10 ms·

Do you have a secret?

432 points by chuckharmston 14y ago

tomku 14y ago
For a slightly more balanced take on it, check out the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and... There are definite problems with CISPA in regards to privacy, but a lot of the stuff on that "Do you have a secret?" page is just mindless FUD.
- alanh 14y ago
  > calls page mindless FUD when in fact there are specific examples cited on page > doesn’t back up own claims of FUD Hello?
  - tomku 14y ago
    Please explain how either of the examples (one is specific, one is not) have anything to do with CISPA. One was a traditional terrorism investigation that was horribly botched, while the other is a case in a foreign country with laws that are completely different (and much, much worse) than CISPA. Both qualify as FUD because their factual relevancy is extremely low, while their shock value is high. Their only use on the page is to scare visitors into going "Oh my god, that could happen to me!" so that they tell all their friends about all these terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do if we all don't oppose CISPA.
    - alanh 14y ago
      > Their only use on the page is to scare visitors into going "Oh my god, that could happen to me!" so that they tell all their friends about all these terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do if we all don't oppose CISPA. Sounds relevant to me. They’re just taking a big picture approach here, not focusing on CISPA. I think that’s okay.
tptacek 14y ago
Huh? What does any of this have to do with CISPA? There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people trying to manipulate you into opposing it.
- tomku 14y ago
  There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people trying to manipulate you into opposing it. This is something that really annoys me. It's incredibly frustrating to see people argue "on my side", but using reasons that are based almost entirely on FUD and hyperbole. It undermines that entire side of the argument, because people who aren't already on your side assume that if you had valid reasons, you wouldn't be resorting to manipulative exaggerations for shock value. Unfortunately, when the internet outrage machine is whipped up into a frenzy, people don't seem to care and will happily upvote and share anything that supports their side, even if it's completely full of shit.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    And what's worse is, this could have been a valid (if cheap and manipulative) exercise if they were just explicit about their position being "oppose all cyber-security legislation". But that's not what they're saying. They're saying oppose CISPA. You come pretty close to needing to oppose all cyber-security legislation if you strongly oppose CISPA.
  - wahsd 14y ago
    Unfortunately, while the sticklers insist on moral purity and perfect argument, they live in a world that operates on FUD and is grotesquely exploited and has become the modus operandi of our government, corporations, and fear mongering right. It is the reason that science and reason cannot take hold in many human societies, because there is a false equivalency of opposition. Opposing heinous attempts to control are not equivalent to opposing freedom, liberty, and self-determination.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Lies are lies.
shill 14y ago
Do you have a secret? Yes, I have many. Now can you tell all of your friends? No.
xbryanx 14y ago
Turn off soundtrack by default please.
- jmsduran 14y ago
  Yes I agree, Many software engineers frequent HN while on work breaks.
debacle 14y ago
This is just creating a database of informed CISPA dissenters. Wake up sheeple! </tinfoilhat> On a more serious note, this could have been presented much better. This gave me the same feeling as that semi-attractive girl in college stepping into your personal space to tell you all about how unjust mandated meal plans are.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  why does it give you that same feeling?
  - debacle 14y ago
    It's pandering to the lowest common denominator in an unprofessional and not entirely honest fashion, using shitty vectors (a soundtrack, really?).
    - reinhardt 14y ago
      To each his own. I found the presentation pretty well done and the soundtrack was a nice touch. Perhaps that's exactly why it could be seen as a problem; it is too appealing and thus "unprofessional" (i.e. not boring enough to cause one hit the back button midway through).
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Your first remark cuts right to my amusement at the real tinfoil hatters. 'Cause you know, if I thought every government and every corporation was conspiring against me, I sure wouldn't let them know I knew, let alone make a public spectacle of myself.
wavesounds 14y ago
The "Privacy Policy" button doesn't work ... how ironic.
- jblount 14y ago
  Sadly, that was my fault (I'm one of the developers over at FFTF). Thanks for the heads up! Sorry for the foolish mistake. For those playing along at home, here is our privacy policy: http://fightforthefuture.org/privacy http://fightforthefuture.org/privacy
rokhayakebe 14y ago
Would it not be easier to create tools to ensure your complete anonymity when online?
- crusso 14y ago
  Unfortunately, you can't fight battles like this on only one front. Ignoring bad, overreaching legislation but finding a technological way to fight back will result in law enforcement going to congress later saying, "You gave us the authority to take these broad measures, but technology prevents us from doing our jobs. We now need new laws that outlaw those technologies or give us new authority to circumvent them. Perhaps we need a law that forces hardware manufacturers to include our backdoors so we can track users hiding behind anonymizing technologies. We'll also need more funding to increase our manpower and research to stay ahead of the subversive technologies out there."
  - 385668 14y ago
    Precisely, especially with Anonymous' doings lately I've heard several senators express a desire to outlaw TOR in the US, ironic since we were so in favor of it's use in Egypt, and since we developed it for use by Chinese dissidents.
sxp 14y ago
It's really annoying when all these people complaining about bills like CISPA and other potentially dangerous bills don't actually mention why the bills are bad. Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill. So what in particular is bad about this bill? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text
