Reddit co-founder on NSA snooping [video](money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
Reddit co-founder on NSA snooping [video]
http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2013/06/11/t-co-reddit-alexis-ohanian.cnnmoney
178 comments
Goddamn right.
Every now and then we have defining moments of global consciousness. This has the potential to be one of those moments and we should never let a good crisis go to waste.
The danger here is that if we do nothing, that will be seen as tacit acceptance of the world's largest spying apparatus. While I acknowledge there's some necessity globally, domestic spying through secret courts is more synonymous with the Gulag than the American dream.
Stand up for what you believe in; this is one time you can.
Every now and then we have defining moments of global consciousness. This has the potential to be one of those moments and we should never let a good crisis go to waste.
The danger here is that if we do nothing, that will be seen as tacit acceptance of the world's largest spying apparatus. While I acknowledge there's some necessity globally, domestic spying through secret courts is more synonymous with the Gulag than the American dream.
Stand up for what you believe in; this is one time you can.
I grew up in the Bush v1- Clinton era with Operation Sundevil, the Steve Jackson Games raid, NSA clipper chip, DMCA, Communications Decency Act, PGP legal battles, etc. The movie Sneakers from 1992 was a great example of the NSA paranoia that existed at the time.
The result? Won some, lost some, and the world moved on.
What's different now is that this surveillance is legal at scale because the majority of the populace wants it to be. They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News (and techies in general) seem to be in quite a bubble in this regard.
We have more clout than we did in the 90s, but the difference now is that there's a big Terrorism counter argument to anything we say. A majority of the USA prefers to have the electric eye of Sauron to watch over them, because the alternative -- more freedom that might lead to more terror attacks -- is too scary for them to accept. In that sense, the terrorists have won.
There are two viable paths going forward, in my view: (a) Work to convince people they want privacy, and don't want Brin's transparent society - this slows what appears to be the inevitable; (b) Work to ensure accountable oversight of surveillance. No more FISA secret courts, but real public courts and judges and warrants.
What's not likely viable is (a) encouraging people to stop using social networks -- they won't, we broadly LIKE being noticed by others, it gives meaning to our otherwise alienated capitalistic existence; (b) encouraging government to stop tracking people -- they're just getting into the game that Google and Facebook is in.
If a company can track people, so will the government. The key is that government can and must be held accountable to a degree that companies don't have to be. The US public has chosen not to exercise this power to date out of ignorance, laziness, and/or lack of desire.
The likely outcome of all of this is a resurrection and growth in the "darknet", where younger techies go to hide.
The result? Won some, lost some, and the world moved on.
What's different now is that this surveillance is legal at scale because the majority of the populace wants it to be. They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News (and techies in general) seem to be in quite a bubble in this regard.
We have more clout than we did in the 90s, but the difference now is that there's a big Terrorism counter argument to anything we say. A majority of the USA prefers to have the electric eye of Sauron to watch over them, because the alternative -- more freedom that might lead to more terror attacks -- is too scary for them to accept. In that sense, the terrorists have won.
There are two viable paths going forward, in my view: (a) Work to convince people they want privacy, and don't want Brin's transparent society - this slows what appears to be the inevitable; (b) Work to ensure accountable oversight of surveillance. No more FISA secret courts, but real public courts and judges and warrants.
What's not likely viable is (a) encouraging people to stop using social networks -- they won't, we broadly LIKE being noticed by others, it gives meaning to our otherwise alienated capitalistic existence; (b) encouraging government to stop tracking people -- they're just getting into the game that Google and Facebook is in.
If a company can track people, so will the government. The key is that government can and must be held accountable to a degree that companies don't have to be. The US public has chosen not to exercise this power to date out of ignorance, laziness, and/or lack of desire.
The likely outcome of all of this is a resurrection and growth in the "darknet", where younger techies go to hide.
> They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News seems to be in quite a bubble in this regard.
Debatable. See polling at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-po... as discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871423
Of course, the people who support him may still think that the spying is a good thing, just shouldn't be secretive... and maybe the 46% undecided will end up against him. But certainly doesn't seem as clear-cut as you suggest - do you have any examples of the polls you reference?
Debatable. See polling at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-po... as discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871423
Of course, the people who support him may still think that the spying is a good thing, just shouldn't be secretive... and maybe the 46% undecided will end up against him. But certainly doesn't seem as clear-cut as you suggest - do you have any examples of the polls you reference?
It is debatable; the point is that this is not abhorrent to a clear majority... and if they ARE against it, it's not necessarily for principled reasons.
The main example is a Pew Research Poll showing that objection/support is partisan or age-based (though all sub-groups still support it): http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
Alternatively, Rasmussen says a majority do not approve. However, keep in mind the house effect of Rasmussen polling more republicans and the partisan divide may be driving this. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...
The main example is a Pew Research Poll showing that objection/support is partisan or age-based (though all sub-groups still support it): http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
Alternatively, Rasmussen says a majority do not approve. However, keep in mind the house effect of Rasmussen polling more republicans and the partisan divide may be driving this. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...
The sad likelihood of the matter is that largely, people who hated the Patriot Act under Bush don't mind it so much under Obama, and vice versa.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-lo...
I don't know why so many people can't understand that a bad law is a bad law, and judge it as such. The criteria for whether a law is any good ought to be (at least partially) based on whether or not you'd support it if your opposition party were able to use it. If the answer is 'No', then it's bad, simply.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-confidential-we-lo...
I don't know why so many people can't understand that a bad law is a bad law, and judge it as such. The criteria for whether a law is any good ought to be (at least partially) based on whether or not you'd support it if your opposition party were able to use it. If the answer is 'No', then it's bad, simply.
> the majority of the USA prefers to have the electric eye of Sauron to watch over them, because the alternative -- more freedom that might lead to more terror attacks -- is too scary for them to accept.
As a guy who has never set foot in the States I found it strange when I first heard Dakota Fanning asking Tom Cruise "Is that the terrorists?" in Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" (when an airplane falls over the house they're in), I was asking to myself "why does the Americans' first instinct in case of unknown danger focus on terrorists?".
And talking about "the eye of Sauron", there is of course this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytDzjuBGJI , which still gives me the chills. An under-estimated movie, IMHO.
As a guy who has never set foot in the States I found it strange when I first heard Dakota Fanning asking Tom Cruise "Is that the terrorists?" in Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" (when an airplane falls over the house they're in), I was asking to myself "why does the Americans' first instinct in case of unknown danger focus on terrorists?".
And talking about "the eye of Sauron", there is of course this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytDzjuBGJI , which still gives me the chills. An under-estimated movie, IMHO.
Thanks for that reminder. It brought to mind a scenario from immediately after the 2001 attacks, when the worlds gaze ( I presume ) focused on the US and its response to the aftermath. One of those events I saw on the BBC in the UK was a Town Hall Meeting broadcast, which was a different kind of meeting than I'd ever seen.
What surprised me most at the time was the line of questioning of more or less all of the audience members. Against a background of shock and befuddlement that this had happened to an essentially benign US by an unknown extra national entity, the main question that followed was as to why the US was hated that much. It was simply incomprehensible to the audience. There appeared to be no awareness of the trouble brewing outside the country, even though the US government was engaged in one way or another.
Watching through this portal I was struck by how little the average American was aware of the real politics that existed in foreign policy terms visa vi the US. I thought at the time that the US would have a very difficult time developing a viable strategic response when the general population either misunderstood or simply hasn't any perspective at all on the place of the US in geopolitical terms. Observe George W Bush confusing Austria and Australia.
It was a massive shock, and the following response against an unknown enemy is partly based in that lack of perspective I'd say.
It may help, if this is at all right, to inform and educate the citizenry of these geopolitical nuances. Perhaps then some change to this general idea of 'terrorism' might occur in the public psyche, and as a consequence, expectations of viable strategy. But it's a tough ask. In lieu of that I'd expect a continuation of the dragnet.
What surprised me most at the time was the line of questioning of more or less all of the audience members. Against a background of shock and befuddlement that this had happened to an essentially benign US by an unknown extra national entity, the main question that followed was as to why the US was hated that much. It was simply incomprehensible to the audience. There appeared to be no awareness of the trouble brewing outside the country, even though the US government was engaged in one way or another.
Watching through this portal I was struck by how little the average American was aware of the real politics that existed in foreign policy terms visa vi the US. I thought at the time that the US would have a very difficult time developing a viable strategic response when the general population either misunderstood or simply hasn't any perspective at all on the place of the US in geopolitical terms. Observe George W Bush confusing Austria and Australia.
It was a massive shock, and the following response against an unknown enemy is partly based in that lack of perspective I'd say.
It may help, if this is at all right, to inform and educate the citizenry of these geopolitical nuances. Perhaps then some change to this general idea of 'terrorism' might occur in the public psyche, and as a consequence, expectations of viable strategy. But it's a tough ask. In lieu of that I'd expect a continuation of the dragnet.
Unknown danger? No, that is too broad. Crashing planes over New York City? A kid wouldn't exactly be too unreasonable to ask the question.
Anyways, only underrated because expectations of Spielberg are deservedly high.
Anyways, only underrated because expectations of Spielberg are deservedly high.
A crucial problem is that we're not, or we shouldn't be, particularly afraid of "terrorism" -- a slippery word that tends to be applied arbitrarily and politically.
What we should, and can justifiably, be afraid of is "black swan" security events (such as 9/11). The Boston Bombers were horrible people, but they weren't threats to national security, and the bombing wasn't a "black swan" event. If (and these are big "ifs") the NSA is meaningfully restricted to defending the U.S. against foreign governments, and meaningfully restricted to uncovering plots to kill thousands, then I don't see where the privacy concern is.
What we should, and can justifiably, be afraid of is "black swan" security events (such as 9/11). The Boston Bombers were horrible people, but they weren't threats to national security, and the bombing wasn't a "black swan" event. If (and these are big "ifs") the NSA is meaningfully restricted to defending the U.S. against foreign governments, and meaningfully restricted to uncovering plots to kill thousands, then I don't see where the privacy concern is.
I think that the 'transparent society' idea is that all communication is fully public, rather than just to the nsa. The difference is drastic when considering the balance of power in society.
Well the reason people don't do "public by default" in intel and counter-intel at all is because it also changes the balance of power in that particular cat/mouse game.
We don't even need to talk about terrorism for that. Drug cartels and organized crime have for decades required the legal system to occasionally resort to gag orders and secrecy to avoid tipping off the "bad guys" before the legal system is able to act.
