> Doing upfront authorization of powers is relatively efficient, and is also pleasingly self regulating. If an agency overloads or confuses its ex ante regulator, they simply won’t get permission to do things. This provides a strong incentive for clear and concise requests to the regulator.
It is very easy for regulators, even well-meaning, to focus on what they require of an individual transaction. But we live in a world where automation and dynamic workforces make it possible to break every expectation about how a system will be used.
That last line made me laugh, but it's funny because it's true. It's down to the "sit where you're sitting" effect.
Noam Chomsky famously told Andrew Marr during an interview that he was sure Marr was sincere and believed everything he was saying, but if he'd believed anything else, he wouldn't sit where he was sitting.
It follows from that true observation that the only time such appointed watchdogs (whether oversight board members or news personalities) are actually doing something, is when they quit, or at least threaten to quit.
Thank you so much, it takes courage to do this. Bedankt voor je dienst de afgelopen jaren, ik hoop dat je onze veiligheidsdiensten af en toe goed dwars hebt gezeten!
I find it interesting that the Dutch push to change the intelligence law coincides with a similar one currently taking place in my home country of Romania.
I wonder if these are actually part of a more coordinated attempt to tacitly make the (broadly speaking) West more authoritarian and tightly controlled.
> If the ex-ante regulator (ie, my board) ruled a permission to do something was unlawful, it would indeed not happen. I think it is important to affirm this in public.
I have no knowledge on the subject so this isn't suggesting a conspiracy theory, but hypothetically if there were a conspiracy of the security services wanting to illegally do things that this board rejected, wouldn't they just... do it, without telling this board "oh, fyi we're ignoring that ruling you made yesterday and proceeding to hack away because we really want that info!"
They'd probably even be clever enough to do stuff like continue to submit less-invasive requests (if we can't do X can we do 1/2th of X) or whatever other responses they would have if they were indeed respecting the ruling, despite the fact that actually these follow-up requests were wasting everyone's time to obscure that they'd already done what they were initially banned from doing, and now just needed a smoke screen and maybe some parallel construction to give a legal way to prosecute.
In such a hypothetical (a security service wanting people to believe they're following the rulings while actually not caring about the rules at all), would it actually be discoverable short of them screwing up or having a whistleblower? Are there audits in place by other government departments that would even have a chance of finding out if it were happening? (Even before then wondering whether such an unethical hypothetical security service wouldn't also stoop to other unethical practices such as blackmailing those who are meant to audit them, etc...)
I don't know what any of the answers are to this line of thinking, I'm sure plenty of people smarter and more knowledgeable in this area than me have put plenty of thought into it, but I've never heard of any magic solutions to enable transparent accountability while maintaining the secrecy needed. Maybe I'm just uninformed?
To give you an idea of how plausible this is, I recommend reading the facts that came to light thanks to the work of Privacy International taking the UK government to court. Here are some quotes from an article[0] written in 2018:
> The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has reruled that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 engaged in indiscriminate and illegal bulk cable-tapping surveillance for 15 years – and has once again refused to do anything about it.
> By law the Foreign Sec cannot delegate that power and let, for example, the head of GCHQ decide what kind of data to grab or how much of it they wish to browse through. However, in practice, what was happening, the IPT ruled, was that the Foreign Sec rubber-stamped a "general direction" prepared by the spy agencies themselves that included a very broad form of words authorising them to do whatever they liked.
> Sir Michael went as far as to say he was "disappointed that inaccurate information was given to the tribunal" about the number of contractors with admin privileges working at GCHQ. The agencies also had to amend their witness statements several times after it became obvious that their original contents, claiming they and the Foreign Secretary obeyed the law in full, were simply not true
Generally speaking intelligence services tend to be accountable to democratically elected officials and (at least in the us) typically staffed by a bunch of educated, reasonably pro-establishment people who tend to know what the rules are and want them followed. But then if you look at the FBI under Hoover, it seems possible that those things are not always enough.