- eschulte 14y ago
  start reading at section 701
- crusso 14y ago
  I object first and foremost to the obnoxious length of this bill. A while back, the Apple Safari team had a build system that would run performance tests against every code commit. If the commit degraded performance, it was ejected and the developer had to "fix" it. Sometimes that fix meant going into another totally different piece of code to improve the performance there so that the overall commit wouldn't degrade performance. Something like that should be required of congress. They should be required to constantly refactor laws so that the overall legislative burden upon society remains constant or maybe even decreases.
- anonymfus 14y ago
  >Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill. Direct quoting of something to prove something is "original research", then it's violation of Wikipedia's rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
  - Jtsummers 14y ago
    Directly quoting the law and citing the source of the law would not be "original research" in the context of your link. To quote your link: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material--such as facts, allegations, and ideas--for which no reliable, published sources exist. For example, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... includes the text of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. By your interpretation that would make it original research. Directly quoting a bill, citing the house.gov or whichever source, provides context for the ensuing discussion (pros and cons) which in turn should consist of a set of citations.
drucken 14y ago
I fail to see the link between the title plus domain of this site and opposing CISPA. I do not think I could even call it link bait. They may as well have called it, "doyoulovebluewhales.org"... Also, the soundtrack ruins its factual/informative presentation value and use of scripting for such a light site makes it feel unprofessional and insecure. Some of the content and flow of information is good though. But overall just too light, lowbrow and unconvincing if I was not a techie but otherwise had half a brain to care about issues like this.
- kristopolous 14y ago
  Ok, two things. The first element loaded here on the train was stop soundtrack ... that made me bounce as I thought "My mobile tethering will choke on this" and "I don't have headphones hooked up". * A lot of idle browsing come from idle time spent at coffee shops, libraries, and trains using low-power devices (e.g. netbooks, tablets, phones). If you want that to be your time then you have to play by those rules. Make sure your experience is acceptable for these scenarios. * People don't expect playing audio on page-load. If you are trying to shock, ok. But if you are trying to get a message across, and people are around other people they will bounce from your site or have to quickly press mute...you're forcing your user to be really reactive here. Instead of trying to understand the content, they are doing damage control. Think about your grandparents riding the subway reading the old-time newspaper or standing in line somewhere with the 25cent novel. Although our media today has changed, the purpose of the content consumption really hasn't. Make sure you captivate people in analogous ways. Second, the domain made me think it was a reboot of "post-secret". You can go with a goofy or an intriguing domain as long as you deliver something that matches the level of goof or intrigue. The delivery here is ok ... being on HN, I just expected more I guess.
  - 385668 14y ago
    Exactly, if there's one thing I don't miss from mid 90's internet it's embedded, can't be turned off audio. And, as you pointed out, I also thought it was going to be a post-secret type thing or news story about how common certain 'secrets' are. That most of the 'facts' present are at best tangentially related to what the bill allows just made it worse.
rahulmitra 14y ago
if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  Live streaming webcam from your bedroom please. If you're not doing anything illegal in there, you're happy to do that, I assume?
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Godwin, I know, but someone probably said that to Europe's Jews in the early 1930s.
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  Also true in the most oppressive regimes.
- shill 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
vinhboy 14y ago
Ok. I guess I was the only one who enjoyed the site and soundtrack. I thought it was rather creative. My only complaint is the scrolling is a bit broken.
larrys 14y ago
I question how seriously people would have taken this website if it was designed based on "ransom note" 1990's design standards. And wasn't operated by the age group that has taken up these causes. It draws attention to the "Center for Rights" http://fightforthefuture.org/ http://fightforthefuture.org/ and on that page there are a bunch of hipsters http://fightforthefuture.org/#staff http://fightforthefuture.org/#staff who know how to play things to the media and get taken seriously. Certainly a case at the very least for the importance of good design.
ctdonath 14y ago
Makes me consider that ObamaCare compels everyone to give the government their medical records. Yeah, I'd consider those secrets subject to 4th Amendment protection.
- Hoff 14y ago
  Citation, please?
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Bullshit. http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/10/riskadjust10132011.html http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/10/riskadjust10132011.ht... http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/187467-gop-obama-administration-wants-your-medical-records http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implement...
- _pius 14y ago
  Don't believe everything Glenn Beck tells you.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    s/everything/anything
- koeselitz 14y ago
  This is flatly not true. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions to encourage - not compel - doctors to use electronic medical records; I really don't think this is such a ridiculous thing, and as someone who's work on medical data before I really think it's becoming more and more necessary to keep costs down. Here's a citation from someone who is concerned about security but who explains correctly that the Affordable Care Act in no way forces anyone to hand over medical records to "the government" : http://claireshealthlawblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/electronic-health-record-systems-security-breaches/ http://claireshealthlawblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/electro...
