7 ms·

The scary part about surveillance is that we built it, the government didn't. Instead of the government mandating some Orwellian telescreen that nefariously re

The scary part about surveillance is that we built it, the government didn't. Instead of the government mandating some Orwellian telescreen that nefariously records everything you write, or a national registry that lists who your friends are, where you went to school, and where you log in from, we built schemes that would record everything anyway for other purposes, like facebook and gmail, and then handed the keys over. Evgeny Morozov pointed this out when he mentioned that the KGB used to torture people for this information. But we've voluntarily built and submitted to it! I don't dispute the need for surveillance, so what can be done? The best I can think of is a throwback to Bill Gates' emphasis on measurement. Transparency is important precisely because if you can't observe something, you don't have any clue what it is. I know this sounds too political, but the very systems we're worried about are ones that several people who frequent this place helped build, for different purposes. There's no way to know exactly how something you build will be used, but there is a way to monitor it, and that requires transparency almost by definition.

trotsky 14y ago
This is worth watching if you're thinking about these issues: Blackhat 2010 - Changing Threats to Privacy Moxie Marlinspike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JKqJ7gt5yk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JKqJ7gt5yk It's a very interesting analysis of opt-in surveillance. I think he makes a credible argument that many of these technologies are being at least partially prompted or shaped by state interests.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  It is also worth pointing out that there is active harassment of people like Moxie, Jacob Appelbaum, wikileaks founder is in some embassy hiding, Aaron is gone. It goes from interrogations on border crossings, confiscation of electronic devices, drummed up charges (didn't DoJ admit Aaron was hounded down mostly because of his political views?). There is a price paid. Yes I know, those who live(ed) in totalitarian regimes might laugh -- "what is confiscation of a cell phone compared to the disappearance of my family?" On an absolute scale yes, true, but if you look at it from another way we are already comparing this country to brutal totalitarian regimes, that says something too perhaps.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > didn't DoJ admit Aaron was hounded down mostly because of his political views? No, they admitted that Aaron's manifesto about breaking the law as a moral imperative to support open access to scientific journals was used to support the DoJ's claims that he intended to distribute the millions of scientific journals that he downloaded from JSTOR. Until the police finally arrested him no one even knew that the network intruder even was Aaron Swartz.
  - contingencies 14y ago
    Yes. Don't forget the TPB/torrent tracker programmer anakata's warrantless international extradition followed by multi-month solitary confinment by his own government which is considered "democratic" and is part of northern Europe, nominally a bastion of human rights... a few years ago, before Sweden's right-wing swing. I have met some (actually most) of the above mentioned people, so government harassment of these individuals sits very poorly with me. I write this from China, where I carry no cell phone ... mostly because, quite luckily, I can function in society without one.
    - crollpo 14y ago
      Sweden = feminism =/= human rights.
    - tullopi 14y ago
      Sweden = feminism =/= human rights. (Reposted to bypass censorship.)
- libraryatnight 14y ago
  This is interesting, is there any reading you know of where one could learn more about what he speaks about in the beginning - the cypherpunks vs the government. Something of a history?
  - trotsky 14y ago
    I really don't know of anything comprehensive. Cypherpunks was actually a mailing list, and I believe you can download full archives of it. One of the big part's he's referring to is Phil Zimmerman creating PGP, and I'd bet you can find some history about its legal troubles. Stories about RSA code on a t-shirt to protest the export bans would be another notable cypherpunk moment that got press. The EFF breaking DES with deepcrack in the 90's was also a cypherpunk project. There may well be a comprehensive history of the movement out there, but I haven't heard of one. He might know of a good one, he's @moxie
guelo 14y ago
One solution would be to stop building these systems inside the United States, the same way as you would never think of building a social network in China.
- mc32 14y ago
  If you look at the requests from other governments from other countries, they are in the same order of magnitude, on a per capita basis, except japan, but that's normal since Goog services are not popular in JP. So, 'moving' things elsewhere isn't much of a solution, it would seem. Also, people do build social networks in China --they have to as most SN from outside China are not predictably available without proxies, etc.
  - javert 14y ago
    The solution is open source with cryptographic protection. Like Diaspora, but for everything currently done by Gmail and Facebook.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Couldn't the government then obtain the information without any judicial oversight? A foreign country is only safe if the software is 100% secure and the employees can't be bribed with government-level resources. (Look at what the Chinese government did when they wanted information from the New York Times. No judge approved that disclosure...)
