Here’s what real reform of the NSA looks like(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Here’s what real reform of the NSA looks like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/02/heres-what-real-reform-of-the-nsa-looks-like
7 comments
It is my understanding that contacting via non-form letter is the best way to reach your representative. This comes from a chat with a friend who worked as an assistant in a congressional office; she said form letters were discarded, phone calls were usually from a few select cranks who called every day about the same esoteric issue, and custom letters were read and their contents summarized for the congressperson.
A (legible!) hand-written letter would probably fare even better ... as it shows that you care enough about the issue to take the time to write it by hand.
Is there already some API for outsourcing this whole hand-writing letter thing?
A printer, cursive font, and a shitty renderer?
This actually reminds me of the letters Peter Popoff sends out. Check out the fake handwriting on it:
http://www.jeffbelanger.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/...
One of my room mates discovered this trove of comedy gold and has been signing up all his friends to receive them. They're actually pretty convincing, although they lack the indentation marks one would expect to see from a real pen.
http://www.jeffbelanger.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/...
One of my room mates discovered this trove of comedy gold and has been signing up all his friends to receive them. They're actually pretty convincing, although they lack the indentation marks one would expect to see from a real pen.
Impressive! I wonder why direct mailers aren't making more use of stuff like that. This should increase the response quota significantly.
An auto-pen.
Andrew Mason (of groupon fame) had an observation a few years ago at startup school that says activism is currently how long someone will inconvenience themselves. The longer the inconvenience and the more infrequent, the more seriously it's treated.
I want to, but my question got lost in all the comments last time around:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6103172
I would like a small list of materials that my representative could read that make my case much better than I could.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6103172
I would like a small list of materials that my representative could read that make my case much better than I could.
>I would like a small list of materials that my representative could read that make my case much better than I could.
Honestly, I think it's fine to just take your pick of reasons why you are not happy and convey that. You don't need to be an expert or have a master crib-sheet. Your honest feelings on the issue as they are real, organic, and coming straight from an individual -some of the more important attributes to have for a message being sent to a representative imho.
I've always suspected that form letters and chain emails get mentally binned fairly easily quickly, as some of the comments by other users in this thread seem to reinforce.
Honestly, I think it's fine to just take your pick of reasons why you are not happy and convey that. You don't need to be an expert or have a master crib-sheet. Your honest feelings on the issue as they are real, organic, and coming straight from an individual -some of the more important attributes to have for a message being sent to a representative imho.
I've always suspected that form letters and chain emails get mentally binned fairly easily quickly, as some of the comments by other users in this thread seem to reinforce.
This is a great quote:
The idea of the Fourth Amendment is not to get in the way of law enforcement and intelligence, but rather to see that they do a good job by having to prove at each step of the way that they know what they’re doing, that they’re not off running down hunches and going off on wild goose chases and witch hunts.
The idea of the Fourth Amendment is not to get in the way of law enforcement and intelligence, but rather to see that they do a good job by having to prove at each step of the way that they know what they’re doing, that they’re not off running down hunches and going off on wild goose chases and witch hunts.
Actually I think the idea of the 4th is to get in the way of law enforcement and the government, insofar as that obstacle is necessary to protect the rights of the average non-suspect citizen.
Not sure there's any such thing as a non-suspect citizen these days.
Not sure there's any such thing as a non-suspect citizen these days.
> Actually I think the idea of the 4th is to get in the way of law enforcement and the government, insofar as that obstacle is necessary to protect the rights of the average non-suspect citizen.
I'd say its more to get in the way of government insofar as that obstacle is necessary to protect the rights of the average suspect citizen, as well.
I'd say its more to get in the way of government insofar as that obstacle is necessary to protect the rights of the average suspect citizen, as well.
Yes, you are correct.
This would be a big step in the right direction. However, heavy-hitting legislation like this that prioritizes civil rights at the expense of government power rarely passes the Senate. We could try and push it through with a SOPA-like activism blitz (which I think we should, honestly), but it would take some serious effort to overcome legislative protectionism.
I agree, if industry leaders jumped on the band wagon like they did for SOPA we may have a chance.
Some of the big tech companies are already willing to fight back we just need to gain momentum for the cause. Some legislators are with us but I doubt the senate will be on our side.