> wouldn't they just... do it, without telling this board
That comes with the risk of getting caught. Especially when there is a board of actually empowered, not toothless people, tasked with stopping you from doing that. This guy's resignation shows that there actually was some real oversight, that they probably couldn't get away with just ignoring it (as they have in some other states I could mention)
It always was that way. The only thing that's changed is that information that was tightly controlled by governments via a small but powerful set of mainstream media channels to advance the notion of an open society that played by a tight set of rules and respect for civil rights has started to unravel by the democratization of news disbursal.
I always find it interesting that “democracy” has come to mean so much more than just the electoral system that provides the government. I guess I’m unsurprised that some democracies would be open and vibrant societies and others would have much more restrictive views of civil liberties and privacy.
But as so many even here keep repeating so idiotically, "We live in a society. We live in a society. We live in a society..." Gotta keep trading that liberty for more safety. Gotta keep 'em safe.
Anyone see the new messages you get on Twitter when its AI pre-judges your tweet to be Intellectual Spam?
Good job Twitter employees, if you're reading. Keep up the great work. Keep us safe from code points arranged in wrong orders.
The most shocking, is not so much that governments, try to extend their authoritarian tendencies. It's that is happening in the UK, Australia, Netherlands and others, with broad support, from a coalition of very diverse parties from all across the political spectrum.
I'm not sure what you expect from a democracy to magically fix the issue of a minority of people selected primarily on good will by the majority, just so that majority doesn't have to care anymore.
The past century, information has exploded and the mental strain on individuals has increased massively. It's trivial to hide most of this information and these decisions, when major news outlets won't digest and show them to the people. Even digests are largely outrage for a day, only for people to return to the status quo.
We don't even elect individuals who know much about technology. On top of that, we have trouble electing individuals capable of solving problems they should know about. Problems that are far more noticeable and immediate to the common folk.
Heck, the majority of voters are still technology illiterate.
It is especially ironic that the biggest proponents and advocates of expanded surveillance and police state powers are also those who cry loudest about the threats of "fascism". Nobody ever claims to be the fascist or the bad guy while they are accruing power and stripping you of your rights - it is always to protect against some (usually amorphous, exaggerated or invented) threat that requires it.
What's interesting is the justification for this change. It is not the typical "oh no terrorism" or "think of the children". Its specifically "nation states with an offensive cyber programme" (e.g. China, Russia, probably not US because ally). That is a new argumentation for an expansion of powers, and to me it feels like a better one (note, I have no idea whether this expansion of powers actually is limited to only the stated goal).
The ruling class considers any power held by the people to be a theft of their natural rights, they'll never stop their struggle to restore that "injustice". Free democracies might just be an aberration in the history of our species where a lucky coincidence of culture, education, technology happened to tip the balance slightly in favor of the commoners in a few countries for a few generations.
I think there are two things going on here: 1. Natural inclination to grab more power. 2. Governments and elites are worried about controlling a population in a future of infrastructure and supply chain collapse, and food shortages.
For number 2., there seems very little work on mitigation, rather, just locking down control of the population.
> "democracies" [...] follow track of dictatorial countries [...] now on the downward trend of civil rights [...] following the pattern described in Animal Farm
This just isn't correct. In fact democratic government around the world are, almost universally, more transparent and more accountable than they ever have been. The kind of abuses details here have been done in the past, the only thing that changes is the tools used to do it. So, sure, the Netherlands may try to roll back regulation. But their senior civil servants quit if they try. The NSA may hoover up the whole of the internet, but Snowden leaks it anyway and the industry moves to pervasive HTTPS.
Things are better, not worse. This kind of fatalism serves no one except conspiracy theorists and extremists.
We have 'representative democracy' NOT democracy - big difference.
One is where everyone has a vote on every option, and the other is where one person (the representative) represents thousands (millions?) of people, for 4-5 years, making all the decisions on their behalf, with no repurcussions for that representative if they lie, cheat or enrich themselves in their role during that time. In fact, the representative only has to be perceived less bad than the other alternative, and they will likely get back in!
