More on the NSA Commandeering the Internet

I think you make a good point.

I think we must also assume that protesting (both to our peers and our so-called "representatives") won't achieve much, at least for the foreseeable future. There's too much money being poured into the right pockets, and too many of the wrong people in the wrong places in government to dislodge. And even if this particular group of authoritarians are removed, there are plenty of replacements waiting in the wings to take their place.

For this reason, I think your first option ("build something that 'routes around' this") is the best. Granted, it's easy to hand-wave and say that this can be done -- but we cannot otherwise assume that the people and agencies which have lied to us in the past will quickly turn over a new leaf and respect our Constitutional rights. We must assume that they will continue to snoop on us, and respond appropriately: peacefully, and cleverly.

There's a lot these days that, in years past, would have sounded like something out of a tinfoil hat convention.

Yet, even some of the nuttiest, worst-case scenarios that people feared about in the wake of the Clipper Chip debacle have been surpassed by reality.

It boggles the mind.

Agreed. I've found him to be startlingly ignorant in declaiming on real world stuff I'm a domain expert in; he just doesn't realize it when reciting generic talking points.

In this article, he made a very clumsy attack on the current Internet ecosystem; there's a good case to be made for it (see other comments in the topic), but he didn't make it and sounds like a generic anti-business crank.

Which might be the truth, the really startling omission in this article is the ultimate fate of Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of the very nebulous crime of insider trading. Even if you think government was or might have been right about him, you ought to accept that a lot of executives will assume in this Three Felonies a Day legal environment that the government will get them some way, some how if they resist like Nacchio indisputably did.

> You can be compelled by the courts to actively perpetuate a lie?

tl;dr Yes, these NSL have compelled people to directly lie.

And I don't see why the courts couldn't do that, as lying isn't even a crime. Maintaining the posting isn't even actively telling a lie, you're just not changing anything from the way it was before. So I could definitely see the same court that authorized these sweeping movements also supporting prosecution if you tip your hand on these matters; it's national security on the line, after all!

And even if the courts wouldn't force you to lie, the FBI could still attempt to prosecute you for not lying, and for taking action that directly reveals your receipt of the letter. Even if the court is opposed to it, it will be a lengthy process, and because of "national security!" you may not even get that far. From the government's perspective, you're enabling terrorists through secret and underhanded messaging, so you're already behind the ball both in the judicial court and in the court of public opinion.

Take, for example, the necessarily anonymous writings from 2007 from an NSL recipient:

> Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

So yes, even the person who has done the most to stop NSL, has been compelled to lie directly to his friends and colleagues.

Exactly. "I'm not interesting" as a statement of safety has to mean: "I'm going to be very careful to spend the rest of my life not being interesting, and to make sure my family doesn't become interesting either." Otherwise it's just being an ostrich.

Of course, that's one of the aims of a surveillance state: if any word or action could be used against you, then people mainly police themselves.