Some of the big tech companies are already willing to fight back we just need to gain momentum for the cause. Some legislators are with us but I doubt the senate will be on our side.
Too bad people are flagging these stories more than ever now. It seems that worrying about the surveillance state they're now in is too "boring" to them.
This isn't an appropriate forum for politics. There are plenty of other venues online for civic debate.
I'd humbly submit that
1) there are lots of non-Americans who are interested in what y'all are doing with our data
2) Hacker News is a forum for "what hackers find interesting," not whatever you think it is. Some politics, particularly digital rights and privacy, are very much part of our interests and responsibility (as non-governmental experts[1]).
3) Everything is political[2].
[1] "experts" - not me, this community at large.
[2] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann
1) there are lots of non-Americans who are interested in what y'all are doing with our data
2) Hacker News is a forum for "what hackers find interesting," not whatever you think it is. Some politics, particularly digital rights and privacy, are very much part of our interests and responsibility (as non-governmental experts[1]).
3) Everything is political[2].
[1] "experts" - not me, this community at large.
[2] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann
Point one justifies a few articles, not a daily deluge.
Point two is true, but pissing off a significant part of your constituency is not healthy for the community.
Point three is a cute way to try to subvert the fact that the guidelines explicitly state "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." Not every commentator's opinion about a month-old leak is evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. You may not like this or agree with it, but the HN Guidelines are effectively the constitution of HN. It should supersede your own desire to bring up politics whenever possible.
I agree firmly voodoo123. You have an entire internet full of places to whine about American politics. HN is apparently deciding right now that politics is always on-topic, in opposition to the guidelines. Fine, so be it, but we will continue to whine about it until the guidelines are changed, because we like the guidelines better.
Point two is true, but pissing off a significant part of your constituency is not healthy for the community.
Point three is a cute way to try to subvert the fact that the guidelines explicitly state "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." Not every commentator's opinion about a month-old leak is evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. You may not like this or agree with it, but the HN Guidelines are effectively the constitution of HN. It should supersede your own desire to bring up politics whenever possible.
I agree firmly voodoo123. You have an entire internet full of places to whine about American politics. HN is apparently deciding right now that politics is always on-topic, in opposition to the guidelines. Fine, so be it, but we will continue to whine about it until the guidelines are changed, because we like the guidelines better.
Pay closer attention, sir--this isn't American politics writ large, but a small section of issues that has deep and far-reaching consequences for our customers, our businesses, and (without meaning to sound too grandiose) nothing less than the future of privacy and exploratory computing.
This is exactly the sort of useful stuff I'd like to see here.
This is exactly the sort of useful stuff I'd like to see here.
Sure. And I don't object to a few articles with a lot of meat. But what I don't need is every pundit's reaction, to see every breaking story about which company cooperated and which did not, followed by a story summarizing the tally, followed by two reactions to the summary from two more pundits, followed by a guy who has a bone to pick with one of them, followed by a new revelation about a fifteenth company, ...
The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon.
I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.
The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon.
I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.
Apologies, I didn't realise the guidelines officially discourage "most politics".
I do appreciate that people who are not political geeks are probably enjoying the ongoing Snowden stories a lot less than me! I'm still going to keep upvoting them though, I'm afraid.
EDITED: I said "prohibited," but they're guidelines, so switched to "discourage".
I do appreciate that people who are not political geeks are probably enjoying the ongoing Snowden stories a lot less than me! I'm still going to keep upvoting them though, I'm afraid.
EDITED: I said "prohibited," but they're guidelines, so switched to "discourage".
Vote your conscience and so will I.
If you think that:
1. Technology hasn't fundamentally changed the game in surveillance,
2. That technology companies and their services aren't fundamentally involved in ongoing surveillance-state activities, willingly or otherwise,
3. That concerns over surveillance won't drive both personal and organizational (business, non-profit, and government) decisions, both within and outside the United States, over whether and what technologies and services to adopt,
4. That this is a US-only issue,
then I can only say that you are so completely mistaken as to not even be wrong. You're simply operating in a different universe. One not governed by reality.