After all, the legal system is deliberate on purpose as to do otherwise would invite abuses of its own. I would be worried to live in a country where you could be locked up, arraigned, indicted, tried and convicted in just a day.
Public interest requires us to have enough due process that the system is inevitably slow. But a completely public system must operate much much faster to be effective against some types of "menace to society". This includes terrorism but is hardly limited to terrorism.
So absolutely we should have that public debate to figure out under what criteria we would operate NSA intel intercepts, what would be public, and what would be secret. But just don't be surprised if there are still secrets when it's all said and done, with a select group of persons to provide the accountability required to keep the system safe.
We do use similar systems for other very dangerous programs after all (e.g. nuc weps).
We don't even need to talk about terrorism for that. Drug cartels and organized crime have for decades required the legal system to occasionally resort to gag orders and secrecy to avoid tipping off the "bad guys" before the legal system is able to act.
After all, the legal system is deliberate on purpose as to do otherwise would invite abuses of its own. I would be worried to live in a country where you could be locked up, arraigned, indicted, tried and convicted in just a day.
Public interest requires us to have enough due process that the system is inevitably slow. But a completely public system must operate much much faster to be effective against some types of "menace to society". This includes terrorism but is hardly limited to terrorism.
So absolutely we should have that public debate to figure out under what criteria we would operate NSA intel intercepts, what would be public, and what would be secret. But just don't be surprised if there are still secrets when it's all said and done, with a select group of persons to provide the accountability required to keep the system safe.
We do use similar systems for other very dangerous programs after all (e.g. nuc weps).
I would love if there were a finite time period after which classified information is to be released publicly, even if extensions were available.
I believe that prior to Bush, some such system did exist with respect to some types of records.
I believe that prior to Bush, some such system did exist with respect to some types of records.
It's time for a new political party. Forget the people who say it can't be done. Now is the time. We are stuck in a rut and its time to get out. You have a choice, be lazy and accept what is happening or step up and make change. Its clear our current system is rotten.
The two viable dominant parties have very similar voter counts. Starting a new political party requires taking voters away from the one dominant party closest to the new party's position, rendering both impotent and handing control to the party you least want to have it.
The political equilibrium keeps things as they are. Those in power can't do what needs doing because they'll get thrown out for it (ex.: total spending must be cut in half, but nobody is going to make such draconian across-the-board cuts and survive). Something has to break to disrupt that equilibrium, something like defaulting on debt maintenance or onset of hyperinflation.
Yes, we're stuck in a rut. There comes a point where you have to get out of the car and start walking, leaving the driving paradigm behind.
The political equilibrium keeps things as they are. Those in power can't do what needs doing because they'll get thrown out for it (ex.: total spending must be cut in half, but nobody is going to make such draconian across-the-board cuts and survive). Something has to break to disrupt that equilibrium, something like defaulting on debt maintenance or onset of hyperinflation.
Yes, we're stuck in a rut. There comes a point where you have to get out of the car and start walking, leaving the driving paradigm behind.
I wish I had some numbers but I can't look them up right now. How many American's are currently not even voting? I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another. Perhaps engaging them could be a good first step. And also a huge shift in party power could take a lifetime but does that mean it shouldn't be attempted?
I wish I had some numbers but I can't look them up right now. How many American's are currently not even voting?
OK, just to cite one example: The population of North Carolina as of 2012 was 9,752,073. 23.7% are under 18 and therefore ineligible to vote. That leaves approximately 7,440,831 eligible voters[1] (I'm ignoring convicted felons and other edge cases for now).
According to the State Board of Elections, there are currently 6,438,531 registered voters. 2,764,322 Democrats, 1,984,251 Republicans, 20,901 Libertarians and 1,669,057 unaffiliated.[2] So that gives us around 1,002,300 potential voters who aren't even registered. So around 13% of the eligible voters aren't even registered and obviously don't vote.
Now that's just one state, and that doesn't even attempt to account for people who are registered, but don't bother to vote, or vote infrequently. But it does suggest that there's a not-insignificant number of people who are sitting on the sidelines during elections.
Edit: Also, as one might expect, there's a Wikipedia page on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...
[1]: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html
[2]: http://www.ncsbe.gov/
OK, just to cite one example: The population of North Carolina as of 2012 was 9,752,073. 23.7% are under 18 and therefore ineligible to vote. That leaves approximately 7,440,831 eligible voters[1] (I'm ignoring convicted felons and other edge cases for now).
According to the State Board of Elections, there are currently 6,438,531 registered voters. 2,764,322 Democrats, 1,984,251 Republicans, 20,901 Libertarians and 1,669,057 unaffiliated.[2] So that gives us around 1,002,300 potential voters who aren't even registered. So around 13% of the eligible voters aren't even registered and obviously don't vote.
Now that's just one state, and that doesn't even attempt to account for people who are registered, but don't bother to vote, or vote infrequently. But it does suggest that there's a not-insignificant number of people who are sitting on the sidelines during elections.
Edit: Also, as one might expect, there's a Wikipedia page on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...
[1]: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html
[2]: http://www.ncsbe.gov/
Of course, the felony issue isn't an edge case in some states:
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Your North Carolina example still stands, as only (only being relative here) ~80,000 people are disenfranchised due to felony status. But, in states like Florida, Mississippi and Kentucky, it can be as high as 10% of the voting age population.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Your North Carolina example still stands, as only (only being relative here) ~80,000 people are disenfranchised due to felony status. But, in states like Florida, Mississippi and Kentucky, it can be as high as 10% of the voting age population.
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize just how high those numbers were!
Thank you!
I bet most of them are younger voters who believe their vote doesn't matter for one reason or another.
I bet most of them are people who don't care about politics. Good luck trying to engage them, people have been trying to do so for decades and have failed. The simple reality is that life is comfortable enough for most. Few are starving, few are persecuted- if you're earning enough to live a relatively comfortable life, why bother voting?
I bet most of them are people who don't care about politics. Good luck trying to engage them, people have been trying to do so for decades and have failed. The simple reality is that life is comfortable enough for most. Few are starving, few are persecuted- if you're earning enough to live a relatively comfortable life, why bother voting?
Speaking only for myself, as a young person who does not vote, it's not a lack of interest in politics or the state of world affairs. I'll vote only once the electoral process is significantly reworked, until then I have better ways to engage civically.
Their complete disinterest aside, are there seriously more of them than each of the two major parties? and will vote for the new party, which is committed to doing unpopular things?
This.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/0...
(Local discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 )
Lawrence Lessig for President?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/0...
(Local discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5880156 )
Lawrence Lessig for President?
An insurgency within one of the two big political parties is probably more likely to work than a third (or nth) party given how broken the US electoral system is. And of course it's the super-low-turnout primaries where we can really make a difference.
Broken is a strong word. I studied comparative politics in college include a variety of different election system. It turns out that each system has it's own pros and cons. For example, proportional representation systems end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power because of the 50+% vote requirement to pass a bill. The smaller party can throw its weight around and create a coalition with one of the bigger parties, thus getting more of their agenda passed than they should be able to.
So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.
So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.
Proportional representation systems do give small parties disproportionate power, but the US system does that with States anyway. (Australia has a proportional system in the senate which favors small parties in small states.)
But Australia tempers this with preferential voting in the house which is simply better than the US electoral system (because small parties can still sway the outcome without actually getting members into parliament -- e.g. the greens can say they prefer X over Y and then direct their votes to X or Y, but if they actually get a big vote they can still win).
New Zealand has a really nice system which is a little proportional but not too proportional and wastes very few votes without turning some tiny nutcase party into the tie breaker.
But Australia tempers this with preferential voting in the house which is simply better than the US electoral system (because small parties can still sway the outcome without actually getting members into parliament -- e.g. the greens can say they prefer X over Y and then direct their votes to X or Y, but if they actually get a big vote they can still win).
New Zealand has a really nice system which is a little proportional but not too proportional and wastes very few votes without turning some tiny nutcase party into the tie breaker.
I think that the un-broken version of our system is one where votes are still for particular candidates directly but tallied via approval or range voting. What objections do you have to such a system, that make it look comparably broken to the current one?
Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates.
My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage.
Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.
My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage.
Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.
"Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates."
This is vague enough as to be meaningless. In what precise ways is using range voting (and otherwise leaving things the same) worse than our current system?
"My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage."
Sure, of course; Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect". Therefore, calling a system "broken" can't mean simply "not perfect" or it's meaningless. However, I think it's fair to call a voting system "broken" when there is an alternative that's better along some axes while worse along none.
This is vague enough as to be meaningless. In what precise ways is using range voting (and otherwise leaving things the same) worse than our current system?
"My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage."
Sure, of course; Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect". Therefore, calling a system "broken" can't mean simply "not perfect" or it's meaningless. However, I think it's fair to call a voting system "broken" when there is an alternative that's better along some axes while worse along none.
> Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect".
No it doesn't, its says that there is no system limited to rank-order inputs and outputs that meets certain criteria.
There are plenty of actual and potential voting systems that aren't within its scope, and it is also debatable whether the criteria it applies are the correct ones for a "perfect" voting system.
No it doesn't, its says that there is no system limited to rank-order inputs and outputs that meets certain criteria.
There are plenty of actual and potential voting systems that aren't within its scope, and it is also debatable whether the criteria it applies are the correct ones for a "perfect" voting system.
Fair point.
Your comment would benefit from elaboration. Are there any of the criteria you think are strong candidates for dismissal as elements of a hypothetical "perfect voting system"?
Your comment would benefit from elaboration. Are there any of the criteria you think are strong candidates for dismissal as elements of a hypothetical "perfect voting system"?
Universality particularly seems to be unnecessary for electoral systems, and I'm unconvinced that IIA is an appropriate criteria though it has some intuitive appeal.
Hm, I think that narrowly IIA is important - changes low down the list shouldn't effect what's high up in the list, or people will be discouraged from voicing their true opinion about the options they perceive as less popular. In the full sense, which includes changes at the top affecting things lower, it may not be necessary.
I don't think I'm currently grokking universality with the depth I need to assess it. I remember it seeming reasonable when I did dig deep in all this, ages back.
I don't think I'm currently grokking universality with the depth I need to assess it. I remember it seeming reasonable when I did dig deep in all this, ages back.
Also: we're not asking for "perfect" just less bad.
It didnt work for ron paul. although i guess you could argue that privacy has more people up in arms than our monetary system. either way, i dont see the entrenched powers letting that happen from within.
ctdonath has it right. Because of a flaw in our system there can be only two viable political parties. Congress must agree to fix the flaw to get it done within our system, and Congress has the incentive to never fix.
