dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
20

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to OZO

Premium Member

to OZO

Re: USPS photographs all mail

said by OZO:

What is the point of keeping photos of all mails ever sent by everyone to everyone?

How those photos helped in this particular case (if any)? ...

The same point as trying to record the number of every call placed to/from everyone to everyone. When somebody's name later pops up as a "person of interest" for whatever reason, the vast database is scanned and every one of his communication records becomes part of the person's file... who he called/mailed to, who he was called/mailed by, how often, what similarities exist amongst the contacts, who the contacts themselves called/mailed, etc, etc. A remarkably detailed picture of a person's personal "network" will usually emerge after competent traffic analysis... and that's a key way in which a bad-guy network can be mapped and traced upward.

If the information derived from traffic analysis produces results that lead to prosecution or counteractions against higher-ups in a bad-guy network, it will be very rare for revelations of such to ever see the light of day in a trial... the trials will be based on otherwise-collected evidence.

(I'm not arguing this is why the post office photographs mail, nor am I defending such practices - just explaining why such records might be of interest to 3-letter guys...)

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

said by OZO:

What is the point of keeping photos of all mails ever sent by everyone to everyone?

How those photos helped in this particular case (if any)? ...

The same point as trying to record the number of every call placed to/from everyone to everyone.

(I'm not arguing this is why the post office photographs mail, nor am I defending such practices - just explaining why such records might be of interest to 3-letter guys...)

Yes, of course there are potential 'legit' uses of the imaging.
What I've been unable to do is develop a rational scenario where the use or even abuse of the imaging is somehow a threat or abuse of power.
Maybe Safeway can abuse it by using it track down loyalty card members that have gone MIA?
»Re: How supermarkets get your data 150; and what they do with it

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

2 recommendations

Blackbird

Premium Member

said by Snowy:

said by Blackbird:

said by OZO:

What is the point of keeping photos of all mails ever sent by everyone to everyone?

How those photos helped in this particular case (if any)? ...

The same point as trying to record the number of every call placed to/from everyone to everyone.

(I'm not arguing this is why the post office photographs mail, nor am I defending such practices - just explaining why such records might be of interest to 3-letter guys...)

... What I've been unable to do is develop a rational scenario where the use or even abuse of the imaging is somehow a threat or abuse of power. ...

That is the billion dollar issue, isn't it? However, when one ponders what has happened on several occasions in the relatively modern world's history, there is demonstrated precedent for the employment of such "tools" to implement gross abuses of power... or at least, the use of such tools as were available at the time.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has outlined for all time how things unfolded when the Soviet system arose and was dominant for years... how a citizen just having talked with a "suspicious" person, once that was determined by KGB, often led to a one-way ticket to the Gulag or a bullet to the head at the Lubyanka. Ditto for what occurred within Germany for years.

The difference, of course, is that we're not yet currently living in such a nasty political scenario here. But I have a growing concern over the accumulation of such capabilities within arms of the government and the effect that will ultimately have on our current political scenario. As the potential power of such technology and databases grows within branches of the government, what meaningful restraints against their misuse are growing in parallel? I see very few such restraints on misuse being put in place, just as I see little popular appreciation of the dangers that are approaching.

When does the sheer ability of a government to technologically monitor its citizens become a rationale for those in power to actually go ahead and do it in order to control them and stifle dissent? That may be a finer line than we imagine... and if it is, that point may be closer than we imagine.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

But I have a growing concern over the accumulation of such capabilities within arms of the government and the effect that will ultimately have on our current political scenario.

I agree but many don't.

They simply don't see any of this as an issue. Either they can't imagine how it could happen or they simply don't want to believe its possible. IMO no amount of discussion here, or elsewhere, is going to convince those people until it directly affects them.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

Blackbird

Premium Member

said by StuartMW:

said by Blackbird:

But I have a growing concern over the accumulation of such capabilities within arms of the government and the effect that will ultimately have on our current political scenario.

I agree but many don't.

They simply don't see any of this as an issue. Either they can't imagine how it could happen or they simply don't want to believe its possible. IMO no amount of discussion here, or elsewhere, is going to convince those people until it directly affects them.

Solzhenitsyn touched on that very point in his writings. During the rise of the oppression in Russia, there was a time when the NKVD/KGB came in the night for its targets... and most people didn't want to believe it was happening, so they ignored it. Then came the point when they would selectively grab their targets in broad daylight even off railway platforms, and people rationalized that there must be some legitimate reason behind it (reasoning that if the target was innocent, they'd not be getting arrested). Finally came the point when the oppression was complete, everyone knew it for what it was, and the wholesale roundups occurred - but by then they were all largely powerless before it.

Which is not to say the same thing will happen here. History almost never recurs exactly the same way twice. Perhaps we'll end up with velvet chains - but chains they would be, nevertheless. In any case, the risk is too great to remain silent about it... and I believe those who see the risks and the threats have an obligation to keep pointing them out to all those who don't. Honor requires it...