1. Technology hasn't fundamentally changed the game in surveillance,
2. That technology companies and their services aren't fundamentally involved in ongoing surveillance-state activities, willingly or otherwise,
3. That concerns over surveillance won't drive both personal and organizational (business, non-profit, and government) decisions, both within and outside the United States, over whether and what technologies and services to adopt,
4. That this is a US-only issue,
then I can only say that you are so completely mistaken as to not even be wrong. You're simply operating in a different universe. One not governed by reality.
The NSA's collection behavior strikes at the heart of giving your personal data to a third party company to hold. As a private person, I can no longer trust not only that my data is as protected as it would be on my home computer, but also that even if it isn't protected, no one is looking.
It remains to be seen if it will be a sea change for US internet law, governance, surveillance, or the privacy debate in general. But it is important and affects many digital startups.
It remains to be seen if it will be a sea change for US internet law, governance, surveillance, or the privacy debate in general. But it is important and affects many digital startups.
I think this stuff is pretty critical for any company founder that will ask users for data. In or out of the US, the fact that users have to simultaneously trust both the company and the NSA to treat that information well is a serious concern.
This is an appropriate forum for discussing the surveillance of our digital habits, and those of our customers, clients, employers, employees, and the public at large.
I would be interested in the details of what law enforcement/surveillance methods are actually useful for counterterrorism and which ones simply make things more convenient but aren't really needed. It sounds to me like one side says they're all desperately needed and the other side says that they're all useless. Somehow I don't think the answer is either one of those.
But this bill looks like a great first step, and Rep. Holt makes a lot of great points about the role of oversight, the need for overseen agencies to buy into oversight, and the need for IC whistleblower protections that don't force well-intentioned staff to have to dump things to the media to avoid being treated like Thomas Drake.
But this bill looks like a great first step, and Rep. Holt makes a lot of great points about the role of oversight, the need for overseen agencies to buy into oversight, and the need for IC whistleblower protections that don't force well-intentioned staff to have to dump things to the media to avoid being treated like Thomas Drake.
>the Surveillance State Repeal Act....It would repeal the 2001 Patriot Act, which the NSA has cited as the legal basis for its phone records surveillance program. It would also repeal the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the legal foundation for the government’s PRISM program. And it would extend whistleblower protections to cover employees of intelligence agencies.
Good luck passing that. It would be nice, but I won't get my hopes up.
Good luck passing that. It would be nice, but I won't get my hopes up.
This is the kind of apathy and negativity that means nothing will ever get fixed. America depends on people like you feeling this way to do whatever it pleases while presenting a "democratic" process.
You seem to comment a lot about the NSA / Snowden situation. If you actually care about fixing it, then perhaps you should call your senator and try to make this a reality as opposed to writing it off and not getting your "hopes up"
You seem to comment a lot about the NSA / Snowden situation. If you actually care about fixing it, then perhaps you should call your senator and try to make this a reality as opposed to writing it off and not getting your "hopes up"
America depends on people having a realistic perspective? I think you're a bit out of touch...
If they want to pass these measures separately, they might have a chance, but passing all of them at once is a farce, at best, as it has no chance of passing. Of course, you can continue to root for the ineffective showboating legislation that is already DOA, or you could put your hopes and cash into more effective measures. Word is the EFF is fairly popular.
If they want to pass these measures separately, they might have a chance, but passing all of them at once is a farce, at best, as it has no chance of passing. Of course, you can continue to root for the ineffective showboating legislation that is already DOA, or you could put your hopes and cash into more effective measures. Word is the EFF is fairly popular.
Stop whining. Call and write your representative, be a part of the solution.
We know it's bad, we know the going will be tough. We need to get off our collective asses and put the pressure on to fix it instead of ranting and perpetuating self-fulfilling prophecies.
We know it's bad, we know the going will be tough. We need to get off our collective asses and put the pressure on to fix it instead of ranting and perpetuating self-fulfilling prophecies.
Part of his complaint, though he didn't state it, is that it's just too damn hard to get the elected officials to ACTUALLY REPRESENT the people who they SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENT. And I think that's a fair criticism of our government, the officials answer more to their corporate sponsors (who largely don't mind tending towards actively support) this kind of thing, rather than to the people.