ap22213 14y ago
This site showed me nothing about the bill in question. I would have liked at least a few references to sections of the bill that are considered bad. Anyway, a link to the bill is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2105pcs http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2105pcs
robotmachine 14y ago
No, I don't have a secret. That isn't really what privacy is about. You don't have to have something to hide in order to not want everything you do/say and everywhere you go tracked. This makes it seem like everyone is hiding a folder full of kiddie porn or emails from their other girlfriend and therefore that is why you should care about privacy protection.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I think the key here is the ability of massive surveillance to be used to find something to use to prosecute "bad guys" especially when combined with vague laws. Really, everyone needs to read "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Exhibit A: The Lori Drew prosecution. A lot of people thought that because she did something bad, that we should find something to charge her with, so the US attorney in California charged her with unauthorized access to MySpace's computer systems for the "crime" of violating their terms of service. After she was convicted of misdemeanor and acquitted of felony charges, the judge held the law was too vague as applied and threw out the convictions. Exhibit B: The Daniel Hurwitz prosecution. Here was a doctor following exactly what the DEA's public guidance was, who was prosecuted and eventually convicted on the basis that he had some knowledge of the statistical certainty that some of his patients were selling narcotics on the street from his prescriptions. And indeed when the defence noted that they had the DEA's public guidance to submit into evidence the DEA's response was to remove it from their web site. The fact is that total surveillance + vague laws is exactly what the USSR used to lock people up and exactly what China uses to lock people up. The comparison to China on the page in question is actually a very good one.
stretchwithme 14y ago
Instead of always trying to get the government to listen to its citizens, wouldn't it be better if it were required to seek OUR approval for new legislation?
- untog 14y ago
  What do you think elections are? I realise that sounds sarcastic, but really- we have a democratic system for a reason. No, it doesn't work perfectly, but whole point is that they are representatives of us.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    Democratic? Really? Are we still kidding yourselves that we have some sort of democracy? Oh man. Representatives of "us"? Oh, you donated millions to an election fund, right? No? Oh, OK then, you're a lobbyist, backed by millions? No. Ah well, they aint representing you then. We are sold government in the same way tobacco companies sold tobacco in the past. Lies, misrepresentation, half truths, and attacks on the other brand. And because advertising is so powerful, yes it is, you think you are part of it. You're not, you are pawns. Necessary to get the "important" pieces in to position, but in the end, sacrificed at will for their greater good. Your jobs, homes, mortgages, businesses, financial health, health, all there for the taking so that those at the top can get rich, or as the banks have shown, survive and keep their bonuses. Its a filthy pyramid scheme, that we are conned in to supporting. Sorry, democracy is a myth. I assume its worse in the US.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      So what do you propose instead? Direct vote on every issue?
      - 385668 14y ago
        It would be an interesting thought, certainly I'd be willing to entertain the idea of some kind of e-voting system, wherein people could, at very least, keep a running poll for each senator/representative in their jurisdiction regarding each piece of legislation, maybe make it an electoral college/delegate thing. Accurate information is hard to come by in those regards, so a lot of politicians vote the way they've voted for decades because they assume people still believe what they did when they first ran for election. Additionally, I'm intrigued by the Pirate Parties' "liquid feedback" system, which allows people to have a back and forth with their representatives and each other, in addition to being able to vote on the party platform.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
misiti3780 14y ago
bug - the information form at the bottom of the page is missing validation.
jrockway 14y ago
Brandon Mayfield was arrested as a material witness, not as a suspect. The problem here is the increasing use of material witness warrants to arrest people suspected of a crime, rather than actually getting an arrest warrant. According to Wikipedia, "Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology from the U.S. government and a $2 million settlement." I'll be honest: I feel like I'm being swindled by doyouhaveasecret.org. Instead of presenting me with facts, they're relying on emotion and hearsay. And that's just as bad as the government wanting to search my laptop. The EFF's campaign is a more mature: https://cyberspying.eff.org/ https://cyberspying.eff.org/
- malandrew 14y ago
  The sad part is that the people we have to convince that these laws are a bad idea will only be swayed by emotion. It's emotion that convinced them to support bills like this and it is going to take an appeal to emotion to convince them otherwise. It sucks to admit that, but it's how many humans work.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "the people we have to convince that these laws are a bad idea will only be swayed by emotion" While ridding yourself of the core of supporters turned off by campaigns based on more emotion than fact?
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Fine. Those people will instead support the EFF. There is a "market" for this advocacy media and producing material supporting a viewpoint but in different formats appealing to difference audiences is called market segmentation. Just because people are turned off by this advertising, doesn't mean they will be turned off from supporting this cause. They'll still support it, but via other means, such as the EFF.