  - Evbn 14y ago
    The international barrier is a large extra hurdle to cross.
    - rdtsc 14y ago
      Well is it? Isn't that how NSA for years has bypassed the "spying on US citizens" law and just went spying on everyone else in Europe and the rest of the world. Presumably any other country could in theory spy on US citizens without any legal obstacles in its way. Then any two countries could just exchange black lists of people who are considered suspicious. Or say outsource all this to a large corporation. US govt maybe can't spy but not sure if Verizon or L3 can't.
1337biz 14y ago
The big issue is usability/convenience. Gmail and Facebook are just so much more comfortable to use than open source alternatives. In my opinion the whole open source movement is way too much focused on features and not on easy functionality. Otherwise PGP emails would have become a universally adopted standard. Unfortunately my only hope is on services such as Mega and their ambition to venture out in something such as becoming a paid email provider. Maybe they are able to combine privacy and convenience in an appropriate way.
- pyre 14y ago
  | In my opinion the whole open source movement is | way too much focused on features and not on | easy functionality. Even if there was an open-source version of Gmail, it would still mostly be a centralized solution. Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. All it would do is remove the idea of "one stop shopping," but the government would still get access. It would just be slightly more work. | Otherwise PGP emails would have become | a universally adopted standard. That's a poor example, because security software is the one place where you do want attention to technical detail over user interface. If the UI to PGP was good, but any script kiddie could break the encryption, then what would be the point?
  - krichman 14y ago
    I think it's more like, look at openssl, the crypto Swiss army knife. How is a regular person going to use that? But if someone did just asymmetrical key encryption with one algorithm and then spent time engineering it so that a normal person could use it without taking Dan Boneh's Coursera class, there might be more people using PGP.
  - maigret 14y ago
    | Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. Having some servers abroad would make that much more complicated.
cabinguy 14y ago
Don't forget the beautiful, shiny tracking devices most of us pay a lot of money to carry around.
- jrockway 14y ago
  We pay for the on-the-go data and voice connectivity, not for the tracking.
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    Trust me you are paying for tracking too. You might not want to pay for tracking but you are paying for it.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Right, and taxes are the government robbing my family at gunpoint. I remember now. Reddit is having their orange-and-grey color scheme day today and I thought I was reading HN. Sorry.
      - rdtsc 14y ago
        No phone tracking technology was donated by William and Melinda Gates Foundation and other charitable funds and trusts, you as a consumer totally did not pay for it.
      - notdrunkatall 14y ago
        If you are tracked by a system which sustains itself on the money you pay into that system, you are paying to be tracked.
      - jrogers65 14y ago
        > Right, and taxes are the government robbing my family at gunpoint. To be fair, they will come after you with guns if you stop paying taxes.
        14y ago
javert 14y ago
> I don't dispute the need for surveillance Then _you've_ already conceded the argument. There is absolutely no need for surveillance.
- mpyne 14y ago
  How else are we supposed to catch politicians making crooked deals to screw over the taxpayer then?
OGinparadise 14y ago
I'll say it: only an idiot makes all his searches when logged in. Google is trying to brainwash and trick people to do everything logged on so they make more money from ads (it's never enough!) but you're making it easier for the FBI, local police and maybe divorce lawyer to get every search you make, every e-mail you sent, every location you were, every site you visited (G analytics, Facebook buttons, G+ buttons, Adsense) every video you watched in an easy to read format. Google and Facebook aren't on your side, they do this disclosure because such requests threaten their busine$$ model. If they were on your side they wouldn't keep such detailed records.
- screwt 14y ago
  And how much do you trust google/facebook? Because it would be trivial for them to link your logged-out behaviour to your account if they wanted to (via cookies and other means). Using a separate browser might help, buy isn't s guarantee. I'm not trying to be paranoid here, just pointing out that there is a lot of information which we make available to Google. If they wanted to be evil, it would be.very easy. I don't think it would tale much more to link this to your credit card either (eg via amazon/PayPal) by which time all your activotes ate there to see. Again, not being paranoid, just pointing out we live in an info-rich environment. Your only way to avoid it is to go totally over yhe top in avoiding leaving any trace which most of us are not prepared to do.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Only an idiot thinks being logged in has anything to do with whether or not they log your data? ;)

