[governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence)

[michael gurstein]

But what about those of us who are not US citizens...? 

Do we have any rights at all given the current status quo "hands off the
Internet" governance regime of the Internet or, since we aren't among the
anointed, are we to be completely fair game wherever or whenever the USG
chooses to put its hands into the internet for whatever purpose it sets it's
mind to...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:50 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James
Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence)

On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:33 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> James Clapper  (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a 
> statement, per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It 
> cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US 
> person, or anyone located within the United States."

Imagine a very, very large collection of data from a variety of sources,
including things that have multiple parties involved (e.g. phone calls).

There is no way to allow someone to access "all records with Mr. High Risk
in them" without also getting records returned that contain references to
those who may be US citizens, or located in the US.  If Mr. High Risk and
myself chatted on the phone, then the record shows up, despite my being a US
citizen.  You presumably design the system such that it is very hard to
query directly (i.e. "target") US citizens, but there will be lots of data
returned which incidentally is all about US citizens, unless all references
are redacted at the source (which would render the system useless for much
of its intended terrorism risk mitigation purposes.)

Even you believe that government can operate with very high integrity in the
presence of such capabilities, the "incidental" spying ability of such a
system when working perfectly is still rather daunting, and presume some
acceptance of some very serious tradeoffs between terrorism threat detection
and personal freedoms.  I fully understand the value in proactive measures
protecting innocent parties from harm, but am having some difficulty with
imagining a system of "checks and balances" that actually would function
successfully, in light of the extreme potential for abuse.

/John

Disclaimers: My views alone (well, I guess they're also shared with some
             unknown parties whether I like it or not... ;-)






-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t