  - kingkawn 14y ago
    Physicians contended for a long time that they were too educated, thoughtful, and professional to be swayed by advertising and other promotional efforts that were not directly related to efficacy and cost of drugs: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192314 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192314 Nobody is immune to advertising, PR, or emotional appeals. Some of us are more/less impacted by specific types of advertising, but we are all susceptible. Including the people in this community.
vyrotek 14y ago
Hmm, I'm in trouble. The new NSA Data Center in Utah is being built just down the street from my house.
mattmaroon 14y ago
I really don't like propaganda. I don't need you trying to whip me into hysteria. Just tell me what the CISPA does that you think is so bad and let me decide.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  let me decide I don't think you understand how modern politics work.
hollerith 14y ago
No need to shout :) (That is my reaction to the graphical design of the page.)
Tangaroa 14y ago
Wait a minute. We're supposed to be upset that the feds took a guy's computer after they matched his fingerprints to a bomb bag used in the Madrid train bombings that killed almost 200 people? And we're supposed to believe this was ethnic harassment because "he is a muslim"? If any police anywhere find near-conclusive proof that you killed 200 people, it doesn't matter if you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. They just might take your computer away from you. It turns out the fingerprints belonged to somebody else. Blame it on faulty software and faultier human interpretation. This scaremongering about routine evidence-gathering is socially irresponsible.
- cheez 14y ago
  > Blame it on faulty software and faultier human interpretation So you mean blame it on no one but a man's life gets destroyed. And you wonder why they get away with murder...
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Something bad happens, and the first thing on your mind is, "We have to blame this on somebody!" And you wonder why America is mocked as such a litigious country...
    - skunkworks 14y ago
      It is a common coping mechanism to find arbitrary things to blame in tragedies where there isn't one. It's part of our rational mind to find meaning and patterns in the natural world. We do this to understand. It's often wrong -- our eyes turn clouds into animals and mere static into design. This is not endemic to America.
    - MichaelApproved 14y ago
      Im always surprised by peoples aversion for trying to put blame on someone or some thing. Finding where the fault was is part of the process to make sure an error doesn't happen again. I think there's confusion with the "blame game". As in, once you can blame someone, the problem is over and solved but that's just the start to solving the problem. I always want to know who did something wrong and how it happened so we could work to prevent it from happening again in the future.
yefim323 14y ago
Instead of simply displaying the phonenumbers of the local Congressmen, they could use a simple Grassroutes widget (http://grassroutes.us/ http://grassroutes.us/). OccupyWallSt.org and Twitpic.com used the widget during the SOPA blackout.
BryanB55 14y ago
I'm curious if sites like this even work? There was a lot of them back when SOPA was a bigger deal and you signup, put in your email and it has some canned letter that gets emailed to your senator. If I was a senator getting these I'd filter them all to go to the trash. Unless we are using this method as some type of voting system now. It just seems like there should be a better more personal way than "spam the shit out of your senator".
- 385668 14y ago
  As a result of all the letters I've sent my representative in the last six months I received a letter from him (Fortenberry, R-NE) asking if I'd like to attend a Q&A with him next week.
xp3ll3d 14y ago
In Australia, the government is trying to grant their security organisation (ASIO) permission to read citizens emails, monitor web behaviour, etc. There is a similar petition for Australians to sign http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/ http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-res...
s-phi-nl 14y ago
Flagged as political.
abalashov 14y ago
I am never sure just how much point there is to opposing such bills, due to my assumption that intelligence agencies always have and always will have all the indiscriminate access to domestic communications that they want. I think even publicised history provides more than abundant examples of that. If there is a real fight, it is over criminal procedure, rules of evidence, and other things useful in more banal dealings with law enforcement, and thus having some bearing on the juridical outcome in the event that one is prosecuted (or persecuted) on the basis of some illegal surveillance technique. In other words, you could get acquitted of dealing drugs if the state's main evidence against you is something obtained through warrantless electronic surveillance, and that surveillance is illegal. And that's important. But why is it important? It's important because it's small stuff, not the kind of stuff governments would throw national-level resources like NSA supercomputers at. So, the argument is really about the gaps, not the fringes. As far as terrorism and national security-type activities go, it seems to me they already have unlimited _de facto_ authority, capability, and inclination to spy on you all they want, and that this has more or less always been true. Thus, I find that the rhetoric is a bit off. This isn't about stopping the government having "access to your e-mails". They already have that, in principle. With enough initiative and spiritual commitment, they can track you, read your e-mail, and listen to your voice communications. The real objective ought to be framed more precisely, perhaps something like: "There shouldn't be a law that goes out of its way to grant unto pedestrian police the formal sanction to employ surveillance capabilities hitherto the province of spooky intelligence agencies". However, that's a lot harder to sell.
grumps 14y ago
It would be nice if you'd provide DC in the list too. We have a senator, they just don't vote.