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

1 recommendation

StuartMW

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

Finally came the point when the oppression was complete, everyone knew it for what it was...

Yep. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany. By the point the majority see the reality it's too late. Those that saw it coming either escaped or are dead/in prison.

None of us can say for sure what's going to happen in this country. But the reality is that many of the mechanisms for a totalitarian state are in place. All it takes is for the switch to be flipped.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by StuartMW:

said by Blackbird:

Finally came the point when the oppression was complete, everyone knew it for what it was...

Yep. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany. By the point the majority see the reality it's too late. Those that saw it coming either escaped or are dead/in prison.

None of us can say for sure what's going to happen in this country. But the reality is that many of the mechanisms for a totalitarian state are in place. All it takes is for the switch to be flipped.

If you can't think of any rationale abuse of imaged USPS covers that doesn't mean none exist -
It just means that like myself, you can't think of any.

Your answer is a text book example of the word "diatribe"
di·a·tribe
/dtrb/
Noun
A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
"Definition of diatribe : It's totally overwhelming when you ask someone a seemingly innocuous question, like "Do you like hot dogs?" and they unleash a diatribe ..."
»www.vocabulary.com/dicti ··· diatribe

A simple "I can't think of any" would have been sufficient.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

1 recommendation

OZO

Premium Member

I thought that your question has already been answered couple of times in this thread.

1. It's not a government's business to know who I'm talking to, when and how (and then who my party is talking to, when and how) and keep that data in secret databases forever. History lessons mentioned in this post are very tough just to forget or discard them. If we're so stupid to not remember about it, we're destined to repeat those lessons, which is completely unacceptable, IMHO.

2. Cost of the program is in billions of dollars. And it was developed clearly not for resolving cases like this, when you need to know who send the mail. It's all about seeking for the web of all connections of all US citizens. The money wasted on that program may / should go for other programs, that actually benefit of the people paying taxes, not some few currently in powers.

Bottom line, the program is a next step to totalitarian regime (police state), misleading in its alleged goals and it's big waste of tax money.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by OZO:

I thought that your question has already been answered couple of times in this thread.

1. It's not a government's business to know who I'm talking to, when and how (and then who my party is talking to, when and how) and keep that data in secret databases forever. History lessons mentioned in this post are very tough just to forget or discard them. If we're so stupid to not remember about it, we're destined to repeat those lessons, which is completely unacceptable, IMHO.

Your reply is a perfect example of why answering a question with a diatribe is useful to someone trying to avoid the truth while at the same time advancing their agenda.
You have been duped.

My question has nothing to do with the NSA's collection of call meta data.
Go back & see if you can cut through the misdirection & isolate my original question.

WinstonSmith
@risltd.com

WinstonSmith to Blackbird

Anon

to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:

That is the billion dollar issue, isn't it? However, when one ponders what has happened on several occasions in the relatively modern world's history, there is demonstrated precedent for the employment of such "tools" to implement gross abuses of power... or at least, the use of such tools as were available at the time.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has outlined for all time how things unfolded when the Soviet system arose and was dominant for years... how a citizen just having talked with a "suspicious" person, once that was determined by KGB, often led to a one-way ticket to the Gulag or a bullet to the head at the Lubyanka. Ditto for what occurred within Germany for years.

The difference, of course, is that we're not yet currently living in such a nasty political scenario here. But I have a growing concern over the accumulation of such capabilities within arms of the government and the effect that will ultimately have on our current political scenario. As the potential power of such technology and databases grows within branches of the government, what meaningful restraints against their misuse are growing in parallel? I see very few such restraints on misuse being put in place, just as I see little popular appreciation of the dangers that are approaching.

When does the sheer ability of a government to technologically monitor its citizens become a rationale for those in power to actually go ahead and do it in order to control them and stifle dissent? That may be a finer line than we imagine... and if it is, that point may be closer than we imagine.

Your mention of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn brings to mind the Politburo's problem of what was to be done about Solzhenitsyn when his book "The Gulag Archipelago" was published in the West and was a source of great embarrassment to the Soviet government. The options of further imprisonment or internal exile were considered.

But Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB, was a lot smarter and shrewder than the others. His recommendation, which was adopted, was to simply kick Solzhenitsyn out of the USSR. This, of course, took the risk that Solzhenitsyn would be able to say whatever he wanted at any time, beyond the control of the Soviet government.

But Andropov was not worried. He knew that nobody in the West would truly understand what Solzhenitsyn was saying and that he would have little real impact if kicked out of the USSR, but far more if imprisoned or otherwise punished for his "anti-Soviet slanders".

This thread demonstrates just how shrewd an observer of human behavior Andropov really was.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by WinstonSmith :

This thread demonstrates just how shrewd an observer of human behavior Andropov really was.

Yes, shrewd is a fitting adjective.
To quote Alexander Yakovlev:
"In a way I always thought Andropov was the most dangerous of all of them, simply because he was smarter than the rest."
Still though, I'd say Solzhenitsyn won that battle.