The fix is instant run-off voting, like Australia has.
The fix is instant run-off voting, like Australia has.
Please share your vision of that party's platform.
The vision that I have includes allowing web based voting on party issues for party members. Complete financial transparency. Debate and decide what the party should support from within. Decide what issues are most important and attempt to tackle those first. I think the platform is that there is no real platform and the members decide what is important. Forget about gay marriage there are real problems in America. (education, war, privacy) I could go on and on about what I think are the issues in America but the point is we need to have a place to discuss these issues and have a group of people that can decide what should be done and then do something about it. Leaving it to a group of old men who are constantly lobbied is no longer an option.
That's not a party, that's more about process (which I do agree with, btw).
A party has to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes.
It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.
A party has to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes.
It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.
In multiparty systems, it is possible to have a single-issue party which is actually electable (see the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany). But in the US, any party must have a completely defined platform which is acceptable to a majority - or at least a plurality - of voters.
That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
it doesnt have to be a national party initially. If you took a pro-privacy, socially-liberal, fiscally conservative platform you could make a strong push in large urban centers across the nation. I know that the bay area would be accepting of this (accepting != elected, but it wouldnt get laughed at by the voters, only by the national media).
you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
> The danger here is that if we do nothing, that will be seen as tacit acceptance of the world's largest spying apparatus.
Your acceptance is not required for the spying programs to continue operating. The sooner you realize that is the sooner you'll realize that your choices are currently very limited.
Your acceptance is not required for the spying programs to continue operating. The sooner you realize that is the sooner you'll realize that your choices are currently very limited.
Actually, it is. If we use services that do not keep logs or has real name policies, or if we favor companies that takes an active stance against surveillance rather than just buying from what ever is cheapest, we pushes society into a place where the spying is not socially accepted practices for for-profit organizations.
This event is already having that effect in EU. Governments is already creating policy/laws that favors national services over Google. If they go a step further and make a law that forbids moving privileged information to a US data cloud to be picked and prodded by spies and advertisers, that will have a real effect on Google, Microsoft, amazon and Apple. Suddenly, doctors can not use iphones connected with icloud for their practice. Lawyers can't use Microsoft 360 with mails going through Microsoft servers or store their mail in the cloud. Government can't purchase amazon cloud for developing. Even schools can't use Google docs when working with student records.
I have no doubt in me that the us government would listen to Google, Microsoft, amazon and Apple if such law was ever created.
This event is already having that effect in EU. Governments is already creating policy/laws that favors national services over Google. If they go a step further and make a law that forbids moving privileged information to a US data cloud to be picked and prodded by spies and advertisers, that will have a real effect on Google, Microsoft, amazon and Apple. Suddenly, doctors can not use iphones connected with icloud for their practice. Lawyers can't use Microsoft 360 with mails going through Microsoft servers or store their mail in the cloud. Government can't purchase amazon cloud for developing. Even schools can't use Google docs when working with student records.
I have no doubt in me that the us government would listen to Google, Microsoft, amazon and Apple if such law was ever created.
There is such a law:
http://export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018365.asp
US companies that want to hold EU data in the US have to guarantee the same level of protection the EU provides.
http://export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018365.asp
US companies that want to hold EU data in the US have to guarantee the same level of protection the EU provides.
Do that law prevent surveliance initiated by the state, and does it put liability at those who use the services rather than putting liability at those who offers the service?
Ie, can someone use that law to sue a doctor who happens to use gmail/microsoft/icloud for communicate with his patients?
Ie, can someone use that law to sue a doctor who happens to use gmail/microsoft/icloud for communicate with his patients?
If the EU had their own Facebook and Google, it'll have their own intelligence agencies tapping data from those servers.
Sure we can perhaps get them to change their minds by boycotting, but try asking a regular American citizen to fully disconnect from the internet.
Sure we can perhaps get them to change their minds by boycotting, but try asking a regular American citizen to fully disconnect from the internet.
> If the EU had their own Facebook and Google, it'll have their own intelligence agencies tapping data from those servers.
This is a fallacy that gets repeated a lot.
First of all, the EU is not a single entity, but rather a hydra with many heads. The competency and resources of "intelligence agencies" varies a lot by country, the privacy laws and the wire-taping/surveillance culture too.
If you are speaking about the UK, sure, but try doing this in Germany. Also, in my country (Romania) the government wouldn't have the resources for it and they are too incompetent to cooperate with other agencies without people finding out about it. I also cannot see France doing this, since the French get pretty violent when they get upset. So what EU are you talking about exactly?
Second, even if snooping of online activity does happen in an EU country, at least it's an EU intelligence agency you're talking about. This is relevant for US companies, because I don't know how much EU's governments care about our privacy, but I can assure you that they care about leaks to the US or China or other non-EU countries. Which means US companies will suffer for it.
The USA was and is still seen as the benevolent dictator of the Internet. That's why we've been accepting your governance of TLDs, or your online services. That's why we've been blaming China for their tight control of online access. But if the US government keeps jerking around much, things will change.
This is a fallacy that gets repeated a lot.
First of all, the EU is not a single entity, but rather a hydra with many heads. The competency and resources of "intelligence agencies" varies a lot by country, the privacy laws and the wire-taping/surveillance culture too.
If you are speaking about the UK, sure, but try doing this in Germany. Also, in my country (Romania) the government wouldn't have the resources for it and they are too incompetent to cooperate with other agencies without people finding out about it. I also cannot see France doing this, since the French get pretty violent when they get upset. So what EU are you talking about exactly?
Second, even if snooping of online activity does happen in an EU country, at least it's an EU intelligence agency you're talking about. This is relevant for US companies, because I don't know how much EU's governments care about our privacy, but I can assure you that they care about leaks to the US or China or other non-EU countries. Which means US companies will suffer for it.
The USA was and is still seen as the benevolent dictator of the Internet. That's why we've been accepting your governance of TLDs, or your online services. That's why we've been blaming China for their tight control of online access. But if the US government keeps jerking around much, things will change.
> First of all, the EU is not a single entity, but rather a hydra with many heads. The competency and resources of "intelligence agencies" varies a lot by country, the privacy laws and the wire-taping/surveillance culture too.
Not that much.
The is a single EU privacy directive, (95/46/EC), and an extension to provide better privacy for online data (2002/58/EC). All the member state have implemented the same directive. What changes among states are just implementation details (as a programmer would say).
The thing to note here is that the EU directive provides a blanket exception for almost all governmental organizations and for all the police branches. This means that something like PRISM, if architectured in a proper way, would be completely legal.
Truth be told, in EU most telcos and ISP are forced by the law to keep track of all the communications and forward them to the relevant authorities either in batch or on demand.
Not that much.
The is a single EU privacy directive, (95/46/EC), and an extension to provide better privacy for online data (2002/58/EC). All the member state have implemented the same directive. What changes among states are just implementation details (as a programmer would say).
The thing to note here is that the EU directive provides a blanket exception for almost all governmental organizations and for all the police branches. This means that something like PRISM, if architectured in a proper way, would be completely legal.
Truth be told, in EU most telcos and ISP are forced by the law to keep track of all the communications and forward them to the relevant authorities either in batch or on demand.
EU directives are in general just guidelines. The EU is a culturally and politically diverse part of the world and there are differences between countries like night and day.
The EU directives are legally binding acts that force every member state to implement them in 2 years and in the proper way. Big fines have have been levied in the past against member states that tried shortcuts. The EU directives are also more powerful than local laws: if a state law conflicts with a directive, the directive takes precedence.
The state of the political part of the EU is not the mess many politicians say.
However, my main point is that in EU a program like PRISM would be totally legal under current laws. And it is probably already in place if you think about the SIREN program and you make it access the wealth of data harvested through the data retention directives.
The state of the political part of the EU is not the mess many politicians say.
However, my main point is that in EU a program like PRISM would be totally legal under current laws. And it is probably already in place if you think about the SIREN program and you make it access the wealth of data harvested through the data retention directives.
I'm not sure how the countries exactly cooperate with each other, but let's say a social network is located in the Netherlands and has tons of European users. What's stopping the Dutch intelligence agencies from spying on European users, including the Romanians who use said social network?
Spying on EU citizens outside of Netherlands is more complicated, first because we aren't Dutch and compared to the US, we are EU citizens so it's not like they don't care about foreigners, the issue being delicate.
I'm not saying that they can't do that. I'm saying that they are thinking twice about it.
I'm not saying that they can't do that. I'm saying that they are thinking twice about it.
The EU does not have it's own singular intelligence agency. It's not a country. EU states may have their own but there's a big difference between the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden in terms of approach.
The US and other parts of the world aren't one single country either, but that doesn't stop the US intelligence agencies from collecting data from all over the world.
One of the biggest problems with the political situation here in Italy is the level of cynicism and "oh poor us, we can't do anything". That attitude is a very sure way of not being able to do anything, and it's absolutely poisonous.
That's not my attitude at all, in fact I'm arguing that our options are limited to sitting back and accepting this new way of life or grabbing pitchforks and taking to the streets.
The separation of powers -- separated into judicial, legislative, and executive branches -- no longer applies. We're seeing unprecedented cooperation between all three branches and, put simply, American democracy is dead.
Our congressional representatives are in on it and they're fine with it, the judiciary approved it all, and the executive branch uses it for their own selfish benefit.
When we heard Obama say "no more illegal wiretapping" then we thought he was going to discontinue it all, but he actually looked the other way while congress made it perfectly legal and accepted instead. Very insidious.
The separation of powers -- separated into judicial, legislative, and executive branches -- no longer applies. We're seeing unprecedented cooperation between all three branches and, put simply, American democracy is dead.
Our congressional representatives are in on it and they're fine with it, the judiciary approved it all, and the executive branch uses it for their own selfish benefit.
When we heard Obama say "no more illegal wiretapping" then we thought he was going to discontinue it all, but he actually looked the other way while congress made it perfectly legal and accepted instead. Very insidious.
> American democracy is dead.
Hyperbolic bullshit like this is reason #122783278 why I hate to see politics on this site.
Hyperbolic bullshit like this is reason #122783278 why I hate to see politics on this site.
Perhaps the statement is a bit dramatic. However, there's plenty of evidence of things not being right. From passing laws with huge holes primed for abuse (Obamacare) without even reading them and telling us "we have to pass it to see what's in it" [1] to blantantly changing votes to suit their agenda [2] and trying to justify spying on us because one day we might become terrorists [3]. Our representative republic has definitely mutated into something very different from what it was supposed to be. Just these three examples make the term "representative" --as applied to those who are supposed to represent us-- laughable.