Exponential growth of our economy stopped around the 1970s. A lot of our social paradigms are built on this exponential growth. Example: each university professor creates/trains x new university professors where x>1. Apply this to every industry everywhere. Without the artificial exponential growth potential created by population and recovery from world wars, resources are becoming more scarce. When resources are scarce the power structure picks someone to blame for the problem and the tyranny really starts. Could be racial minorities, the "wrong" political party, religious minorities, etc. It will be said they are a "threat" to the good people that are just trying to keep you safe or the good systems we have in place. This is going to happen everywhere across the world and it's going to have different flavors based on your culture.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as citizens can vote on their leaders, you have a democracy.
This has nothing to do with how much power the government has or wants over its citizens. As long as they can vote on different representatives, I don't see a problem for "democracy". I do however see a problem with privacy and freedom, or like you say, a downward trend of civil rights.
There were no democracies in the first place (probably that's why you quoted). If you accept lobbying (legalized corruption if you ask me), and the super rich pay less tax percentually than then middle class, it's not a functioning democracy in my book.
> This makes me very worried.
We worries me it that people still believe the "democracy" narrative. It is very clear now with Putin "invading a sovereign country"... While the US has been doing this over and over since WW2, now suddenly it is a problem, suddenly Putin is a dictator, Ukraine is democratic so must be helped, bla bla. It's just the next resource war, and frankly Putin plays it nicer than the US did in Iraq.
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere
Yups, I think the 70s/80s were the peak of human civilization, and we're going down hill now.
The Netherlands is still quite far from being North Korea. And Animal Farm is about communism. You might be thinking of 1984, but that's quite the reach too.
Of course it is worrying that secret services get more power, but
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere. This makes me very worried.
when civil rights get abused or the rule of law cannot be upheld, society and the goverment have to react. There is no easy fix for this. I wish they'd expand the powers of intelligence services more carefully, but such is not the political climate at the moment.
And please, don't put democracies between scare quotes. You're not quoting the article.
Ironically books like those of Orwell aren't particularly helpful, because they anthropomorphize too much. The idea of a downward trend of civil rights is also misleading, because it implies a separation of these rights from all the other material or cultural forces that are brushing up against each other at the same time.
Tales like Animal Farm create the impression that all we have to do is to get 'the team' back together again and just align the liberal democracies around the old methods in a struggle of good vs. bad.
We only have what we identify as civil rights from very specific material and historical conditions. It's not a coincidence that liberalism appeared around the same time that we first created a significant surplus during the industrial revolution.
USA is also headed in the same direction. I guess we can thank the New World Order initiative...SIKE! Be careful what you wish for, history has a way of repeating itself.
What’s with the hyperbole? Following North Korea? And following China with their concentration camps? Everywhere? I don’t know. The US has been on a civil rights uptrend in the last 100 years. Such short memories.
What's crazy about it? Most democracies have behaved in the way you decried for most of their lifespans. Just because some subset of the population is allowed to vote for representatives in parliament doesn't mean that parliament can't run an anti-citizen secret police... Or internal repression against a minority group. Or some imperialist horror-show. Or carry out an a aggressive invasion and occupation. Nothing about a democracy necessitates that it adhere to a 21st century humanist understanding of civil rights.
Hell, if you're in the US, your local municipality is almost certainly both a democracy, and primarily exists to funnel your tax money into what is a frequently corrupt, unaccountable, and very anti-citizen police force. Nobody cares about fixing this state of affairs, because as long as its other people that are getting brutalized, I can sleep comfortably. And that's on a municipal level!
What surprises me is that I as a dutch citizen working in cyber security, have heard nothing about these new laws. Maybe I've been neglecting the right sources, but this change feels (up to now) very under the radar and uncontested. I hope this will put some more emphasis on this new law.
edit: Having looked into this a bit more, two things stand out:
- The law is temporary
- The justification is being able to counter nation states with an offensive cyber programme.