trotsky 14y ago

This is worth watching if you're thinking about these issues: Blackhat 2010 - Changing Threats to Privacy Moxie Marlinspike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JKqJ7gt5yk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JKqJ7gt5yk It's a very interesting analysis of opt-in surveillance. I think he makes a credible argument that many of these technologies are being at least partially prompted or shaped by state interests.

rdtsc 14y ago
It is also worth pointing out that there is active harassment of people like Moxie, Jacob Appelbaum, wikileaks founder is in some embassy hiding, Aaron is gone. It goes from interrogations on border crossings, confiscation of electronic devices, drummed up charges (didn't DoJ admit Aaron was hounded down mostly because of his political views?). There is a price paid. Yes I know, those who live(ed) in totalitarian regimes might laugh -- "what is confiscation of a cell phone compared to the disappearance of my family?" On an absolute scale yes, true, but if you look at it from another way we are already comparing this country to brutal totalitarian regimes, that says something too perhaps.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > didn't DoJ admit Aaron was hounded down mostly because of his political views? No, they admitted that Aaron's manifesto about breaking the law as a moral imperative to support open access to scientific journals was used to support the DoJ's claims that he intended to distribute the millions of scientific journals that he downloaded from JSTOR. Until the police finally arrested him no one even knew that the network intruder even was Aaron Swartz.
- contingencies 14y ago
  Yes. Don't forget the TPB/torrent tracker programmer anakata's warrantless international extradition followed by multi-month solitary confinment by his own government which is considered "democratic" and is part of northern Europe, nominally a bastion of human rights... a few years ago, before Sweden's right-wing swing. I have met some (actually most) of the above mentioned people, so government harassment of these individuals sits very poorly with me. I write this from China, where I carry no cell phone ... mostly because, quite luckily, I can function in society without one.
  - crollpo 14y ago
    Sweden = feminism =/= human rights.
  - tullopi 14y ago
    Sweden = feminism =/= human rights. (Reposted to bypass censorship.)
libraryatnight 14y ago
This is interesting, is there any reading you know of where one could learn more about what he speaks about in the beginning - the cypherpunks vs the government. Something of a history?
- trotsky 14y ago
  I really don't know of anything comprehensive. Cypherpunks was actually a mailing list, and I believe you can download full archives of it. One of the big part's he's referring to is Phil Zimmerman creating PGP, and I'd bet you can find some history about its legal troubles. Stories about RSA code on a t-shirt to protest the export bans would be another notable cypherpunk moment that got press. The EFF breaking DES with deepcrack in the 90's was also a cypherpunk project. There may well be a comprehensive history of the movement out there, but I haven't heard of one. He might know of a good one, he's @moxie

guelo 14y ago

One solution would be to stop building these systems inside the United States, the same way as you would never think of building a social network in China.

mc32 14y ago
If you look at the requests from other governments from other countries, they are in the same order of magnitude, on a per capita basis, except japan, but that's normal since Goog services are not popular in JP. So, 'moving' things elsewhere isn't much of a solution, it would seem. Also, people do build social networks in China --they have to as most SN from outside China are not predictably available without proxies, etc.
- javert 14y ago
  The solution is open source with cryptographic protection. Like Diaspora, but for everything currently done by Gmail and Facebook.
jrockway 14y ago
Couldn't the government then obtain the information without any judicial oversight? A foreign country is only safe if the software is 100% secure and the employees can't be bribed with government-level resources. (Look at what the Chinese government did when they wanted information from the New York Times. No judge approved that disclosure...)
- Evbn 14y ago
  The international barrier is a large extra hurdle to cross.
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    Well is it? Isn't that how NSA for years has bypassed the "spying on US citizens" law and just went spying on everyone else in Europe and the rest of the world. Presumably any other country could in theory spy on US citizens without any legal obstacles in its way. Then any two countries could just exchange black lists of people who are considered suspicious. Or say outsource all this to a large corporation. US govt maybe can't spy but not sure if Verizon or L3 can't.