[1] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
[2] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw "Let them do what they are going to do"
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/court-order-veri... "in case they became terrorist suspects in future"
[1] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
[2] http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw "Let them do what they are going to do"
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/court-order-veri... "in case they became terrorist suspects in future"
> there's plenty of evidence of things not being right
No shit!
Things were never "right", starting from the constitution defining slaves as 3/5ths of a human being. Women couldn't vote 100 years ago. In a lot of southern states, things were still pretty bad 50 years ago, and the idea of a black person being president was science fiction.
You can dig up similar dirt on pretty much any country with enough history. Did you know that in Switzerland, universal suffrage for women wasn't fully approved until the 1970ies? Italy? Berlusconi - need I say more?
Not right, however, does not mean "dead", and those who conflate the two come across as ill-informed, at best.
Having to argue that the US is not just like North Korea as part of any political debate leaves little room for any serious, nuanced considerations.
No shit!
Things were never "right", starting from the constitution defining slaves as 3/5ths of a human being. Women couldn't vote 100 years ago. In a lot of southern states, things were still pretty bad 50 years ago, and the idea of a black person being president was science fiction.
You can dig up similar dirt on pretty much any country with enough history. Did you know that in Switzerland, universal suffrage for women wasn't fully approved until the 1970ies? Italy? Berlusconi - need I say more?
Not right, however, does not mean "dead", and those who conflate the two come across as ill-informed, at best.
Having to argue that the US is not just like North Korea as part of any political debate leaves little room for any serious, nuanced considerations.
From a fact based analysis, it's not bullshit. Read your history, look at current situation as data to be sifted through and it's obvious that the reality is different from the popular image portrayed.
Democracies are big, messy, and very much imperfect things. They have good sides, and bad sides, and don't always behave how we think they ought to. Like the quote says, democracy is a terrible way to run a country; it's just better than all the others.
Labeling the whole thing as "dead" is pure hyperbole, and probably a lame excuse not to get involved and do the hard work that is necessary to change broken stuff.
If it were dead and nonexistent, then people would not have been able to liberalize marijuana use in Colorado and Washington, nor approved measures allowing gay people to marry the people they love in several states.
Labeling the whole thing as "dead" is pure hyperbole, and probably a lame excuse not to get involved and do the hard work that is necessary to change broken stuff.
If it were dead and nonexistent, then people would not have been able to liberalize marijuana use in Colorado and Washington, nor approved measures allowing gay people to marry the people they love in several states.
Just because we get a few token gestures, doesn't mean we have any real change. What happens in Washington and Colorado really doesn't affect the people in power and may be advantageous for them to use in the future as scapegoat material.
Democracy seems reasonably alive at a state level. Most of the complaints & problems seem to be with the federal government.
Those are minor issues blown out of proportion to engage the population, divide it along imaginary lines and have them go through victories and defeats and enjoy the show. It's the circus part of "bread and circuses". Real issues are decided upon without ever consulting you. Just IMHO
> minor issues
Wow, tell that to someone who can finally have all the legal rights that most married couples enjoy. Or all the folks on the other side who are convinced that their own marriages are forever ruined and the country on the road to hell because some people can get married.
Wow, tell that to someone who can finally have all the legal rights that most married couples enjoy. Or all the folks on the other side who are convinced that their own marriages are forever ruined and the country on the road to hell because some people can get married.
Still, I think that specific issue is on the radar all the time and addressed by presidents and politicians precisely because of its divisive nature (can be easily used to divide people into warring factions, for historical/religious/whatever reasons). In the grand scheme of things, there are much more urgent problems to be solved. This is not meant to be dismissive of a particular group who have suffered a particular injustice in a particular point in time (there are many such groups and many injustices that are never discussed on a national level and turned into political shows).
EDIT: To clarify, I fully understand that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm against any injustice against any group of people, based on arbitrary historical prejudices or otherwise. I'm just expressing my opinion on how the people who decide which issues to address and how to address them are motivated by political convenience vs actual priority.
EDIT: To clarify, I fully understand that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm against any injustice against any group of people, based on arbitrary historical prejudices or otherwise. I'm just expressing my opinion on how the people who decide which issues to address and how to address them are motivated by political convenience vs actual priority.
You have to accept that the rules of the fight are broken to acknowledge that the fight must be won by breaking the rules, and to act on that you have to surrender your comforts provided by those rules. People will never do that in any state of relative comfort.
As a vindictive mofo, my approach now is to help them step on the nail so I can say 'told you so'. This approach was very fun in respect to the Patriot Act, HLS, etc and the now resulting NSA crap. Join me on the dark side.
#edit well the second bit was addressing the previous rampant down-voting you had received.
As a vindictive mofo, my approach now is to help them step on the nail so I can say 'told you so'. This approach was very fun in respect to the Patriot Act, HLS, etc and the now resulting NSA crap. Join me on the dark side.
#edit well the second bit was addressing the previous rampant down-voting you had received.
I disagree, they work for us. The sooner you realize that is the sooner we get this fixed.
They don't work for us. But we can vote them out of office.
Voting isn't meant to grant them power; it's meant to be a check on their power.
Voting isn't meant to grant them power; it's meant to be a check on their power.
[deleted](1)
There are two issues that I think that are important to keep in mind though.
The first big story here is the extent to which the US government has been (and continues to) compel big internet businesses and telco's to do their spying for them. This is an important thing to keep in mind, and I think that it is important when we look at what products we as founders develop. One of the huge threats that Google poses is the degree to which disparate sources of tracking information are tied together. With Android, for example, your cell phone is connected to an email address.
The second is the degree to which companies are being forced to make things intelligence-friendly. Here I think another point here is to build products which are intelligence-unfriendly as a way of pushing back. I have some ideas for start-ups I would be interested in participating in, in this area. My time availability is less than I would like but....
The first would be a verifiable secure telephony platform, resistant to in the middle eavesdropping, ideally incorporated in a country with strong protections for such things (Switzerland sounds nice).
The second would be decentralized cryptography services of some sort.
All projects I think would have to be open source because this would help put pressure on governments not to interfere.
The first big story here is the extent to which the US government has been (and continues to) compel big internet businesses and telco's to do their spying for them. This is an important thing to keep in mind, and I think that it is important when we look at what products we as founders develop. One of the huge threats that Google poses is the degree to which disparate sources of tracking information are tied together. With Android, for example, your cell phone is connected to an email address.
The second is the degree to which companies are being forced to make things intelligence-friendly. Here I think another point here is to build products which are intelligence-unfriendly as a way of pushing back. I have some ideas for start-ups I would be interested in participating in, in this area. My time availability is less than I would like but....
The first would be a verifiable secure telephony platform, resistant to in the middle eavesdropping, ideally incorporated in a country with strong protections for such things (Switzerland sounds nice).
The second would be decentralized cryptography services of some sort.
All projects I think would have to be open source because this would help put pressure on governments not to interfere.
We always have a choice to elect the people we want. The problem is that all the people who we want to elects are all lizards. If we elect a politician who actually have integrity and wisdom, he would be very unpopular and voted out of office.
The politicians that the people want in office is not the same person that you want to work under or believe in.
The politicians that the people want in office is not the same person that you want to work under or believe in.
This discussion has propelled us internally to completely review all our networking infrastructure, both of us and for our customers. We will definitely be letting everyone one know when we feel 'compliant' for privacy, and where we can't be, and allow for users to opt-out or permanently delete any history we may keep. I think it's been great for us to make this happen and I hope other businesses also look to this as an opportunity.
On that note - it should also be an opportunity for any experts here who do security reviews to get some exposure.
On that note - it should also be an opportunity for any experts here who do security reviews to get some exposure.
Specifically, what "domestic spying" are you talking about?
I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw.
I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw.
Specifically, what "domestic spying" are you talking about?
Since you ask:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
In particular see the 3rd slide down for the type of information the NSA claims it can collect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-in...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-part...
I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw.
Can't speak for the OP, but I imagine for most people that line is somewhere well before the mass surveillance of phone records etc which the US is currently engaging in. Are you genuinely confused about why people might oppose that or care about it?
Since you ask:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
In particular see the 3rd slide down for the type of information the NSA claims it can collect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-in...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-part...
I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw.
Can't speak for the OP, but I imagine for most people that line is somewhere well before the mass surveillance of phone records etc which the US is currently engaging in. Are you genuinely confused about why people might oppose that or care about it?
OP here: as many of you know I work in the bowels of the Internet on very large telecom networks and have for most of my career. It has always been assumed that the traffic that leaves the US border was being monitored; I don't think anyone can or will dispute that.
The difference is forcing private businesses to place unmarked rooms inside of buildings with vampire fiber taps at All of the major domestic interconnects. That's a problem and completely unnecessary.
I object to dragnets, I do not object to lawful intercepts. The distinction might be moot, but if there wasn't a secret fisa court signing all of these documents the monitored parties could even sue.
Remember when the NSA got caught monitoring those Arabic students when they sent them their own call records? The students sued the NSA but the court case was thrown out because the NSA argued that even though the students had possession of the call records, they couldn't use them in court because they were classified.
What I want is security through tireless effort not through dragnet expediency. It's hard to be the NSA. It's hard to stop terrorists. I believe our country has enough skilled intelligence officials to deliver security without sacrificing liberty. Is that cynical?
The difference is forcing private businesses to place unmarked rooms inside of buildings with vampire fiber taps at All of the major domestic interconnects. That's a problem and completely unnecessary.
I object to dragnets, I do not object to lawful intercepts. The distinction might be moot, but if there wasn't a secret fisa court signing all of these documents the monitored parties could even sue.
Remember when the NSA got caught monitoring those Arabic students when they sent them their own call records? The students sued the NSA but the court case was thrown out because the NSA argued that even though the students had possession of the call records, they couldn't use them in court because they were classified.
What I want is security through tireless effort not through dragnet expediency. It's hard to be the NSA. It's hard to stop terrorists. I believe our country has enough skilled intelligence officials to deliver security without sacrificing liberty. Is that cynical?
> I believe our country has enough skilled intelligence officials to deliver security without sacrificing liberty.
Just wonderful :-) Have all the up votes I can give you
Just wonderful :-) Have all the up votes I can give you
Give the EFF your up votes :).
https://supporters.eff.org/donate
https://supporters.eff.org/donate
A very cool response.
I can only regretfully say I have joined the Openrightsgroup
as they and I are based in the UK.