On a final note, if anyone is looking for a government regulator with a proven track record of resigning when things go wrong, know that I’m available.
I have to say that i thoroughly enjoy this blog post author's writing style! I mean, the last line of his post here: "...On a final note, if anyone is looking for a government regulator with a proven track record of resigning when things go wrong, know that I’m available" - is just wonderfully cute! He's made himself into a sort of warrant/regulatory canary! lol :-)
Although I do share the concerns it's impossible to know what this would do in practice. For the most part I think our Government (ie the Dutch one) is run by people with integrity. I doubt they'd want to cause scandal by overloading regulators to do nasty stuff. Although I must say I don't agree with this change either.
> If an agency overloads […] its ex ante regulator, they simply won’t get permission to do things.
The point the author makes about agencies deliberately overloading the authorisation framework is fair but it cuts both ways. The authorisation becomes a bottleneck.
I don't have the answer but what's worse? Missing threat intel because one of three people couldn't review your warrant, or over-collecting?
Bert clearly phrases this all like a regulator, as if agencies should be stopped, and I guess they've seen enough bad warrants to know what's needed, but I don't see the appreciation for the cost of overregulation.
There's a line from the movie The Godfather where one of the bosses is talking about selling narcotics:
"For years I used to pay my people extra, so they wouldn't do that sort of thing. But they come to me and say, 'For three or four thousand dollars, we can make fifty thousand.' And that they can't turn down."
So all the intelligence agencies have to start doing what the NSA is already doing, or they'll get left behind. And what DHS is doing and Facebook is doing and Amazon is doing...
I'm worried this timeline is the Radiant Doors one.
You cannot regulate these "services". Anyone who pretends that they are is just adding believability to the lie that they're safe or compatible with democracy.
> On a final note, if anyone is looking for a government regulator with a proven track record of resigning when things go wrong, know that I’m available.
It sends shivers in my back that no government in the world will hire this canary.
I’ve seen some mediocre automated translations of my Dutch language resignation statement go round. To prevent any confusion, please find the story here in English:
[+] [-] evrydayhustling|3 years ago|reply
> Doing upfront authorization of powers is relatively efficient, and is also pleasingly self regulating. If an agency overloads or confuses its ex ante regulator, they simply won’t get permission to do things. This provides a strong incentive for clear and concise requests to the regulator.
It is very easy for regulators, even well-meaning, to focus on what they require of an individual transaction. But we live in a world where automation and dynamic workforces make it possible to break every expectation about how a system will be used.
[+] [-] vintermann|3 years ago|reply
Noam Chomsky famously told Andrew Marr during an interview that he was sure Marr was sincere and believed everything he was saying, but if he'd believed anything else, he wouldn't sit where he was sitting.
It follows from that true observation that the only time such appointed watchdogs (whether oversight board members or news personalities) are actually doing something, is when they quit, or at least threaten to quit.
[+] [-] seper8|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leto_ii|3 years ago|reply
I wonder if these are actually part of a more coordinated attempt to tacitly make the (broadly speaking) West more authoritarian and tightly controlled.
[+] [-] swores|3 years ago|reply
I have no knowledge on the subject so this isn't suggesting a conspiracy theory, but hypothetically if there were a conspiracy of the security services wanting to illegally do things that this board rejected, wouldn't they just... do it, without telling this board "oh, fyi we're ignoring that ruling you made yesterday and proceeding to hack away because we really want that info!"
They'd probably even be clever enough to do stuff like continue to submit less-invasive requests (if we can't do X can we do 1/2th of X) or whatever other responses they would have if they were indeed respecting the ruling, despite the fact that actually these follow-up requests were wasting everyone's time to obscure that they'd already done what they were initially banned from doing, and now just needed a smoke screen and maybe some parallel construction to give a legal way to prosecute.
In such a hypothetical (a security service wanting people to believe they're following the rulings while actually not caring about the rules at all), would it actually be discoverable short of them screwing up or having a whistleblower? Are there audits in place by other government departments that would even have a chance of finding out if it were happening? (Even before then wondering whether such an unethical hypothetical security service wouldn't also stoop to other unethical practices such as blackmailing those who are meant to audit them, etc...)
