Reform Government Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#161

Post by tptacek » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 1:25 PM UTC

couchand wrote: post #159

rayiner wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No amount of tech industry pr can facilitate a comeback from that. Almost half of the people in this country will always see Snowden as a traitor. Your post is absolutely right, and the people responding to you really fail to capture the dynamic existing in American society. The nature of the American public is that it is willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but will view with intense skepticism…

This is not the same "surveillance apparatus [that] saw America through the Cold War." It's simply not comparable to even just fifteen years ago. The changes in technology and the self-satisfied attitude of the spooks have changed the game entirely. Half of the people in this country are deluding themselves just like you.

It is ahistorical and (perversely) wishful to suggest that communications surveillance in the 1950s was less onerous to the civilian population than it is today. During the heyday of the Cold War, no police force needed a court order to wiretap a phone; the notion of wiretap authorization dates back to, what, 1968?

Today, we have rumors and gossip about NSA analysts "training" on Obama's comms in the early '00s. During the Cold War, the FBI brazenly monitored and transcribed all calls to various public figures and then blackmailed them: see Martin Luther King.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#162

Post by kogarou » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 1:42 PM UTC

znowi wrote: post #160

I feel a bit uneasy that the undersigned are all PRISM companies. All 8 of them. They seem to stick together and not mix with outsiders. Note that there's already a similar initiative launched by Mozilla called Stop Watching Us [1]. None of the PRISM companies signed it. Instead, they filed a petition (of little value, but with a big pomp) to allow for full FISA order statistics be published. Which was denied, incide…

Not Twitter. Unless you have a source?

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#163

Post by rmc » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #67

Regardless of your opinion on the leaks, this marks something really interesting in the course of history. Communications is one of the few services that governments co-opt indirectly. Lockheed Martin knows it's building war jets. But here, the signatories didn't set out to build government surveillance engines, it was required of them after it became clear how useful they could be. Their response could set the tone…

I'm curious if it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else.

One theory: Most of the telecos are mostly USA based companies, where as Google/Facebook/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple/Yahoo have a large amount of customers/business outside the USA.

So to some people outside the USA, it becomes "Don't use Google/Microsoft, the US Government can see what you do", which is different from US customers thinking "If you use this teleco, then your government can see what you do."

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#164

Post by rmc » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:02 PM UTC

TWAndrews wrote: post #35

tomphoolery wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We can make as many comparisons as we want but at the end of the day, if I don't like the way Facebook is doing their business I can just delete my account. I can't just delete my Social Security Number if I'm opposed to the US's continued investment into the war on drugs as well as its military strikes overseas. Nor can I really retaliate to a country on earth where I don't have to be afraid of the government…

It's also the stark differences in the consequences of misuse. Google can use my information to serve me diabolically targeted ads. The government can put me in jail. It's not that I trust Google more, it's that they have vastly less power to harm me even if their intentions are bad.

The US government can send a drone to kill you.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#165

Post by rmc » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:03 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #46

TWAndrews wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the stark differences in the consequences of misuse. Google can use my information to serve me diabolically targeted ads. The government can put me in jail. It's not that I trust Google more, it's that they have vastly less power to harm me even if their intentions are bad.

The difference is quite subtle, if any. I'm not even sure why you are afraid of government stalking. After all, government is prevented by the rule of law from arbitrarily throw you in jail. For every reason you are afraid of government, you should be afraid of corporation X. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that corporation X will not collude with the government to do you harm 10 years from now. These corporations…

Actually much of the US law only applies to people in the USA. The US 'rule of law' doesn't stop the US government from spying on non-US-citizens like me. I have no "fourth amendment rights"

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#166

Post by rmc » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #104

pavs wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 what…

Then you can use NoScript or Ghosterly

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#167

Post by rayiner » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:06 PM UTC

couchand wrote: post #159

rayiner wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No amount of tech industry pr can facilitate a comeback from that. Almost half of the people in this country will always see Snowden as a traitor. Your post is absolutely right, and the people responding to you really fail to capture the dynamic existing in American society. The nature of the American public is that it is willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but will view with intense skepticism…

This is not the same "surveillance apparatus [that] saw America through the Cold War." It's simply not comparable to even just fifteen years ago. The changes in technology and the self-satisfied attitude of the spooks have changed the game entirely. Half of the people in this country are deluding themselves just like you.

Here's the thing: I don't even disagree with you. But "technology changes everything" is an argument that, while it resonates with a certain subset of people, is simply not compelling standing alone to many others. The tech community has the challenge of explaining to a generation that went from black & white TV to smart phones (and saw manned space travel, supersonic aircraft, and the nuclear arms race in-between), why in this case the change in technology yields a change in the very nature of surveillance. And everything I've seen linked on HN on this topic fails dismally in articulating this case in a way that doesn't presuppose an audience that already agrees with the anti-surveillance position.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#168

Post by 001sky » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

eordano wrote: post #148

ash wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on… Apple's logo appear at the bottom of "An open letter to Washington".

I wonder why doesn't it show up on the top of the page

Yes, thats ~weird how they are two sets and apple omits contributing a 'voice' in support. I stand corrected on the point cetainly, wrt the letter at the end.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#169

Post by teddyh » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #166

teddyh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 what…

Then you can use NoScript or Ghosterly

Still does not help with Facebook or Google+, YouTube, etc.

Re: Reform Government Surveillance

#170

Post by 001sky » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 2:32 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #152

Joeboy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a smaller difference when it's a business collecting data on the entire population.

Businesses cannot lock people in prison or send teams of soldiers in to arrest people. Businesses cannot (legally) send people or robots to assassinate others. I think there is a very big difference between businesses collecting information and governments collecting information -- because governments can do substantially more damage. (Full disclosure: I currently work for one of the companies on the list.)

The counter argument is (1) private companies can provide this information to whomevere they choose...including the government or a subset therof; and (2) once it is amassed, the government can compel access via the courts quite easliy.