Same sh*t, different politicians.
Same sh*t, different politicians.
That's not a line, that's a bunch of stuff you think is over it. Fine, but where's the line?
Supporters of such surveillance have a fairly simple test, and one that's more or less supported by current law and Constitutional jurisprudence: If it's metadata that must be voluntarily exposed to a third party (e.g. a pen register) it's unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. As to actual data, if it crossed national boundaries because one participant can be reasonably determined to be outside the U.S., it can be examined for the same reason your luggage can when you cross the border.
Supporters of such surveillance have a fairly simple test, and one that's more or less supported by current law and Constitutional jurisprudence: If it's metadata that must be voluntarily exposed to a third party (e.g. a pen register) it's unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. As to actual data, if it crossed national boundaries because one participant can be reasonably determined to be outside the U.S., it can be examined for the same reason your luggage can when you cross the border.
The line is dragnet versus court order.
But those aren't mutually exclusive under U.S. law. All these programs now have FISA warrants, so at least one court "ordered" them. I assume you are unhappy with FISA as it stands, but how would you change it? If you're going to require the NSA to name each and every person whose data they might want to collect, you're going to drastically limit their ability to collect information from foreign sources in an era of throwaway email addresses and burner phones.
AHEM* RANT AHEAD*
I would prevent the NSA from backdating warrants.
I would prevent the NSA from being able to wiretap for 7 days without a warrant.
I would prevent the NSA from using Vampire Taps in Fiber Optic networks.
I would allow the disclosure of National Security Letters and I would block indefinite duration gag orders (10 years is fine; infinity is not).
I would hold our intelligence organizations accountable for lying to the public.
I would enact a new wiretapping act to prevent these domestic abuses.
I would only apply these changes to domestic surveillance.
Would I trade security for this liberty? In a heartbeat.
The punchline for all of this is simple: all of the ridiculous intelligence and security apparati we've developed since 9/11 don't make us any safer, and, in fact, inspire the very terrorism we seek to disrupt. The $X0Billion dollars we spend every year could be used for much better purposes, like going to Mars.
I would prevent the NSA from backdating warrants.
I would prevent the NSA from being able to wiretap for 7 days without a warrant.
I would prevent the NSA from using Vampire Taps in Fiber Optic networks.
I would allow the disclosure of National Security Letters and I would block indefinite duration gag orders (10 years is fine; infinity is not).
I would hold our intelligence organizations accountable for lying to the public.
I would enact a new wiretapping act to prevent these domestic abuses.
I would only apply these changes to domestic surveillance.
Would I trade security for this liberty? In a heartbeat.
The punchline for all of this is simple: all of the ridiculous intelligence and security apparati we've developed since 9/11 don't make us any safer, and, in fact, inspire the very terrorism we seek to disrupt. The $X0Billion dollars we spend every year could be used for much better purposes, like going to Mars.
Generally: When you say "only apply these changes to domestic surveillance", you mean any program that requires intercepts to happen on U.S. soil, even if one of the participants can be determined to be outside the U.S.?
More specifically:
I would prevent the NSA from being able to wiretap for 7 days without a warrant.
How do you deal with a "hot" investigation, wherein some subject of intense interest calls/emails a previously unidentified subject, who then calls/emails a third party? For the sake of argument, assume they're all from IPs outside the U.S., but using Skype through U.S. servers. (If your definition of "domestic" doesn't fit this, adjust as needed).
It seems to me you have three choices:
- Don't intercept the latter communication. Wait (minutes, hours?) until you get a judge's order on the new subject, while hoping the latter two subjects communicate again, and that no critical intelligence is lost.
- Allow for broad-ranging warrants that either give an agent discretion to follow leads regardless of the actual individual involved, or instead allow for "drag net" style intercepts that are later filtered for relevance per a FISC-approved process (this is essentially what we have now, as I understand it.)
- Allow backdated or 7-day-forgiveness warrants. (Again, what we have now.)
Is there an alternative?
Many of your other points I agree with, or at least agree they're proper grist for an intelligence oversight bill. Separation of powers is a real issue, though: Congress can't tell the executive how to run national security operations any more than it can tell the executive how to run a war. It has the power of the purse, but we don't live in a parliamentary system. If you don't like the way the President uses his Constitutional powers, vote for another guy/gal.
More specifically:
I would prevent the NSA from being able to wiretap for 7 days without a warrant.
How do you deal with a "hot" investigation, wherein some subject of intense interest calls/emails a previously unidentified subject, who then calls/emails a third party? For the sake of argument, assume they're all from IPs outside the U.S., but using Skype through U.S. servers. (If your definition of "domestic" doesn't fit this, adjust as needed).
It seems to me you have three choices:
- Don't intercept the latter communication. Wait (minutes, hours?) until you get a judge's order on the new subject, while hoping the latter two subjects communicate again, and that no critical intelligence is lost.
- Allow for broad-ranging warrants that either give an agent discretion to follow leads regardless of the actual individual involved, or instead allow for "drag net" style intercepts that are later filtered for relevance per a FISC-approved process (this is essentially what we have now, as I understand it.)
- Allow backdated or 7-day-forgiveness warrants. (Again, what we have now.)
Is there an alternative?
Many of your other points I agree with, or at least agree they're proper grist for an intelligence oversight bill. Separation of powers is a real issue, though: Congress can't tell the executive how to run national security operations any more than it can tell the executive how to run a war. It has the power of the purse, but we don't live in a parliamentary system. If you don't like the way the President uses his Constitutional powers, vote for another guy/gal.
I think it's facetious to imply that the NSA cannot get a warrant anytime it wants. My answer as a hacker would be that the justice system should make an API through which the NSA makes these requests and the judges reply. It would be both fast and logged. Make the logs classified for 25 years; just not infinity.
A "Hot" investigation is one that will likely have a judge standing by, if that becomes the standard by which the NSA must conduct its business. What I am objecting to is the idea of anonymous, unquestionable, omniscient wiretapping. That's quite different from pursuing a case.
To put it explicitly: It is not an equitable social compromise to tap all of the data at a switch versus tapping a known session or known port. The NSA has the capability to tap anything they want, it's just easier to take everything.
What I'm pissed about is not that the NSA is wiretapping people. You should know the NSA is wiretapping people. What I'm pissed off about is that the NSA is so lazy that they dragnet everything instead of tapping the stuff they need. Sifting through everything looking for an indication of crime is very different from tactically selecting specific instances for evaluation.
Again, I believe in the capabilities of the US Intelligence agencies and I believe they are smart enough to not require a dragnet to do their work. It's not really Voldemort evil, they want to protect us. The problem is laziness; the banality of evil.
A "Hot" investigation is one that will likely have a judge standing by, if that becomes the standard by which the NSA must conduct its business. What I am objecting to is the idea of anonymous, unquestionable, omniscient wiretapping. That's quite different from pursuing a case.
To put it explicitly: It is not an equitable social compromise to tap all of the data at a switch versus tapping a known session or known port. The NSA has the capability to tap anything they want, it's just easier to take everything.
What I'm pissed about is not that the NSA is wiretapping people. You should know the NSA is wiretapping people. What I'm pissed off about is that the NSA is so lazy that they dragnet everything instead of tapping the stuff they need. Sifting through everything looking for an indication of crime is very different from tactically selecting specific instances for evaluation.
Again, I believe in the capabilities of the US Intelligence agencies and I believe they are smart enough to not require a dragnet to do their work. It's not really Voldemort evil, they want to protect us. The problem is laziness; the banality of evil.
I was reluctant to answer directly for the OP, and have probably already posted enough on this topic, but thought your question about domestic spying disingenuous - there are plenty of examples of things people might be upset by, and no need to ask for proof of US domestic surveillance - we probably know very little of what goes on ('the tip of the iceberg'-L. Sanchez), and what we do now know is shockingly extensive.
Personally as a foreigner my opinion is probably unimportant to you, but I don't think the NSA should be attempting blanket surveillance at all, foreign or domestic, whether data crosses borders or not - there should be public courts deciding on each request on an individual or organisation, with search warrants granted where it is deemed in the public interest, connected directly to an ongoing investigation - decisions could be kept secret for n days. What I would allow are tapping of all devices/contacts for a single person over an investigation. This would dramatically limit the effectiveness of the NSA by design. The most effective spying or police agency is one with a camera in every room and a tap on every phone - that's not a world I want to live in, and I see no problem with limiting their effectiveness, just as we ban certain arms from warfare because they are indiscriminate and awful in their effects.
I also think the analogy with pen registers that you are drawing is not appropriate given the advances in technology meaning data can be mined and kept for lifetimes, collated, and cross referenced globally in an instant. That's an entirely different world of surveillance, and one we are just coming to know. It makes old distinctions obsolete, and demands new rules for a world without frontiers - borders are now permeable, whether we like it or not, and they don't have as much meaning as they used to.
Your argument about data crossing borders is a great example of this. So many Americans use services overseas and vice versa that drawing some distinction between foreign and domestic traffic in this world is meaningless - if you say things that cross the border are fair game, you're giving the NSA power to perform dragnet sweeps of virtually the entire world, as virtually everyone's data will cross borders as some point in its existence. Imagine an American company with London offices - suddenly all their correspondence is now acceptable for surveillance without a warrant.
Mining global internet traffic and telephone metadata is extremely dangerous and potentially wide-reaching in its effects. It could easily be used to reveal any journalists' sources (no more free press), politicians' past affiliations private or public, people's donations, health details, reading preferences, purchases etc. Worse than that data collected in 2001 could be used in 2021 by a hostile NSA director against annoying journalists/rivals/judges to destroy their career for some sexual peccadillo irrelevant to their professional work. To have that much data collated on someone over a long period of time is very dangerous - for the person concerned, and for the organisation which does so. I simply don't trust any one organisation with that sort of power.
So I'd draw the line a bit closer to personal privacy and public transparency than the OP I think, but that's ok, it's great to have this conversation at last, and we have Edward Snowden to thank for having a little more knowledge with which to do so.
Personally as a foreigner my opinion is probably unimportant to you, but I don't think the NSA should be attempting blanket surveillance at all, foreign or domestic, whether data crosses borders or not - there should be public courts deciding on each request on an individual or organisation, with search warrants granted where it is deemed in the public interest, connected directly to an ongoing investigation - decisions could be kept secret for n days. What I would allow are tapping of all devices/contacts for a single person over an investigation. This would dramatically limit the effectiveness of the NSA by design. The most effective spying or police agency is one with a camera in every room and a tap on every phone - that's not a world I want to live in, and I see no problem with limiting their effectiveness, just as we ban certain arms from warfare because they are indiscriminate and awful in their effects.