I don't know what any of the answers are to this line of thinking, I'm sure plenty of people smarter and more knowledgeable in this area than me have put plenty of thought into it, but I've never heard of any magic solutions to enable transparent accountability while maintaining the secrecy needed. Maybe I'm just uninformed?
[+] [-] dane-pgp|3 years ago|reply
> The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has reruled that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 engaged in indiscriminate and illegal bulk cable-tapping surveillance for 15 years – and has once again refused to do anything about it.
> By law the Foreign Sec cannot delegate that power and let, for example, the head of GCHQ decide what kind of data to grab or how much of it they wish to browse through. However, in practice, what was happening, the IPT ruled, was that the Foreign Sec rubber-stamped a "general direction" prepared by the spy agencies themselves that included a very broad form of words authorising them to do whatever they liked.
> Sir Michael went as far as to say he was "disappointed that inaccurate information was given to the tribunal" about the number of contractors with admin privileges working at GCHQ. The agencies also had to amend their witness statements several times after it became obvious that their original contents, claiming they and the Foreign Secretary obeyed the law in full, were simply not true
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2018/07/23/investigatory_powers_...
[+] [-] t_mann|3 years ago|reply
Concretely re your question: yes, such a conspiracy is conceivable, however, such large conspiracies are probabilistically doomed to get exposed: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[+] [-] dan-robertson|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vintermann|3 years ago|reply
That comes with the risk of getting caught. Especially when there is a board of actually empowered, not toothless people, tasked with stopping you from doing that. This guy's resignation shows that there actually was some real oversight, that they probably couldn't get away with just ignoring it (as they have in some other states I could mention)
[+] [-] greatgib|3 years ago|reply
We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere. This makes me very worried.
Is it that we are following the pattern described in Animal Farm of Orwell?
[+] [-] msravi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atdrummond|3 years ago|reply
(Not saying that’s a good thing, mind you.)
[+] [-] andywood|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell
But as so many even here keep repeating so idiotically, "We live in a society. We live in a society. We live in a society..." Gotta keep trading that liberty for more safety. Gotta keep 'em safe.
Anyone see the new messages you get on Twitter when its AI pre-judges your tweet to be Intellectual Spam?
Good job Twitter employees, if you're reading. Keep up the great work. Keep us safe from code points arranged in wrong orders.
[+] [-] belter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BlargMcLarg|3 years ago|reply
The past century, information has exploded and the mental strain on individuals has increased massively. It's trivial to hide most of this information and these decisions, when major news outlets won't digest and show them to the people. Even digests are largely outrage for a day, only for people to return to the status quo.
We don't even elect individuals who know much about technology. On top of that, we have trouble electing individuals capable of solving problems they should know about. Problems that are far more noticeable and immediate to the common folk.
Heck, the majority of voters are still technology illiterate.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rocqua|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaylinux|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|3 years ago|reply
For number 2., there seems very little work on mitigation, rather, just locking down control of the population.
[+] [-] gdy|3 years ago|reply
On the other hand, in Russia police don't use dogs against protesters, so maybe Netherlands are not that far.
[+] [-] ajross|3 years ago|reply
This just isn't correct. In fact democratic government around the world are, almost universally, more transparent and more accountable than they ever have been. The kind of abuses details here have been done in the past, the only thing that changes is the tools used to do it. So, sure, the Netherlands may try to roll back regulation. But their senior civil servants quit if they try. The NSA may hoover up the whole of the internet, but Snowden leaks it anyway and the industry moves to pervasive HTTPS.
Things are better, not worse. This kind of fatalism serves no one except conspiracy theorists and extremists.