432 points by chuckharmston 14y ago

tomku 14y ago

For a slightly more balanced take on it, check out the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and... There are definite problems with CISPA in regards to privacy, but a lot of the stuff on that "Do you have a secret?" page is just mindless FUD.

alanh 14y ago
> calls page mindless FUD when in fact there are specific examples cited on page > doesn’t back up own claims of FUD Hello?
- tomku 14y ago
  Please explain how either of the examples (one is specific, one is not) have anything to do with CISPA. One was a traditional terrorism investigation that was horribly botched, while the other is a case in a foreign country with laws that are completely different (and much, much worse) than CISPA. Both qualify as FUD because their factual relevancy is extremely low, while their shock value is high. Their only use on the page is to scare visitors into going "Oh my god, that could happen to me!" so that they tell all their friends about all these terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do if we all don't oppose CISPA.
  - alanh 14y ago
    > Their only use on the page is to scare visitors into going "Oh my god, that could happen to me!" so that they tell all their friends about all these terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do if we all don't oppose CISPA. Sounds relevant to me. They’re just taking a big picture approach here, not focusing on CISPA. I think that’s okay.

tptacek 14y ago

Huh? What does any of this have to do with CISPA? There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people trying to manipulate you into opposing it.

tomku 14y ago
There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people trying to manipulate you into opposing it. This is something that really annoys me. It's incredibly frustrating to see people argue "on my side", but using reasons that are based almost entirely on FUD and hyperbole. It undermines that entire side of the argument, because people who aren't already on your side assume that if you had valid reasons, you wouldn't be resorting to manipulative exaggerations for shock value. Unfortunately, when the internet outrage machine is whipped up into a frenzy, people don't seem to care and will happily upvote and share anything that supports their side, even if it's completely full of shit.
- tptacek 14y ago
  And what's worse is, this could have been a valid (if cheap and manipulative) exercise if they were just explicit about their position being "oppose all cyber-security legislation". But that's not what they're saying. They're saying oppose CISPA. You come pretty close to needing to oppose all cyber-security legislation if you strongly oppose CISPA.
- wahsd 14y ago
  Unfortunately, while the sticklers insist on moral purity and perfect argument, they live in a world that operates on FUD and is grotesquely exploited and has become the modus operandi of our government, corporations, and fear mongering right. It is the reason that science and reason cannot take hold in many human societies, because there is a false equivalency of opposition. Opposing heinous attempts to control are not equivalent to opposing freedom, liberty, and self-determination.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Lies are lies.

shill 14y ago

Do you have a secret? Yes, I have many. Now can you tell all of your friends? No.

xbryanx 14y ago

Turn off soundtrack by default please.

jmsduran 14y ago
Yes I agree, Many software engineers frequent HN while on work breaks.

debacle 14y ago

This is just creating a database of informed CISPA dissenters. Wake up sheeple! </tinfoilhat> On a more serious note, this could have been presented much better. This gave me the same feeling as that semi-attractive girl in college stepping into your personal space to tell you all about how unjust mandated meal plans are.

AznHisoka 14y ago
why does it give you that same feeling?
- debacle 14y ago
  It's pandering to the lowest common denominator in an unprofessional and not entirely honest fashion, using shitty vectors (a soundtrack, really?).
  - reinhardt 14y ago
    To each his own. I found the presentation pretty well done and the soundtrack was a nice touch. Perhaps that's exactly why it could be seen as a problem; it is too appealing and thus "unprofessional" (i.e. not boring enough to cause one hit the back button midway through).
sliverstorm 14y ago
Your first remark cuts right to my amusement at the real tinfoil hatters. 'Cause you know, if I thought every government and every corporation was conspiring against me, I sure wouldn't let them know I knew, let alone make a public spectacle of myself.

wavesounds 14y ago

The "Privacy Policy" button doesn't work ... how ironic.

jblount 14y ago
Sadly, that was my fault (I'm one of the developers over at FFTF). Thanks for the heads up! Sorry for the foolish mistake. For those playing along at home, here is our privacy policy: http://fightforthefuture.org/privacy http://fightforthefuture.org/privacy

rokhayakebe 14y ago

Would it not be easier to create tools to ensure your complete anonymity when online?

crusso 14y ago
Unfortunately, you can't fight battles like this on only one front. Ignoring bad, overreaching legislation but finding a technological way to fight back will result in law enforcement going to congress later saying, "You gave us the authority to take these broad measures, but technology prevents us from doing our jobs. We now need new laws that outlaw those technologies or give us new authority to circumvent them. Perhaps we need a law that forces hardware manufacturers to include our backdoors so we can track users hiding behind anonymizing technologies. We'll also need more funding to increase our manpower and research to stay ahead of the subversive technologies out there."
- 385668 14y ago
  Precisely, especially with Anonymous' doings lately I've heard several senators express a desire to outlaw TOR in the US, ironic since we were so in favor of it's use in Egypt, and since we developed it for use by Chinese dissidents.