I also think the analogy with pen registers that you are drawing is not appropriate given the advances in technology meaning data can be mined and kept for lifetimes, collated, and cross referenced globally in an instant. That's an entirely different world of surveillance, and one we are just coming to know. It makes old distinctions obsolete, and demands new rules for a world without frontiers - borders are now permeable, whether we like it or not, and they don't have as much meaning as they used to.
Your argument about data crossing borders is a great example of this. So many Americans use services overseas and vice versa that drawing some distinction between foreign and domestic traffic in this world is meaningless - if you say things that cross the border are fair game, you're giving the NSA power to perform dragnet sweeps of virtually the entire world, as virtually everyone's data will cross borders as some point in its existence. Imagine an American company with London offices - suddenly all their correspondence is now acceptable for surveillance without a warrant.
Mining global internet traffic and telephone metadata is extremely dangerous and potentially wide-reaching in its effects. It could easily be used to reveal any journalists' sources (no more free press), politicians' past affiliations private or public, people's donations, health details, reading preferences, purchases etc. Worse than that data collected in 2001 could be used in 2021 by a hostile NSA director against annoying journalists/rivals/judges to destroy their career for some sexual peccadillo irrelevant to their professional work. To have that much data collated on someone over a long period of time is very dangerous - for the person concerned, and for the organisation which does so. I simply don't trust any one organisation with that sort of power.
So I'd draw the line a bit closer to personal privacy and public transparency than the OP I think, but that's ok, it's great to have this conversation at last, and we have Edward Snowden to thank for having a little more knowledge with which to do so.
I'm not ready to thank Edward Snowden for anything yet. While I agree with almost all of your points, my reasons for advocating domestic surveillance have more to do with expediency than morality.
I agree that surveillance of any kind is wrong, but I can't see a world without foreign surveillance of some kind. That's not to say that one can't exist, but I don't see how it would come to fruition.
Therefore, I agree with the spirit of your argument but disagree with its practicality.
I agree that surveillance of any kind is wrong, but I can't see a world without foreign surveillance of some kind. That's not to say that one can't exist, but I don't see how it would come to fruition.
Therefore, I agree with the spirit of your argument but disagree with its practicality.
Fair enough and thanks for outlining your views in this and your other post - it's very interesting to hear them, and I'm sure many Americans will be feeling ambivalent about Snowden and what he has done.
I accept it might sound idealistic but it seems impossible to me to draw distinctions (particularly of rights) with borders any more, given that data flows so extensively across them, and the American distinction between citizens and others with no rights starts to sound particularly callous if the country's institutions arrogate the right to decide on global issues.
I accept it might sound idealistic but it seems impossible to me to draw distinctions (particularly of rights) with borders any more, given that data flows so extensively across them, and the American distinction between citizens and others with no rights starts to sound particularly callous if the country's institutions arrogate the right to decide on global issues.
You've just been added to the "List".
I work for 2600hz, which is literally the number 1 keyword on the CyberTerrorism watch list. I guarantee I'm already on every list.
I think you're making a good assumption. I think any one of us who "fits the profile" can assume that they're on a list.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hun...
I think I use a lot of those words every day. It's hilarious to me that 2600 and Phreaking are both on there when they haven't been a serious threat since the 5ESS switches hit back in the 70's and 80's...
I think I use a lot of those words every day. It's hilarious to me that 2600 and Phreaking are both on there when they haven't been a serious threat since the 5ESS switches hit back in the 70's and 80's...
That list also contains "Social media", so I think it's fair to say it's an irrelevant list that flags everyone in the world.
I can't imagine they will ever take stuff off the list.
The funnier thing to do would be for people who are likely on the list to begin using language the way the political class do.
The funnier thing to do would be for people who are likely on the list to begin using language the way the political class do.
What is to be done? The answer is easy. It has always been easy. Stop saying "not in my name" and start saying "over my dead body". That's what we did. It works. Do it.
--Julian Assange, receiving the Global Exchange Human Rights Award http://wlcentral.org/node/2818
--Julian Assange, receiving the Global Exchange Human Rights Award http://wlcentral.org/node/2818
This is all nice and good. Unfortunately, it means absolutely nothing. Since we know that lying is (by law) part of what corporations are forced to do when addressing questions of "national security", no amount of denies, press releases, public outrage or congressional talk will restore trust. Even new legislation specifically forbidding snooping will not help, since we can never be sure that there is no "secret legislation" specifically allowing it - and forcing companies to comply.
I am sure lots of people want to genuinely change the situation in the US. Unfortunately, we can not believe it. For all the talk that the reddit co-founder will, as a private person, make, the simple question to reddit-the-company: "are you snooping on me" has no meaning whatsoever. Either the answer will be a "no comment", or it will always be perceived to be lie.
I am sure lots of people want to genuinely change the situation in the US. Unfortunately, we can not believe it. For all the talk that the reddit co-founder will, as a private person, make, the simple question to reddit-the-company: "are you snooping on me" has no meaning whatsoever. Either the answer will be a "no comment", or it will always be perceived to be lie.
> Since we know that lying is (by law) part of what corporations are forced to do when addressing questions of "national security", no amount of denies, press releases, public outrage or congressional talk will restore trust.
What law are you referring to? The FISA gag orders do not mandate lying.
What law are you referring to? The FISA gag orders do not mandate lying.
Sometimes lack of response is quite telling. Sometimes telling garners severe consequences. That doesn't leave alternatives.
"Honey, are you cheating on me?"
"Honey, are you cheating on me?"
Corporations have been denying participation for years because acknowledging being part of the program was a crime.
What law are you talking about? Google has hardly been denying participation with NSL gag orders; they've been pretty vocal about it. What they aren't legally allowed to do is to disclose details about them or inform the subjects of them.
They publish aggregate numbers of the non-secret ones here, by the way: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US...
They publish aggregate numbers of the non-secret ones here, by the way: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-wan...
"The FISA requests don't already show up in Google's regular transparency reports because they are top secret, according to the law. So now Google wants to tell the world exactly how much they cooperate with the U.S. government."
So now that a whistle blower has tell us all about it, they want to come clean. Of course we know that there is now a "FOSA" program, which is the new top-secret program, which nobody will tell you about, until a whistle blower tells us about it - in 13 years.
That I call lying.
"The FISA requests don't already show up in Google's regular transparency reports because they are top secret, according to the law. So now Google wants to tell the world exactly how much they cooperate with the U.S. government."
So now that a whistle blower has tell us all about it, they want to come clean. Of course we know that there is now a "FOSA" program, which is the new top-secret program, which nobody will tell you about, until a whistle blower tells us about it - in 13 years.
That I call lying.
There is an answer that will restore confidence: Open systems for endpoints, including firmware, and zero knowledge in the cloud. That may require you to pay where ad supported services had been free. But every piece of it could be productized in weeks.
Funny that none of the cloud service providers has put that forward as a way to restore their credibility.
Funny that none of the cloud service providers has put that forward as a way to restore their credibility.
Productized in weeks ? even firmware ? that seems really hard.
How would you do it? Please share(if it's OK).
How would you do it? Please share(if it's OK).
Opening firmware would be simple. Many devices have loadable firmware, like your phone's baseband processor. The toolchain is unlikely to be exotic, and providing build-able source code should not be a great burden. Some people hack baseband firmware for fun. They manage to reverse engineer it and inject new code with publicly available tools.
Considering the grave threat to US online services' from lack of trust, you would think that some announcement in this direction might have been made. Crickets, so far.
Considering the grave threat to US online services' from lack of trust, you would think that some announcement in this direction might have been made. Crickets, so far.
Android is a huge,complex codebase. doesn't this mean it's hard to verify it's security ?
[deleted]
Android has a userland made of unprivileged code running in a VM. To the extent it is different from a desktop Linux, it should have fewer userland components that could subvert system security. So, it's the same or perhaps easier to audit Android.
I'd be more worried about peripherals.
Telephones are hard to secure. That's why I mentioned open firmware. I'm not an expert on hardware-level security, but the combination of SoC architecture and lots of programmable cores in peripherals makes me think you would find ways of extracting information from a device that way. And the mobile baseband controls some of the audio paths in a handset.
It will be interesting to see if there are any revelations about device-makers and security that come out of the heightened interest in this topic.
I'd be more worried about peripherals.
Telephones are hard to secure. That's why I mentioned open firmware. I'm not an expert on hardware-level security, but the combination of SoC architecture and lots of programmable cores in peripherals makes me think you would find ways of extracting information from a device that way. And the mobile baseband controls some of the audio paths in a handset.
It will be interesting to see if there are any revelations about device-makers and security that come out of the heightened interest in this topic.
[deleted]
Open isn't necessarily verifiable.
Nice ddg plug at the end there. Always be closing. :P
You'd think I were an investor! Just a superfan.
That's great! Do you get down to Philly or Baltimore much? We've got a big fan base here that would love to chat with you at a TechBreakfast in Philly or Baltimore - let me know.
I was raised in Columbia, MD and my dad lives outside of Towson these days, so yes. I'd love to stop by on the http:/withouttheirpermission.com book tour! Details will be on the site soon, but I'm planning a legendary 100 stop tour :) and will definitely be hitting both cities...
Will you hit Hawaii/Honolulu on your book tour? We'd love to have you!
Well, the plan was to do it all via RV :) what's the best university to do it at? I could always use another excuse to go back to Hawaii....
The best university would be The University Of Hawaii. And then get some general community members involved as well.
I try to promote ddg without being annoying.
One thing I do is send a ddg search result link in email when it's relevant to the conversation. No one link will cause anyone to switch, but continued familiarity might help whatever makes the final nudge.
One thing I do is send a ddg search result link in email when it's relevant to the conversation. No one link will cause anyone to switch, but continued familiarity might help whatever makes the final nudge.
Alexis is a good speaker. It's refreshing to see a founder talk about his startup in down-to-earth terms instead of being egotistical and speaking in platitudes.
He's actually improved over time. I saw him on a panel and he was rolled over by a MPAA/RIAA shill. I'm glad he's grown more confident and poised on screen.
I've been doing public speaking for a while now (e.g., my TED talk was back in '09 http://www.ted.com/talks/alexis_ohanian_how_to_make_a_splash...) but live TV 'debate' is a whole 'nother beast.
You're talking about my first 'debate' on MSNBC (it pains me to link to it but....) http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-...
