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

Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

blog.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#51

Post by rmxt »

spot wrote: post #38
cryptoz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On NSA stories, the top HN comment is always "too bad. whatever. let the NSA do its thing." NO. This is not about you. This is not about your data. This is about our society's collective ability to think and act for itself. Blanket acceptance of surveillance is a dangerous attitude and shockingly common. Political efforts, technological efforts, societal changes are all required to keep democracy alive. And that's wh…

well if you love democracy so much you need to recognize that the majority is against you on this point.

>well if you love democracy so much you need to recognize that the majority is against you on this point.

Amazing how quick some people are to dismiss already acknowledged issues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Amongst the anti-surveillance faction, I think that a major gripe is that the feedback loops put in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority situation are being subverted, if not in the letter of the law, then in the spirit of the law.

How can elected officials have an even discussion regarding state surveillance when imperfect information abounds, and they themselves are kept in the dark from what is actually happening? That is to say nothing about the general population having a more direct say on what their government does on their behalf.

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#52

Post by mathetic »

scrrr wrote: post #11

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago…

>> The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it.

I can't disagree more. Just a few centuries ago slavery was not only ubiquitous but it was widely regarded as a god given right. Free man power was also a massive boost to economy but we abolished that just fine.

Naysayers will be proven wrong.

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#53

Post by jimktrains2 »

belorn wrote: post #45
Dorian-Marie wrote: post #19

The solution should be technical: You don't want to NSA to read your communications: encrypt them (eg: HTTPS everywhere, encryption built-in everywhere). And that's us, builders of technologies, that need to make that happen. Basically securing against the NSA is the same as securing against hackers, it should be treated as a security threat like any other.

HTTP/2 could have mandated that it would only be used under a encrypted connection. It could have added opportunistic encryption. The builders of technologies decided not to go that route. I wish they did, but we can't put all our eggs on the assumption that they will fix the situation for us.

TLS does nothing if the site owners hand over data.

Also, HTTP/2 is a horrible mess already. Encrypted channels should not be part of it. They are something separate and should be specified separately.

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#54

Post by daddykotex »

fragmede wrote: post #18

The EFF is surprisingly absent from this coalition. The other organizations listed as participating are: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America. From: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_...

I wonder why they are not part of it? Maybe they are prepping to do something on their own.

I'd like to see the NSA under fire from many opponents rather than just one.

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#55

Post by diafygi »

karmacondon wrote: post #44
chippy wrote: post #14

I have some sympathy for our fellow hackers who work as contractors or in big companies, many of them with security clearance. Database engineers, software developers, data experts - the five eyes intelligence agencies directly and indirectly fund many of you readers of HN. They might be becoming increasingly disillusioned with their chosen life and/or unable to change course. Perhaps the money is too good, perhaps t…

I have no problem voicing my beliefs publicly. I'm always more than willing to explain the policies of the NSA, and happy to denounce the actions of Edward Snowden. I don't think he was a traitor, by definition, but what he did was wrong. It isn't necessary to divulge confidential information, the situation is pretty clear. I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it wo…

> I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Every single lawsuit challenging mass surveillance has been resisted by the Executive on the basis of state secrets and lack of standing. The Executive is using a judicial tactic to avoid having to answer the question of whether these programs are constitutional. When that question is asked, it usually ends in the programs being illegal[1][2][3].

So if you're not afraid, would you mind answering some questions? One of the biggest problems I have right now is that your side simply stonewalls or deflects core questions thrown by my side. I would love to be convinced that what you're doing is right.

1) How are broad secret court[4] and non-court[5] orders constitutional? The 4th Amendment appears to only allow targeted warrants, so from where does the government draw this broad surveillance power? So far, the only legal defense been invoking the state secrets privilege[6], which prevents the core question from being addressed.

2) How is the DEA's parallel construction program[7] constitutional? This seems as if the DEA is not allowing a fair trail by withholding evidence from the defendant.

3) If you think the above are unconstitutional, why should they be allowed to exist? How can the rule of law persist with unclear or secret exceptions? Are there things that are more important than the rule of law? What possible impacts does this prioritization have?

I thought we should strive to live under a rule-of-law, and I feel like the Executive and their workers (including you) don't mind having a rule-of-man system. Please convince me otherwise.

[1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su...

[4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-a...

[5]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

[6]: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege

[7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#56

Post by dataker »

scrrr wrote: post #11

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago…

If you think in terms of technology, most issues affecting average US citizens come from a somewhat "undeveloped" technology. If they had a better ML architecture and more computing capabilities, "average Joes" would more likely not be harassed.

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#57

Post by diafygi »

fragmede wrote: post #18

The EFF is surprisingly absent from this coalition. The other organizations listed as participating are: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America. From: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_...

I'm guessing because they just got shot down on a similar challenge, which they will likely be appealing.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen...

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#58

Post by patcon »

scrrr wrote: post #11

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago…

I can't understand how you can ignore for your personal analysis that the majority of people /disapprove/ of the current surveillance practices[1]. People on this thread keep alluding to the majority not caring, but even if there's apathy in actions, I'm optimistic that at least most people viscerally know it's not right.

[1]: http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/10/29/survey-says-77-of-a...

Re: Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

#60

Post by Sven7 »

cjslep wrote: post #29
Sven7 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their opinions are bought and paid for. At current rates its 75 Billion dollars a year.

If you would like to put words in my mouth, please at least put the right ones in there for me. Otherwise, I'll take that $75 billion you are referring to and let you say whatever you want on my behalf. In all seriousness, you can support the Federal Government and still have constructive debates. EDIT: My point is no person is getting $75 billion just to shut up and have their opinion swayed. Being loyal to the Fede…

Good luck. That $75 Billion is only going up. It stops when we can't afford it. Until then everyone can keep debating all they want.

This script has already played out in the sphere of Nuclear Disarmament.

The day I take the defense and intelligence communities opinions seriously is the day they drastically change their goalposts. Spend the same amounts on world peace or just take the cash and prey on people's fear of the next ISIS or Boston bomber. Everybody knows what the easy choice is.

Post reply on HN