sxp 14y ago

It's really annoying when all these people complaining about bills like CISPA and other potentially dangerous bills don't actually mention why the bills are bad. Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill. So what in particular is bad about this bill? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text

eschulte 14y ago
start reading at section 701
crusso 14y ago
I object first and foremost to the obnoxious length of this bill. A while back, the Apple Safari team had a build system that would run performance tests against every code commit. If the commit degraded performance, it was ejected and the developer had to "fix" it. Sometimes that fix meant going into another totally different piece of code to improve the performance there so that the overall commit wouldn't degrade performance. Something like that should be required of congress. They should be required to constantly refactor laws so that the overall legislative burden upon society remains constant or maybe even decreases.
anonymfus 14y ago
>Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill. Direct quoting of something to prove something is "original research", then it's violation of Wikipedia's rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  Directly quoting the law and citing the source of the law would not be "original research" in the context of your link. To quote your link: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material--such as facts, allegations, and ideas--for which no reliable, published sources exist. For example, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... includes the text of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. By your interpretation that would make it original research. Directly quoting a bill, citing the house.gov or whichever source, provides context for the ensuing discussion (pros and cons) which in turn should consist of a set of citations.

drucken 14y ago

I fail to see the link between the title plus domain of this site and opposing CISPA. I do not think I could even call it link bait. They may as well have called it, "doyoulovebluewhales.org"... Also, the soundtrack ruins its factual/informative presentation value and use of scripting for such a light site makes it feel unprofessional and insecure. Some of the content and flow of information is good though. But overall just too light, lowbrow and unconvincing if I was not a techie but otherwise had half a brain to care about issues like this.

kristopolous 14y ago
Ok, two things. The first element loaded here on the train was stop soundtrack ... that made me bounce as I thought "My mobile tethering will choke on this" and "I don't have headphones hooked up". * A lot of idle browsing come from idle time spent at coffee shops, libraries, and trains using low-power devices (e.g. netbooks, tablets, phones). If you want that to be your time then you have to play by those rules. Make sure your experience is acceptable for these scenarios. * People don't expect playing audio on page-load. If you are trying to shock, ok. But if you are trying to get a message across, and people are around other people they will bounce from your site or have to quickly press mute...you're forcing your user to be really reactive here. Instead of trying to understand the content, they are doing damage control. Think about your grandparents riding the subway reading the old-time newspaper or standing in line somewhere with the 25cent novel. Although our media today has changed, the purpose of the content consumption really hasn't. Make sure you captivate people in analogous ways. Second, the domain made me think it was a reboot of "post-secret". You can go with a goofy or an intriguing domain as long as you deliver something that matches the level of goof or intrigue. The delivery here is ok ... being on HN, I just expected more I guess.
- 385668 14y ago
  Exactly, if there's one thing I don't miss from mid 90's internet it's embedded, can't be turned off audio. And, as you pointed out, I also thought it was going to be a post-secret type thing or news story about how common certain 'secrets' are. That most of the 'facts' present are at best tangentially related to what the bill allows just made it worse.

rahulmitra 14y ago

if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear.

EliRivers 14y ago
Live streaming webcam from your bedroom please. If you're not doing anything illegal in there, you're happy to do that, I assume?
ceejayoz 14y ago
Godwin, I know, but someone probably said that to Europe's Jews in the early 1930s.
stretchwithme 14y ago
Also true in the most oppressive regimes.
shill 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

vinhboy 14y ago

Ok. I guess I was the only one who enjoyed the site and soundtrack. I thought it was rather creative. My only complaint is the scrolling is a bit broken.

larrys 14y ago

I question how seriously people would have taken this website if it was designed based on "ransom note" 1990's design standards. And wasn't operated by the age group that has taken up these causes. It draws attention to the "Center for Rights" http://fightforthefuture.org/ http://fightforthefuture.org/ and on that page there are a bunch of hipsters http://fightforthefuture.org/#staff http://fightforthefuture.org/#staff who know how to play things to the media and get taken seriously. Certainly a case at the very least for the importance of good design.

ctdonath 14y ago

Makes me consider that ObamaCare compels everyone to give the government their medical records. Yeah, I'd consider those secrets subject to 4th Amendment protection.