Yeah, I was totally unprepared for that format (my first 'debate') and it was covered in failsauce. I just couldn't believe he'd so brazenly lie like that, interrupt, etc. The feedback on reddit and HN was pretty helpful, though, and the day of the blackout I was on literally every other network much better armed.
(shameless plug: I write about all of this in great detail in my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/exp-poi...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_found... (never do an interview on a cell phone)
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1400506693001/websites-go-dar...
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294-reddit-com-oppositio...
The next time I was invited for a debate (fast company conference in NY) it was a different story, imho: http://www.fastcompany.com/1834779/reddit-cofounder-bands-ex...
You're talking about my first 'debate' on MSNBC (it pains me to link to it but....) http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-...
Yeah, I was totally unprepared for that format (my first 'debate') and it was covered in failsauce. I just couldn't believe he'd so brazenly lie like that, interrupt, etc. The feedback on reddit and HN was pretty helpful, though, and the day of the blackout I was on literally every other network much better armed.
(shameless plug: I write about all of this in great detail in my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/exp-poi...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_found... (never do an interview on a cell phone)
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1400506693001/websites-go-dar...
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294-reddit-com-oppositio...
The next time I was invited for a debate (fast company conference in NY) it was a different story, imho: http://www.fastcompany.com/1834779/reddit-cofounder-bands-ex...
I was about to ask you a couple of questions about the book, but details are on your website. For the lazy -
http://withouttheirpermission.com/
http://withouttheirpermission.com/
Oh silly me, forgot to link! Thanks. You can AMA here too :)
Lol, ok I'll take you up on that.
1. You must have read a lot of books on the topic over the last few months/years. What are your top (5?) books to recommend to a budding entrepreneur (while we are waiting for yours to come out)?
2. Have you considered doing an Audiobook? (I'm a fan of non-fiction audiobooks and find they work particularly well for the sort of book you have written)
1. You must have read a lot of books on the topic over the last few months/years. What are your top (5?) books to recommend to a budding entrepreneur (while we are waiting for yours to come out)?
2. Have you considered doing an Audiobook? (I'm a fan of non-fiction audiobooks and find they work particularly well for the sort of book you have written)
1. I've actually tried not to read too many other entrepreneurship books -- something Zach Weiner taught me (he doesn't read many other webcomics) to encourage creativity. That said, some books that have helped me be he entrepreneur I am today are (in no particular order) Masters Of Doom, Founders at Work, The Lorax, Drive, and White Man's Burden. Oh and PG essays of course.
I also really didn't want to waste my reader's time (my writing is pretty conversational and there are even some jokes in the book along with doodles) so I advertise on the back that the book can be read in 5 hrs (or a crosscountry flight).
2. Yep! They asked me to read it (I of course said yes, since Christopher Walken wasn't available).
I also really didn't want to waste my reader's time (my writing is pretty conversational and there are even some jokes in the book along with doodles) so I advertise on the back that the book can be read in 5 hrs (or a crosscountry flight).
2. Yep! They asked me to read it (I of course said yes, since Christopher Walken wasn't available).
> Masters Of Doom
Yes! I listened to the audiobook version of this which was read by Wil Wheaton, great stuff.
Thanks for the other suggestions - I'm going to start with Drive as I liked Daniel Pink's latest book but haven't read Drive yet.
I like conversational style, and 5 hours is a good length for a book - I hate it when a 5 hour book gets dragged out to 10.
Yes! I listened to the audiobook version of this which was read by Wil Wheaton, great stuff.
Thanks for the other suggestions - I'm going to start with Drive as I liked Daniel Pink's latest book but haven't read Drive yet.
I like conversational style, and 5 hours is a good length for a book - I hate it when a 5 hour book gets dragged out to 10.
Will there be an eBook version outside Apple's walled garden (DRM-free, preferably)? I dislike dead-tree books, with their fixed typography and whatnot!
Right - Kindle and nook!
http://www.amazon.com/Without-Their-Permission-Century-ebook...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/without-their-permission-ale...
Would that suffice?
http://www.amazon.com/Without-Their-Permission-Century-ebook...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/without-their-permission-ale...
Would that suffice?
Ah, not available on Amazon UK, that's why I couldn't find it :(
Yeah, sorry, it's US + Canada launch on Oct 1. We haven't yet sold the intl rights, I think. BUT! I'm thinking of doing something w/o my publisher's permission :) and doing events in London, Berlin, HK, and maybe Paris where I just bring a giant suitcase or two full of US edition books for an event & signing.
I love how appropriate this is, given the title (and I assume content) of the book! :D
It's available on Kindle and Nook, but I didn't see a completely DRM free option. Kindle DRM doesn't bother me that much personally because I can view the books on every device I own, and on the web.
Brother, you're a fast learn and I'm impressed with you to no end.
Keep up the good fight.
There are some people who I would love to introduce you to who are also of the same mind. I wish there was an easy way to contact you so we could maybe set something up.
Keep up the good fight.
There are some people who I would love to introduce you to who are also of the same mind. I wish there was an easy way to contact you so we could maybe set something up.
Thanks, Nrsolis. Do they also live in NY? contact AT alexisohanian is probably the best way - I'm a traveling man the next month + planning the tour (as well as doing regular YCing).
Thanks btw! I wonder if it has something to do with not being in the Valley bubble...
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130219190155-44...
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130219190155-44...
Glossing over the data that you could glean from reddit was a mistake. Even if there isn't that much valuable data directly from reddit's back-end it's probably more useful to tie it to data from the same users extracted from other websites. You shouldn't have down-played that.
Off-topic but I wish there was a way to filter out all these NSA stories. It has really destroyed Hacker News for me and I hope it doesn't go on for too long.
Try this chrome extension: http://bit.ly/13sD6TY
So you're cool with what the NSA is doing?
I don't think discussion here is particularly going to contribute to the voice of the public that would actually do something to change it.
Sorry for the fuzzy expression there, nothing better jumped to mind.
Sorry for the fuzzy expression there, nothing better jumped to mind.
If you know of a place where a more informed and intelligent response is being crafted I'd like to know about it. The type of people who frequent HN are the same people who work in Silicon Valley and other high tech areas where much of this technology was created and promoted. Most regular folks I know don't know what to think about it and are waiting for leaders to come up with a rational and measured response that offers some push back.
In that context, I'm more pessimistic than that. I expect some push back against what I would certainly label overreach, but I don't expect any sort of long term memory or change to come of it.
I'm more optimistic because the norm for Americans through out history was for independence from government intrusions. The last decade has been an anomaly because of 9/11, when everyone decided to that safety trumped those concerns. The pendulum could very easily swing back the other way.
> I'm more optimistic because the norm for Americans through out history was for independence from government intrusions. The last decade has been an anomaly because of 9/11
Sure, just like the decade before that was an "anomaly" because of the threat of terrorism that became a concern with the first Gulf War made safety trump those concerns, and the 5 decades prior to that were an "anomaly" because of the threats associated, first, the second World War, and immediately following that Second Red Scare the Cold War, made safety trump those concerns.
And just a couple decades before that there was the "anomaly" produced by the First Red Scare. (The increasing intrusion of which, based on safety concerns, wasn't actually reversed when the immediate impetus faded, just as the vast majority of the increasing intrusion motivated by the Cold War, the First Gulf War, or 9/11 wasn't -- as well as some of that motivated by the Second World War, though some of the biggest intrusions motivated by the Second World War were, and you can probably view the continuation of the rest as a 'silent reenactment' motivated by the Cold War.)
Or, maybe the intrusion-ratcheting-upward thing isn't a temporary anomaly, but the norm.
Sure, just like the decade before that was an "anomaly" because of the threat of terrorism that became a concern with the first Gulf War made safety trump those concerns, and the 5 decades prior to that were an "anomaly" because of the threats associated, first, the second World War, and immediately following that Second Red Scare the Cold War, made safety trump those concerns.
And just a couple decades before that there was the "anomaly" produced by the First Red Scare. (The increasing intrusion of which, based on safety concerns, wasn't actually reversed when the immediate impetus faded, just as the vast majority of the increasing intrusion motivated by the Cold War, the First Gulf War, or 9/11 wasn't -- as well as some of that motivated by the Second World War, though some of the biggest intrusions motivated by the Second World War were, and you can probably view the continuation of the rest as a 'silent reenactment' motivated by the Cold War.)
Or, maybe the intrusion-ratcheting-upward thing isn't a temporary anomaly, but the norm.
Sure, these anomalies have occurred before after a major threat and in the shock over it, such as Japanese internment camps or the suspension of suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, but the pendulum always swings back against govt over reach. You write as if the American Civil Liberties Union has done no good at all and it a hopeless cause.
> but the pendulum always swings back against govt over reach.
I don't think there is much evidence of that. Its true that over time some of the expansions of power are clawed back, but the overall trend isn't neutral with a pendulum swinging back and forth with a stationary midpoint of degree of government intrusion.
> You write as if the American Civil Liberties Union has done no good at all and it a hopeless cause.
The ACLU has certainly done some good, and I've never said anything about hopelessness (or even about what is desirable). What I've pointed to is the facts that call into question your presentation of a norm of non-intrusive government that is subject only to occasional "anomalies" followed by reversion to the pre-anomaly "normal" state.
Hope, in terms of realizing political objectives -- whether that's non-intrusive government or something else -- starts with recognizing the realities of the status quo, because without that, you can't tell what the problems are you need to address.
I don't think there is much evidence of that. Its true that over time some of the expansions of power are clawed back, but the overall trend isn't neutral with a pendulum swinging back and forth with a stationary midpoint of degree of government intrusion.
> You write as if the American Civil Liberties Union has done no good at all and it a hopeless cause.
The ACLU has certainly done some good, and I've never said anything about hopelessness (or even about what is desirable). What I've pointed to is the facts that call into question your presentation of a norm of non-intrusive government that is subject only to occasional "anomalies" followed by reversion to the pre-anomaly "normal" state.
Hope, in terms of realizing political objectives -- whether that's non-intrusive government or something else -- starts with recognizing the realities of the status quo, because without that, you can't tell what the problems are you need to address.
I wasn't speaking literally of a stationary midpoint. I'm speaking of the American character over history, which has been to throw off the shackles of Kings and oppressive religious control. I think that character is alive and well, although advances in technology may have finally have given those in control the upper hand. We may be waking up to that fact now. I'll concede that it may be too late for remedies, but as an optimist I don't think so. I think we'll be seeing a big uptick in interest in encryption, the TOR network, online personality obfuscation, etc... For a good example, look at how people are concerned about their health information and how HIPAA was born. Having worked in health care I can attest that organizations and the govt are dead serious about it, which those who wish to develop mobile medical apps are now discovering.
