Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reform Government Surveillance

reformgovernmentsurveillance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 223 posts

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#101

Post by adventured »

olalonde wrote: post #85
adventured wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping to see Amazon.com signed on to this as well, given their substantial position in cloud computing, and their likely future influence being even greater.

The fact that the CIA is one of their largest AWS customer might be playing a role. http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitula...

Yeah that's a suspicion on my part as well. Same reason we'll never see Oracle on a list like this. In the recent interview with Charlie Rose, Ellison wouldn't even remotely come close to challenging what the NSA was doing (he also pulled a cheap dodge by saying the great thing about living in a democracy is the people can do something about it if they want to).

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#102

Post by anoncowherd »

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past?

Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!".. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers?

If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? What about politicians in a democracy? Will/can they watch their peers, or is it more likely they'll just collude in corruption?

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#103

Post by ash »

001sky wrote: post #79
pg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relati…

I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. NOt that i disagree, but I do think if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on this it would remove the stigma of self-dealing. If the "tech industry" was more broadly represented (and included say, Stanford & MIT) again this would be a much more powerful statement. But the reality, is that SV lives off of the governmnet in many indirect ways (nasa…

> …if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on…

Apple's logo appear at the bottom of "An open letter to Washington".

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#104

Post by teddyh »

pavs wrote: post #70
molecule wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-46280830-1', 'reformgovernmentsurveillance.com'); ga('send', 'pageview');

https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

This only makes the owner of the page with the analytics code on it not see your accesses, it does not in any way prevent Google to see all your accesses. And Google probably gives all their data to the NSA et al, anyway (be it officially or unofficially).

It’s the same misdirection tactics as talking about Facebook privacy controls – none of those controls prevents Facebook from seeing and recording it all. And whatever is recorded is probably passed on to the NSA.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#105

Post by Guest9821 »

pg wrote: post #40
teamgb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.

They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relati…

> I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.

I wouldn't say that. With news spreading about the NSA having access to your Google data, including your Gmail, people start to worry, and more importantly, they start to look towards alternatives. Google is getting a pretty bad reputation these days when it comes to user privacy, and this isn't helping their cause. This obviously affects their bottom line, and so they're looking for change.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#106

Post by zymhan »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #42
pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

This is a fulcrum for how Snowden is viewed by the populace; I find it all too easy to imagine the government symbolically caving in to this cause while still forcing Snowden personally to live out his life as a political refugee from the United States hiding from charges that never quite go away. And yes, getting imprisoned makes you less credible in the eyes of the public; people love a winner. :/

I never really considered that I would see in my lifetime two people be persecuted so strongly by the government for doing such a beneficial thing. This seems like more "1950's over-zealous anticommunism".

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#107

Post by adventured »

shin_lao wrote: post #87
pg wrote: post #19

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…

This is most likely a fake web site.

No. For example, Microsoft put out a public press release touting it.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#108

Post by zymhan »

anoncowherd wrote: post #102

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!" .. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? Wha…

> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers?

The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#109

Post by ash »

molecule wrote: post #17

It seems peculiar that Apple is a signatory: > Sincerely, > AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo and their logo appears in the listing @ the end of the page, but their logo isn't in the beginning of the page, and they don't provide a quote from their CEO nor legal counsel, per the other signing companies. Last-minute change of heart, lukewarm support...?

How can we check that the letter and the page were actually signed by these companies? What if it's all fake?

Update:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-iss...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-surveillanc...

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#110

Post by anoncowherd »

zymhan wrote: post #108
anoncowherd wrote: post #102

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!" .. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? Wha…

> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon)

So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened.

>> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't work all that well either. Neither does voting.

Post reply on HN