<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Timothy B. Lee&#8217;s &#8220;Google Attacks Highlight the Importance of Surveillance Transparency&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/tim-lees-google-attacks-highlight-the-importance-of-surveillance-transparency.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/tim-lees-google-attacks-highlight-the-importance-of-surveillance-transparency.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:16:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 第五天：google.cn“中国四大发明”logo意义解读 &#124; 文通博客</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/tim-lees-google-attacks-highlight-the-importance-of-surveillance-transparency.html/comment-page-1#comment-67198</link>
		<dc:creator>第五天：google.cn“中国四大发明”logo意义解读 &#124; 文通博客</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:08:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24168#comment-67198</guid>
		<description>[...] Posted by Kyle Aevermann at 13:12   Concurring Opinions » Timothy B. Lee&#8217;s “Google Attacks Highlight &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posted by Kyle Aevermann at 13:12   Concurring Opinions » Timothy B. Lee&#8217;s “Google Attacks Highlight &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/tim-lees-google-attacks-highlight-the-importance-of-surveillance-transparency.html/comment-page-1#comment-67187</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24168#comment-67187</guid>
		<description>This is very insightful.  I completely agree that &quot;rigorous public and judicial oversight of our domestic surveillance capabilities in the United States&quot; is essential.  At the very least, an immutable audit log of surveillance activities needs to be archived (as Zoe Baird of the Markle foundation has recommended).  

On the other hand, such a log itself could be misused once it is disclosed.  Not everything is as obviously bad as Cointelpro&#039;s pursuit of MLK. It is often unclear whether surveillance of certain activities discredits the people engaging in them, or the spies.  The Maryland fusion center spied on anti-death penalty activists--but as far as I know suffers zero negative consequences for that (while I&#039;m sure anyone who hears that story will think twice about becoming an anti-death-penalty activist.) These are incredibly difficult issues.

My worry is that search engines essentially become instrumentalities of the state, ala the Birnhack/Elkin-Koren &quot;invisible handshake,&quot; the Hoofnagle &quot;big brother&#039;s little helpers&quot; theory, or the Jon Michaels&#039; &quot;all the president&#039;s spies&quot; approach.  As that integration of state and corporate power continues, corporations need to be subject to the same type of APA/due process/openness rules now constraining the state.  Sadly, the opposite appears to be happening--corporations are using expansive notions of trade secrecy to hide their actions from scrutiny, reminiscent of the &quot;state secrets&quot; privilege described here: 
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/09/25/03</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is very insightful.  I completely agree that &#8220;rigorous public and judicial oversight of our domestic surveillance capabilities in the United States&#8221; is essential.  At the very least, an immutable audit log of surveillance activities needs to be archived (as Zoe Baird of the Markle foundation has recommended).  </p>
<p>On the other hand, such a log itself could be misused once it is disclosed.  Not everything is as obviously bad as Cointelpro&#8217;s pursuit of MLK. It is often unclear whether surveillance of certain activities discredits the people engaging in them, or the spies.  The Maryland fusion center spied on anti-death penalty activists&#8211;but as far as I know suffers zero negative consequences for that (while I&#8217;m sure anyone who hears that story will think twice about becoming an anti-death-penalty activist.) These are incredibly difficult issues.</p>
<p>My worry is that search engines essentially become instrumentalities of the state, ala the Birnhack/Elkin-Koren &#8220;invisible handshake,&#8221; the Hoofnagle &#8220;big brother&#8217;s little helpers&#8221; theory, or the Jon Michaels&#8217; &#8220;all the president&#8217;s spies&#8221; approach.  As that integration of state and corporate power continues, corporations need to be subject to the same type of APA/due process/openness rules now constraining the state.  Sadly, the opposite appears to be happening&#8211;corporations are using expansive notions of trade secrecy to hide their actions from scrutiny, reminiscent of the &#8220;state secrets&#8221; privilege described here:<br />
<a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/09/25/03" rel="nofollow">http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/09/25/03</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