He probably just wants to read about development without 70% of the front page being about NSA stuff. I'm pretty new here, but as far as I know this isn't National Security News, it's Hacker News. Not wanting to see it on HN specifically doesn't mean you're okay with it. I know it's a big deal, but it's getting annoying to me too.
> as far as I know this isn't National Security News, it's Hacker News
For many of us, data information and national security stories inspired our early devops years. For example, The Cuckoo's Egg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo's_Egg
This NSA story and all the discussions around its implications go to the heart of thinking around access to the world's information and how all humans relate to it, our work, and each other as global citizens.
I can think of nothing of more compelling interest than who has custody of our future, whether as info entrepreneurs, devops hackers, or "end users" growing up in this apprehensive new world.
For many of us, data information and national security stories inspired our early devops years. For example, The Cuckoo's Egg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo's_Egg
This NSA story and all the discussions around its implications go to the heart of thinking around access to the world's information and how all humans relate to it, our work, and each other as global citizens.
I can think of nothing of more compelling interest than who has custody of our future, whether as info entrepreneurs, devops hackers, or "end users" growing up in this apprehensive new world.
This is the biggest story in tech, period.
This is about the revealing of a surveillance state that the Stasi and Gestapo would have wet the bed over.
I'm glad that people on Hacker News have their priorities straight and these NSA stories are rising to the top rather than some banal discussion over the color of iOS 7 icons.
This is about the revealing of a surveillance state that the Stasi and Gestapo would have wet the bed over.
I'm glad that people on Hacker News have their priorities straight and these NSA stories are rising to the top rather than some banal discussion over the color of iOS 7 icons.
Why the hell does CNN's video player play on load?
Use click to play for all plugins. Problem (and many other problems) solved.
I think it's time we give up on the idea of communicating privately over a centralized network. Wiretapping was invented only a few years after the invention of the telephone[1]. It won't be stopped by technology and certainly not by legislation. People need to get used treating the Internet as a public space: cover your mouth when you cough, don't pick your nose in public and don't communicate sensitive information over the Internet.
The next big thing (hopefully soon) will be communication through a decentralized, infrastructure-less device.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping#History
The next big thing (hopefully soon) will be communication through a decentralized, infrastructure-less device.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping#History
It seems like no matter what you do, it will always be possible for someone to tap into a wire or node between point A and point B (unless some revolutionary point-to-point information teleportation is invented). So isn't the next big thing just the strengthening (or proper application) of encryption?
Otherwise, how can a "decentralized, infrastructure-less" system really guarantee any privacy beyond simply making it more of a hassle to wiretap?
Otherwise, how can a "decentralized, infrastructure-less" system really guarantee any privacy beyond simply making it more of a hassle to wiretap?
The outgoing chairman of the FCC was interviewed recently [1] and alluded to new ad hoc networks created by cell phone users, to be used in times of emergencies where networks get overloaded.
[1] http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12968
[1] http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12968
The entire conecept of pre-crime is everyone is a suspect, and you can never be proven innocent because you haven't yet committed the crime you are alleged to eventually commit.
It's scary stuff yet surprisingly innevitable given the direction of AI.
It's scary stuff yet surprisingly innevitable given the direction of AI.
I have some ideas and some plans in mind for getting around this. If anyone in particular would be interested in helping to set up or back a privacy-oriented startup aimed at defeating a lot of what's been going on, then please get in touch via my profile.
Perhaps the number one priority of those in tech should be to educate the public about the potential intrusiveness of data surveillance.
Politicians and idiot TV hosts have made statements akin to "all they are collecting are phone numbers, times and cell tower data".
Ha! Give me that and access to other sources such as LinkedIn, Facebook, your email on Gmail, your Google docs, IRS and state tax filings, court documents, vehicle registration, travel records, Amazon, Ebay, college and university records and a myriad of other publicly and not-so-publicly available data and those phone numbers become powerful unique identifiers through which I can learn just about everything about you, your family, your friends, colleagues, occupation, hobbies, history and more.
There's nothing innocent or insignificant about "just collecting phone numbers".
Politicians and idiot TV hosts have made statements akin to "all they are collecting are phone numbers, times and cell tower data".
Ha! Give me that and access to other sources such as LinkedIn, Facebook, your email on Gmail, your Google docs, IRS and state tax filings, court documents, vehicle registration, travel records, Amazon, Ebay, college and university records and a myriad of other publicly and not-so-publicly available data and those phone numbers become powerful unique identifiers through which I can learn just about everything about you, your family, your friends, colleagues, occupation, hobbies, history and more.
There's nothing innocent or insignificant about "just collecting phone numbers".
Tangentially ontopic: I remember an offhand comment from someone in the intel community a few years ago that went along the lines of "you can't really have privacy unless you run your own DNS servers". Can they really store all dns lookups?
Kind of surprised this isn't on the front page of reddit right now.
I think one of the ways this bullshit is solved is liquid democracy. Allow people to transfer votes to people they feel are experts via a bitcoin like system. 90% of people have only an interest in a very small subset of topics that they vote on. They aren't qualified to cast a vote, why not allow them to delegate to an expert? Of course buying votes would be highly illegal.
I think that's what's known as a representative democracy...
Kind of, but not really. In a representative democracy, you are voting a professional politician into office, who's sole existence is to stay in office. They are beholden to money, and outside interests. With a liquid democracy, it is essentially a direct democracy, without all the headaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy
Reddit has information that can be used to identify the author of a submission or comment. I was a disappointed to hear the soft stance on protecting reddit user data.
Hanging out in /r/redditdev and /r/ideasfortheadmins, you'd be surprised how often ideas come up that could potentially harm users that some admins will either champion or agree with.
I guess it's the same as any small company in that everyone is going to have an opinion, I just wish they had someone more anal about protecting users first on their staff.
I do my best to speak out against anything that could compromise user privacy/security, but in the end it's not up to me!
I guess it's the same as any small company in that everyone is going to have an opinion, I just wish they had someone more anal about protecting users first on their staff.
I do my best to speak out against anything that could compromise user privacy/security, but in the end it's not up to me!
Have you got any examples of this? There are plenty of terrible ideas on /r/ideasfortheadmins, but I don't remember seeing Admins agree with them very often.
Couldn't get past the fact that the interviewer probably did 0 prep work for this.
Hastily-transcribed transcript for those who can't watch the video:
Q "NSA and PRISM - what's the sentiment in the valley?"
A "Maybe this is indicative of the fact that I live in New York; that I've never really been part of that herd. We are as citizens I think really upset, really frustrated because we have an expectation that whether it is our private property offline or online, that it will be respected, and that's what the Fourth Amendment protects. And needless to say it was rather disappointing to see all this news come out and apparently much more on the way."
Q "You're building a startup that could become the next Reddit or Facebook: At what point do you say, 'I think I got to get a Lawyer?'"
A "Yeah it will certainly come up a lot sooner for founders and founders who were maybe thinking, 'move fast and break things' will now think 'move fast and break things but don't break the constitution.' And this is an opportunity for us as citizens to start to draw a line in the sand for what is off-limits and private in the digital age."
Q "If the government asked you for information, what information could you give them?"
A "Well there really isn't any. When people use reddit as a platform to publicly share links and publicly have discussions. So the primary use of the site is that is in public so there really isn't a ton of useful data there."
Q "What advice do you give these young folks who are building these companies and this is becoming a reality?"
A "There's my investor hat, my founder hat, and my citizen hat - and that citizen hat trumps everything else. And I want to make sure that the environment we are starting companies in has a government that respects the our right to privacy so that these kinds of discussions going forward aren't even a factor or an issue and I think the ability for us to use this technology has sort of outpaced - unfortunately - some of our legislator's understanding of what kind of laws they should be writing. Whether it's making sure our elected officials understand the internet and understand technology is just as important though as making sure we get more of these people who inherently and innately understand this technology into office. I think the other interesting thing is more and more founders are really rallying behind companies now that are themselves built on a model of respecting privacy. One that I know rather well is called duckdduckgo and it's a venture backed by USV here in New York - a search engine competitor to google and their core business proposition is 'we don't track anything you search for on our site.' And so I imagine more startups to kind of take that lead."
Q "NSA and PRISM - what's the sentiment in the valley?"
A "Maybe this is indicative of the fact that I live in New York; that I've never really been part of that herd. We are as citizens I think really upset, really frustrated because we have an expectation that whether it is our private property offline or online, that it will be respected, and that's what the Fourth Amendment protects. And needless to say it was rather disappointing to see all this news come out and apparently much more on the way."
Q "You're building a startup that could become the next Reddit or Facebook: At what point do you say, 'I think I got to get a Lawyer?'"
A "Yeah it will certainly come up a lot sooner for founders and founders who were maybe thinking, 'move fast and break things' will now think 'move fast and break things but don't break the constitution.' And this is an opportunity for us as citizens to start to draw a line in the sand for what is off-limits and private in the digital age."
Q "If the government asked you for information, what information could you give them?"
A "Well there really isn't any. When people use reddit as a platform to publicly share links and publicly have discussions. So the primary use of the site is that is in public so there really isn't a ton of useful data there."
Q "What advice do you give these young folks who are building these companies and this is becoming a reality?"
A "There's my investor hat, my founder hat, and my citizen hat - and that citizen hat trumps everything else. And I want to make sure that the environment we are starting companies in has a government that respects the our right to privacy so that these kinds of discussions going forward aren't even a factor or an issue and I think the ability for us to use this technology has sort of outpaced - unfortunately - some of our legislator's understanding of what kind of laws they should be writing. Whether it's making sure our elected officials understand the internet and understand technology is just as important though as making sure we get more of these people who inherently and innately understand this technology into office. I think the other interesting thing is more and more founders are really rallying behind companies now that are themselves built on a model of respecting privacy. One that I know rather well is called duckdduckgo and it's a venture backed by USV here in New York - a search engine competitor to google and their core business proposition is 'we don't track anything you search for on our site.' And so I imagine more startups to kind of take that lead."
Thanks! I've already got a few offers from vendors who want to make "Citizen" hats... all proceeds to EFF of course.
His public concern beyond that is for blackmail of national leaders. That actually worries me less, as the public is becoming much more tolerant of "vice" in its leaders. (For example -- President Obama is an admitted cocaine and pot user; President Bush was an admitted drunkard and widely-suspected cocaine user; President Clinton was a widely-suspected adulterer and pot user.)