court. Maybe every single one of them has some kind of magic phrasing that's technically true, but kinda bullshit if you're able to view it from a wider viewpoint. Maybe all it takes is to say that this person has a connection to known terrorists. The connection could be incredibly distant, but hey - there's a sworn statement from some analyst/agent/whomever saying that there's a connection. Because the courts are secret, there's no opportunity for those outside the intelligence community to review things and see whether there are routine abuses or other questionable situations.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  > Please let the "FISA court is a rubber stamp" myth die already Maybe if there were more transparency, it would.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Gee, I can't imagine why people would lie about their own actions when they come under criticism!

vertig0h 7y ago

The other fundamental distinction often ignored is that the United States Government represents and is ultimately beholden to the citizens of the US, even if that relationship appears strained at times. The Chinese Communist Party has absolutely no such relationship with the people of the United States and is instead an active adversary to the US Government and the people of the US. US law enforcement's restricted (or unrestricted, for that matter) access to networks provides no justification - moral or otherwise - for Huawei's access to those same networks. As a US citizen I support US Government access to our networks because I know such access is used for the prosecution of criminals and helps preserve our collective safety. The CCP on the other hand uses its unrestricted access to networks in China for the brutal suppression of its own people and seeks to export that authoritarian model across the world, something which should alarm us all.

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
This is on the money. All the overreaches of the US government can be viewed as what happens when the world's hegemon actually is constrained by people, and has limits to its authority. Its what a country with its power and influence does, when its restrained. Imagine the overreaches of a hegemon without those restraints. If the CCP were to replace the US/western alliances, as the dominant power - the catastrophe would be unimaginable.

Thriptic 7y ago

> The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order. The good guys have a non-transparent approval mechanism for permission which no one can audit. In reality, you have no basis for claiming it's an effective overall control mechanism because none of us can see most of the data. Further, there have been numerous documented cases of abuse like intelligence officials spying on their significant others, parallel reconstruction on cases where secret data shouldn't have been used, etc. An administrative policy control where application of the control is handled by the people holding the data with 0 auditing by anyone outside the system is not a strict control. Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei? Definitely, but that does not let American intelligence off the hook or justify what they are doing with mass data collection.

Johnny555 7y ago
Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei? Why would you trust American intelligence/law enforcement more than a foreign government (unless you have something to hide from that government, like if you are fostering unrest from abroad)? There's not much reason for China to be interested in me, but there's lots of reasons I wouldn't want US law enforcement spying on me, since they are in a better position to make trouble for me.
- Enumerating123 7y ago
  This take is essentially the "I have nothing to hide" argument except applied to China. Moreover, even if China is not interested in you in particular, it is interested in the executives, politicians, and decision makers that use our telecom infrastructure along with you. And you should care if those people are spied on by the Chinese government, probably more than about yourself being spied on by the US government. While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be. Which specific part of the Middle East are you thinking of with that little gem? I'm looking at Iran on a map and they are the last stable center amongst a sea of catastrophes from Syria to Afghanistan that all have the sticky fingerprints of American influence on them. The entire Arabian peninsula is a mess hold together only by US support and stands as a real-time embarrassment of all the rhetoric out of Washington in my lifetime. Compared to that, what exactly is China likely to do that could be worse? The US has a bunch of stuff they can be proud of, but nobody is going to (indeed nobody is) take them seriously when their ambassadors hand-wringing about the risks of foreign spies or foreign influence. The US has been doing whatever they feel like for decades with little regard for anyone else and they have not shown themselves to be particularly honourable when there are real stakes, like oil, on the table.