Ethical Compromises in the Name of National Security
Infosecurity - Comment: Ethical Compromises in the Name of National Security
Just curious if you agree/disagree? Personally it seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Just curious if you agree/disagree? Personally it seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Working on: CCSP, definitely, maybe. On the twitters: @mcole1008
Comments
You make the best decision you can at the time with the information that you have.
PHP
Kotlin
Intro to Discrete Math
Programming Languages
Work stuff
FBI prevented 148 mass shootings in 2013: Eric Holder | New York Post "Behavioral Threat Assessment Center"
What events the NSA is or is not involved with who knows exactly, from what I have read the biggest benefit from relaxed requirements in surveillance was against the illegal drug trade. I think some of these counter terrorist homeland security groups that the government setup after 9/11 got heavily involved with that in order to make themselves look busy.
I remember also reading that the data collection program was so big that it would take years to work through and it is most likely for future projects dealing with behavioral science.
I really don't know how security professionals are supposed to deal with this:
When it comes to law enforcement orders for the handing over of customer data since you are kinda screwed with gag orders and you can just hope your company has the legal power to put up a decent fight. This Facebook story caught my eye today:
BBC News - Facebook fights 'largest ever' US court data request
Facebook fights 'largest ever' US court data request
That many people and only 62 charges sounds like fishing to me.
re: NSA, I am still of the opinion that it would be next to impossible for anyone except security analysts, etc. to know exactly what programs they NSA is running - that's the whole point of compartmentalization.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/26/technology/facebook-search-warrants-case-documents.html
The government requested data that went way beyond what was needed, they wanted ALL data records for these people which was for dates that didn't even have anything to do with the disability time periods. When lawyers request data as part of a discovery process they have to explain the time periods requested, the government just said "give us anything and everything they have".
Then the district attorney says that these people's Facebook activity proves fraud was being committed which I then ask "why such a small number of charges filed?" Which to me sounds like they went looking for the most active Facebook users in the 1000 suspects and figured there must be evidence if they are very active online.
I think people forget that its only when they don't prevent some thing that it gets in the news. The very fact it is there means that people planning things have to go off the grid and in doing so means more resources, times and skills are needed by would be terrorists to not get caught. This in its self prevents a large number of opportunistic attacks.
I would rather work for the NSA than some big oil company who care for nothing more than money. People are happy to put fuel in there car or buy goods from companies that treat there staff as slaves.
It seems we turn a blind eye to Ethics if some one is giving us want we want. But are happy to use it to argue against things we don't like. Do I agree with the NSA and GCHQ ethics? not always, but I do rather they are there than not.