Hoff 14y ago
Citation, please?
ceejayoz 14y ago
Bullshit. http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/10/riskadjust10132011.html http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/10/riskadjust10132011.ht... http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/187467-gop-obama-administration-wants-your-medical-records http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implement...
_pius 14y ago
Don't believe everything Glenn Beck tells you.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  s/everything/anything
koeselitz 14y ago
This is flatly not true. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions to encourage - not compel - doctors to use electronic medical records; I really don't think this is such a ridiculous thing, and as someone who's work on medical data before I really think it's becoming more and more necessary to keep costs down. Here's a citation from someone who is concerned about security but who explains correctly that the Affordable Care Act in no way forces anyone to hand over medical records to "the government" : http://claireshealthlawblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/electronic-health-record-systems-security-breaches/ http://claireshealthlawblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/electro...

ap22213 14y ago

This site showed me nothing about the bill in question. I would have liked at least a few references to sections of the bill that are considered bad. Anyway, a link to the bill is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2105pcs http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2105pcs

robotmachine 14y ago

No, I don't have a secret. That isn't really what privacy is about. You don't have to have something to hide in order to not want everything you do/say and everywhere you go tracked. This makes it seem like everyone is hiding a folder full of kiddie porn or emails from their other girlfriend and therefore that is why you should care about privacy protection.

einhverfr 14y ago
I think the key here is the ability of massive surveillance to be used to find something to use to prosecute "bad guys" especially when combined with vague laws. Really, everyone needs to read "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Exhibit A: The Lori Drew prosecution. A lot of people thought that because she did something bad, that we should find something to charge her with, so the US attorney in California charged her with unauthorized access to MySpace's computer systems for the "crime" of violating their terms of service. After she was convicted of misdemeanor and acquitted of felony charges, the judge held the law was too vague as applied and threw out the convictions. Exhibit B: The Daniel Hurwitz prosecution. Here was a doctor following exactly what the DEA's public guidance was, who was prosecuted and eventually convicted on the basis that he had some knowledge of the statistical certainty that some of his patients were selling narcotics on the street from his prescriptions. And indeed when the defence noted that they had the DEA's public guidance to submit into evidence the DEA's response was to remove it from their web site. The fact is that total surveillance + vague laws is exactly what the USSR used to lock people up and exactly what China uses to lock people up. The comparison to China on the page in question is actually a very good one.

stretchwithme 14y ago

Instead of always trying to get the government to listen to its citizens, wouldn't it be better if it were required to seek OUR approval for new legislation?

untog 14y ago
What do you think elections are? I realise that sounds sarcastic, but really- we have a democratic system for a reason. No, it doesn't work perfectly, but whole point is that they are representatives of us.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Democratic? Really? Are we still kidding yourselves that we have some sort of democracy? Oh man. Representatives of "us"? Oh, you donated millions to an election fund, right? No? Oh, OK then, you're a lobbyist, backed by millions? No. Ah well, they aint representing you then. We are sold government in the same way tobacco companies sold tobacco in the past. Lies, misrepresentation, half truths, and attacks on the other brand. And because advertising is so powerful, yes it is, you think you are part of it. You're not, you are pawns. Necessary to get the "important" pieces in to position, but in the end, sacrificed at will for their greater good. Your jobs, homes, mortgages, businesses, financial health, health, all there for the taking so that those at the top can get rich, or as the banks have shown, survive and keep their bonuses. Its a filthy pyramid scheme, that we are conned in to supporting. Sorry, democracy is a myth. I assume its worse in the US.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    So what do you propose instead? Direct vote on every issue?
    - 385668 14y ago
      It would be an interesting thought, certainly I'd be willing to entertain the idea of some kind of e-voting system, wherein people could, at very least, keep a running poll for each senator/representative in their jurisdiction regarding each piece of legislation, maybe make it an electoral college/delegate thing. Accurate information is hard to come by in those regards, so a lot of politicians vote the way they've voted for decades because they assume people still believe what they did when they first ran for election. Additionally, I'm intrigued by the Pirate Parties' "liquid feedback" system, which allows people to have a back and forth with their representatives and each other, in addition to being able to vote on the party platform.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

misiti3780 14y ago

bug - the information form at the bottom of the page is missing validation.

jrockway 14y ago

Brandon Mayfield was arrested as a material witness, not as a suspect. The problem here is the increasing use of material witness warrants to arrest people suspected of a crime, rather than actually getting an arrest warrant. According to Wikipedia, "Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology from the U.S. government and a $2 million settlement." I'll be honest: I feel like I'm being swindled by doyouhaveasecret.org. Instead of presenting me with facts, they're relying on emotion and hearsay. And that's just as bad as the government wanting to search my laptop. The EFF's campaign is a more mature: https://cyberspying.eff.org/ https://cyberspying.eff.org/

malandrew 14y ago
The sad part is that the people we have to convince that these laws are a bad idea will only be swayed by emotion. It's emotion that convinced them to support bills like this and it is going to take an appeal to emotion to convince them otherwise. It sucks to admit that, but it's how many humans work.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "the people we have to convince that these laws are a bad idea will only be swayed by emotion" While ridding yourself of the core of supporters turned off by campaigns based on more emotion than fact?
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Fine. Those people will instead support the EFF. There is a "market" for this advocacy media and producing material supporting a viewpoint but in different formats appealing to difference audiences is called market segmentation. Just because people are turned off by this advertising, doesn't mean they will be turned off from supporting this cause. They'll still support it, but via other means, such as the EFF.
- kingkawn 14y ago
  Physicians contended for a long time that they were too educated, thoughtful, and professional to be swayed by advertising and other promotional efforts that were not directly related to efficacy and cost of drugs: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192314 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192314 Nobody is immune to advertising, PR, or emotional appeals. Some of us are more/less impacted by specific types of advertising, but we are all susceptible. Including the people in this community.