Furthermore I shouldn't have to weigh in with my Congresspersons on whether I think something is Constitutional or not. Their job, literally, is to make law in accordance with the Constitution. Here's the oath they take:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Many elected officials have broken their oaths by passing the Patriot Act or the FISA Act as those authorize blanket warrants; something that the Constitution implicitly prohibits by virtue of the Fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]"
That's the text and you don't get to judge the current laws based on the original text plus all the intervening laws too; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if any law contradicts it, guess which one is considered invalid?
So given that the Congress collectively doesn't seem to answer to the people, and collectively doesn't uphold its oath, I would argue that his whining is incredibly justified.
It's not productive in that it doesn't change a congressperson's mind about anything, nor does it get any of those criminals fired or impeached or un-elected. But it's not invalid.
EDIT: Congressmen -> Congressperson
Furthermore I shouldn't have to weigh in with my Congresspersons on whether I think something is Constitutional or not. Their job, literally, is to make law in accordance with the Constitution. Here's the oath they take:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Many elected officials have broken their oaths by passing the Patriot Act or the FISA Act as those authorize blanket warrants; something that the Constitution implicitly prohibits by virtue of the Fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]"
That's the text and you don't get to judge the current laws based on the original text plus all the intervening laws too; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if any law contradicts it, guess which one is considered invalid?
So given that the Congress collectively doesn't seem to answer to the people, and collectively doesn't uphold its oath, I would argue that his whining is incredibly justified.
It's not productive in that it doesn't change a congressperson's mind about anything, nor does it get any of those criminals fired or impeached or un-elected. But it's not invalid.
EDIT: Congressmen -> Congressperson
> Part of his complaint, though he didn't state it, is that it's just too damn hard to get the elected officials to ACTUALLY REPRESENT the people who they SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENT. And I think that's a fair criticism of our government, the officials answer more to their corporate sponsors (who largely don't mind tending towards actively support) this kind of thing, rather than to the people.
As politically apathetic as the American population is now, we are a part of the problem. Our reps certainly have their problems, but let's not pretend like we're not at fault either. Our apathy allowed things to get like they did. That doesn't make us all terrible people, it just means we need to do more as citizens to keep our crooked politicians honest.
In the same time it takes to write some of these whiney posts, a letter could have been written or a call made. We can sit and debate whether the letter or the call did anything, or we could all just sack up and do it and potentially benefit from it.
As politically apathetic as the American population is now, we are a part of the problem. Our reps certainly have their problems, but let's not pretend like we're not at fault either. Our apathy allowed things to get like they did. That doesn't make us all terrible people, it just means we need to do more as citizens to keep our crooked politicians honest.
In the same time it takes to write some of these whiney posts, a letter could have been written or a call made. We can sit and debate whether the letter or the call did anything, or we could all just sack up and do it and potentially benefit from it.
Does a woman who wears revealing clothing deserve to get raped?
You're blaming the victim.
Yes we are responsible for not voting these criminals out of office, but that doesn't make what they do any less reprehensible. At least acknowledge that they're in the wrong. I also think it's terrible that it's our job to keep them honest. It's their job to keep themselves honest! That's why they were elected! If we can't trust them to be honest (and it seems clear to me that we can't) perhaps we ought to explore different ways of governing.
You're blaming the victim.
Yes we are responsible for not voting these criminals out of office, but that doesn't make what they do any less reprehensible. At least acknowledge that they're in the wrong. I also think it's terrible that it's our job to keep them honest. It's their job to keep themselves honest! That's why they were elected! If we can't trust them to be honest (and it seems clear to me that we can't) perhaps we ought to explore different ways of governing.
Here's the letter I wrote my Senator and House representative. I have not received a response and I sent it a couple weeks ago. I saw some posts about contacting your representative and just wanted to share what I said.
"Supposedly, one of the major founding principles of the United States of America was that every man was created equal. Everyone know's the quote,
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
Less known is a statement made my Thomas Jefferson:
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad governments result from too much government" at the time Jefferson's library was likely the largest in the U.S. was was the beginning of the library of congress (donated after his death).
I could go on, every single founding member of the United States felt the same, but I think you see my point. Our government, the United States government, was based on the idea that each person's liberty was the single most important right of each citizen. That includes your liberty and my liberty and every other persons liberty. That implies that I have no right to impede on a government officials liberty AND a government official does not have the right to impede mine, unless I interfere with another citizens liberty.