[+] [-] verisimi|3 years ago|reply
One is where everyone has a vote on every option, and the other is where one person (the representative) represents thousands (millions?) of people, for 4-5 years, making all the decisions on their behalf, with no repurcussions for that representative if they lie, cheat or enrich themselves in their role during that time. In fact, the representative only has to be perceived less bad than the other alternative, and they will likely get back in!
[+] [-] guilhas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IAmGraydon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Consultant32452|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koonsolo|3 years ago|reply
This has nothing to do with how much power the government has or wants over its citizens. As long as they can vote on different representatives, I don't see a problem for "democracy". I do however see a problem with privacy and freedom, or like you say, a downward trend of civil rights.
[+] [-] cies|3 years ago|reply
There were no democracies in the first place (probably that's why you quoted). If you accept lobbying (legalized corruption if you ask me), and the super rich pay less tax percentually than then middle class, it's not a functioning democracy in my book.
> This makes me very worried.
We worries me it that people still believe the "democracy" narrative. It is very clear now with Putin "invading a sovereign country"... While the US has been doing this over and over since WW2, now suddenly it is a problem, suddenly Putin is a dictator, Ukraine is democratic so must be helped, bla bla. It's just the next resource war, and frankly Putin plays it nicer than the US did in Iraq.
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere
Yups, I think the 70s/80s were the peak of human civilization, and we're going down hill now.
[+] [-] arrosenberg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgv|3 years ago|reply
Of course it is worrying that secret services get more power, but
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere. This makes me very worried.
when civil rights get abused or the rule of law cannot be upheld, society and the goverment have to react. There is no easy fix for this. I wish they'd expand the powers of intelligence services more carefully, but such is not the political climate at the moment.
And please, don't put democracies between scare quotes. You're not quoting the article.
[+] [-] cmurf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bakary|3 years ago|reply
Tales like Animal Farm create the impression that all we have to do is to get 'the team' back together again and just align the liberal democracies around the old methods in a struggle of good vs. bad.
We only have what we identify as civil rights from very specific material and historical conditions. It's not a coincidence that liberalism appeared around the same time that we first created a significant surplus during the industrial revolution.
[+] [-] mrtri|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MomoXenosaga|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djfobbz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnybgood|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vkou|3 years ago|reply
Hell, if you're in the US, your local municipality is almost certainly both a democracy, and primarily exists to funnel your tax money into what is a frequently corrupt, unaccountable, and very anti-citizen police force. Nobody cares about fixing this state of affairs, because as long as its other people that are getting brutalized, I can sleep comfortably. And that's on a municipal level!
[+] [-] rocqua|3 years ago|reply
edit: Having looked into this a bit more, two things stand out: - The law is temporary - The justification is being able to counter nation states with an offensive cyber programme.
[+] [-] t_mann|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graderjs|3 years ago|reply
Hehehe... Classic Dutch humor
[+] [-] mxuribe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timwaagh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliwarner|3 years ago|reply
The point the author makes about agencies deliberately overloading the authorisation framework is fair but it cuts both ways. The authorisation becomes a bottleneck.
I don't have the answer but what's worse? Missing threat intel because one of three people couldn't review your warrant, or over-collecting?
Bert clearly phrases this all like a regulator, as if agencies should be stopped, and I guess they've seen enough bad warrants to know what's needed, but I don't see the appreciation for the cost of overregulation.
[+] [-] BMc2020|3 years ago|reply
"For years I used to pay my people extra, so they wouldn't do that sort of thing. But they come to me and say, 'For three or four thousand dollars, we can make fifty thousand.' And that they can't turn down."
So all the intelligence agencies have to start doing what the NSA is already doing, or they'll get left behind. And what DHS is doing and Facebook is doing and Amazon is doing...
I'm worried this timeline is the Radiant Doors one.
[+] [-] enviclash|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eastbound|3 years ago|reply
It sends shivers in my back that no government in the world will hire this canary.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|3 years ago|reply
I’ve seen some mediocre automated translations of my Dutch language resignation statement go round. To prevent any confusion, please find the story here in English:
[+] [-] noduerme|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plankers|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tremmel|3 years ago|reply