vyrotek 14y ago

Hmm, I'm in trouble. The new NSA Data Center in Utah is being built just down the street from my house.

mattmaroon 14y ago

I really don't like propaganda. I don't need you trying to whip me into hysteria. Just tell me what the CISPA does that you think is so bad and let me decide.

sliverstorm 14y ago
let me decide I don't think you understand how modern politics work.

hollerith 14y ago

No need to shout :) (That is my reaction to the graphical design of the page.)

Tangaroa 14y ago

Wait a minute. We're supposed to be upset that the feds took a guy's computer after they matched his fingerprints to a bomb bag used in the Madrid train bombings that killed almost 200 people? And we're supposed to believe this was ethnic harassment because "he is a muslim"? If any police anywhere find near-conclusive proof that you killed 200 people, it doesn't matter if you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. They just might take your computer away from you. It turns out the fingerprints belonged to somebody else. Blame it on faulty software and faultier human interpretation. This scaremongering about routine evidence-gathering is socially irresponsible.

cheez 14y ago
> Blame it on faulty software and faultier human interpretation So you mean blame it on no one but a man's life gets destroyed. And you wonder why they get away with murder...
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Something bad happens, and the first thing on your mind is, "We have to blame this on somebody!" And you wonder why America is mocked as such a litigious country...
  - skunkworks 14y ago
    It is a common coping mechanism to find arbitrary things to blame in tragedies where there isn't one. It's part of our rational mind to find meaning and patterns in the natural world. We do this to understand. It's often wrong -- our eyes turn clouds into animals and mere static into design. This is not endemic to America.
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    Im always surprised by peoples aversion for trying to put blame on someone or some thing. Finding where the fault was is part of the process to make sure an error doesn't happen again. I think there's confusion with the "blame game". As in, once you can blame someone, the problem is over and solved but that's just the start to solving the problem. I always want to know who did something wrong and how it happened so we could work to prevent it from happening again in the future.

yefim323 14y ago

Instead of simply displaying the phonenumbers of the local Congressmen, they could use a simple Grassroutes widget (http://grassroutes.us/ http://grassroutes.us/). OccupyWallSt.org and Twitpic.com used the widget during the SOPA blackout.

BryanB55 14y ago

I'm curious if sites like this even work? There was a lot of them back when SOPA was a bigger deal and you signup, put in your email and it has some canned letter that gets emailed to your senator. If I was a senator getting these I'd filter them all to go to the trash. Unless we are using this method as some type of voting system now. It just seems like there should be a better more personal way than "spam the shit out of your senator".

385668 14y ago
As a result of all the letters I've sent my representative in the last six months I received a letter from him (Fortenberry, R-NE) asking if I'd like to attend a Q&A with him next week.

xp3ll3d 14y ago

In Australia, the government is trying to grant their security organisation (ASIO) permission to read citizens emails, monitor web behaviour, etc. There is a similar petition for Australians to sign http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/ http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-res...

s-phi-nl 14y ago

Flagged as political.

abalashov 14y ago

I am never sure just how much point there is to opposing such bills, due to my assumption that intelligence agencies always have and always will have all the indiscriminate access to domestic communications that they want. I think even publicised history provides more than abundant examples of that. If there is a real fight, it is over criminal procedure, rules of evidence, and other things useful in more banal dealings with law enforcement, and thus having some bearing on the juridical outcome in the event that one is prosecuted (or persecuted) on the basis of some illegal surveillance technique. In other words, you could get acquitted of dealing drugs if the state's main evidence against you is something obtained through warrantless electronic surveillance, and that surveillance is illegal. And that's important. But why is it important? It's important because it's small stuff, not the kind of stuff governments would throw national-level resources like NSA supercomputers at. So, the argument is really about the gaps, not the fringes. As far as terrorism and national security-type activities go, it seems to me they already have unlimited _de facto_ authority, capability, and inclination to spy on you all they want, and that this has more or less always been true. Thus, I find that the rhetoric is a bit off. This isn't about stopping the government having "access to your e-mails". They already have that, in principle. With enough initiative and spiritual commitment, they can track you, read your e-mail, and listen to your voice communications. The real objective ought to be framed more precisely, perhaps something like: "There shouldn't be a law that goes out of its way to grant unto pedestrian police the formal sanction to employ surveillance capabilities hitherto the province of spooky intelligence agencies". However, that's a lot harder to sell.

grumps 14y ago

It would be nice if you'd provide DC in the list too. We have a senator, they just don't vote.