That, liberty and my inability to interfere with others and your inability to interfere with mine is the basis of our constitution and its amendments. Each and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is aimed at that goal. Yet, for some reason, I have to discuss these rights because apparently someone misread or did not read them at all.
My fourth amendment rights:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
have been violated. It is important for my government to protect these rights, if not simply to protect themselves. The law governing this land demands that those who deprive me of liberty be punished. Do you wish to be punished? I know I do not. I do not wish to be punished, therefore I do not impede on your liberty, I do not take any of your items, nor do I make you insecure in your persons, house, papers or effects. You trust me not to harm you... At least I thought you did?
Now, I come to learn that my government has impeded on my liberty by stalking me. Have I been charged with a crime? If so, what crime? Have I been suspected or has someone affirmed that I did something wrong? I no longer have the right not to be monitored by my cell phone company or my cable provider, but I signed an agreement to give up my privacy to them. In the case of the government, I agreed to the law of the land, the constitution. The government is not allowed access to my documents or personal effects without a warrant, requiring affirmation that I did something illegal or potentially to take away someones liberty. Since this is not the case I demand, yes demand, that you as a representative of the people of Illinois vote against anything allows others to break the law of the land (or search me illegally). Specifically, I demand that you do all in your power to stop all domestic spying operations.
Your oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
I expect you to uphold your oath and protect my rights, your rights, your sons rights, your grandsons rights, and the rights of all United States citizens. If you do not, you are nothing more than an enemy of state yourself. It was you who volunteered to protect me, if you fail to a foreign threat I can understand that. However, I will not understand if you knowingly harm me by reducing my rights as a citizen."
"Supposedly, one of the major founding principles of the United States of America was that every man was created equal. Everyone know's the quote,
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
Less known is a statement made my Thomas Jefferson:
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad governments result from too much government" at the time Jefferson's library was likely the largest in the U.S. was was the beginning of the library of congress (donated after his death).
I could go on, every single founding member of the United States felt the same, but I think you see my point. Our government, the United States government, was based on the idea that each person's liberty was the single most important right of each citizen. That includes your liberty and my liberty and every other persons liberty. That implies that I have no right to impede on a government officials liberty AND a government official does not have the right to impede mine, unless I interfere with another citizens liberty.
That, liberty and my inability to interfere with others and your inability to interfere with mine is the basis of our constitution and its amendments. Each and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is aimed at that goal. Yet, for some reason, I have to discuss these rights because apparently someone misread or did not read them at all.
My fourth amendment rights:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
have been violated. It is important for my government to protect these rights, if not simply to protect themselves. The law governing this land demands that those who deprive me of liberty be punished. Do you wish to be punished? I know I do not. I do not wish to be punished, therefore I do not impede on your liberty, I do not take any of your items, nor do I make you insecure in your persons, house, papers or effects. You trust me not to harm you... At least I thought you did?
Now, I come to learn that my government has impeded on my liberty by stalking me. Have I been charged with a crime? If so, what crime? Have I been suspected or has someone affirmed that I did something wrong? I no longer have the right not to be monitored by my cell phone company or my cable provider, but I signed an agreement to give up my privacy to them. In the case of the government, I agreed to the law of the land, the constitution. The government is not allowed access to my documents or personal effects without a warrant, requiring affirmation that I did something illegal or potentially to take away someones liberty. Since this is not the case I demand, yes demand, that you as a representative of the people of Illinois vote against anything allows others to break the law of the land (or search me illegally). Specifically, I demand that you do all in your power to stop all domestic spying operations.
Your oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
I expect you to uphold your oath and protect my rights, your rights, your sons rights, your grandsons rights, and the rights of all United States citizens. If you do not, you are nothing more than an enemy of state yourself. It was you who volunteered to protect me, if you fail to a foreign threat I can understand that. However, I will not understand if you knowingly harm me by reducing my rights as a citizen."
The good news is that it failed to pass by a slim margin. This will probably fail to pass as well. My hope is that it will fail by a slim margin as well, and my dream is that opponents of overreach (both in the house and activists) will take this as an opportunity that they narrowly missed on the last vote and seize it.
At any rate, I hope anybody complaining about these programs on here has already contacted their representatives by phone and is continuing to do so as these bills are introduced and debated. Please.