1337biz 14y ago

The big issue is usability/convenience. Gmail and Facebook are just so much more comfortable to use than open source alternatives. In my opinion the whole open source movement is way too much focused on features and not on easy functionality. Otherwise PGP emails would have become a universally adopted standard. Unfortunately my only hope is on services such as Mega and their ambition to venture out in something such as becoming a paid email provider. Maybe they are able to combine privacy and convenience in an appropriate way.

pyre 14y ago
| In my opinion the whole open source movement is | way too much focused on features and not on | easy functionality. Even if there was an open-source version of Gmail, it would still mostly be a centralized solution. Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. All it would do is remove the idea of "one stop shopping," but the government would still get access. It would just be slightly more work. | Otherwise PGP emails would have become | a universally adopted standard. That's a poor example, because security software is the one place where you do want attention to technical detail over user interface. If the UI to PGP was good, but any script kiddie could break the encryption, then what would be the point?
- krichman 14y ago
  I think it's more like, look at openssl, the crypto Swiss army knife. How is a regular person going to use that? But if someone did just asymmetrical key encryption with one algorithm and then spent time engineering it so that a normal person could use it without taking Dan Boneh's Coursera class, there might be more people using PGP.
- maigret 14y ago
  | Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. Having some servers abroad would make that much more complicated.

cabinguy 14y ago

Don't forget the beautiful, shiny tracking devices most of us pay a lot of money to carry around.

jrockway 14y ago
We pay for the on-the-go data and voice connectivity, not for the tracking.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  Trust me you are paying for tracking too. You might not want to pay for tracking but you are paying for it.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Right, and taxes are the government robbing my family at gunpoint. I remember now. Reddit is having their orange-and-grey color scheme day today and I thought I was reading HN. Sorry.
    - rdtsc 14y ago
      No phone tracking technology was donated by William and Melinda Gates Foundation and other charitable funds and trusts, you as a consumer totally did not pay for it.
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      If you are tracked by a system which sustains itself on the money you pay into that system, you are paying to be tracked.
    - jrogers65 14y ago
      > Right, and taxes are the government robbing my family at gunpoint. To be fair, they will come after you with guns if you stop paying taxes.
      - 14y ago

javert 14y ago

> I don't dispute the need for surveillance Then _you've_ already conceded the argument. There is absolutely no need for surveillance.

mpyne 14y ago
How else are we supposed to catch politicians making crooked deals to screw over the taxpayer then?

OGinparadise 14y ago

I'll say it: only an idiot makes all his searches when logged in. Google is trying to brainwash and trick people to do everything logged on so they make more money from ads (it's never enough!) but you're making it easier for the FBI, local police and maybe divorce lawyer to get every search you make, every e-mail you sent, every location you were, every site you visited (G analytics, Facebook buttons, G+ buttons, Adsense) every video you watched in an easy to read format. Google and Facebook aren't on your side, they do this disclosure because such requests threaten their busine$$ model. If they were on your side they wouldn't keep such detailed records.

screwt 14y ago
And how much do you trust google/facebook? Because it would be trivial for them to link your logged-out behaviour to your account if they wanted to (via cookies and other means). Using a separate browser might help, buy isn't s guarantee. I'm not trying to be paranoid here, just pointing out that there is a lot of information which we make available to Google. If they wanted to be evil, it would be.very easy. I don't think it would tale much more to link this to your credit card either (eg via amazon/PayPal) by which time all your activotes ate there to see. Again, not being paranoid, just pointing out we live in an info-rich environment. Your only way to avoid it is to go totally over yhe top in avoiding leaving any trace which most of us are not prepared to do.
lawnchair_larry 14y ago
Only an idiot thinks being logged in has anything to do with whether or not they log your data? ;)