14 ms·

What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know

460 points by ssclafani 13y ago

coderdude 13y ago
The Atlantic, who spams HN for hits, just happens to also have insight on what the NSA is up to? Yeah, right. There is nothing in this article.
- crgt 13y ago
  In this case "The Atlantic" is Bruce Schneier. Who, if you take a peek, does seem like he might be in a position to have some insight on what the NSA is up to. http://www.schneier.com/about.html http://www.schneier.com/about.html On the merits, I do think he's right to highlight the importance of secure channels for whistleblowers in the current climate.
- gridmaths 13y ago
  irrelevant, its Bruce Schneier
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'll just suspend my critical faculties then.
    - gridmaths 13y ago
      IMO, you can ignore the arguably bad reputation of The Atlantic, and focus all your critical faculties on the article itself [ which happens to be written by Bruce Schneier :]
    - bigiain 13y ago
      So exactly how are you demonstrating any use of your "critical facilities" by dismissing Schneier's entire article with no thought-through critisism, but just "Tha Atlantic? Meh…" followed by "There is nothing in this article." You clearly haven't _read_ the article, and have some axe to grind against the website. Fine - but don't try and claim this is your use of critical facilities.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        I have read it, twice. Also, I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place. Here are my objections to his position: 1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). 2. While saying that it's scary what we don't know, he makes no effort to educate his audience on what we do know, such as how this sort of activity comes to be legal and constitutional in the first place, the answers to which lie in the 1970s (see my other comments on Smith v. Maryland today, for example). 3. Schneier has absolutely nothing to say on how this state of affairs might be fixed, or what it is that US citizens should demand of their senators and state representatives to repair the situation through democratic means. My answer to that question is that that we need a constitutional amendment that creates an explicit right to privacy and another that narrows the power of Congress to abdicate its oversight of the Executive branch, which latter is conveniently required to maximize its defensive capabilities. I also think it's high time that the AUMF was rescinded. 4. Schneier has made a fine career out of complaining about the security state but shows no leadership when it comes to rolling it back. We all hate the TSA's instrusive searches and silly rules, yes? But when the TSA proposed loosening the restrictions on what you could take onto a plane, to allow practical exceptions like small pocketknives and so on, airlines lobbied heavily against it on behalf of their staff (who, in fairness, would be facing an elevated risk). Despite years of complaining about the TSA, Schneier did not AFAIK write anything about the proposed changes, let alone express support or encourage others to do so. Although the proposed rule change was pretty small, it would have represented at least a minor victory for common sense instead of security theater. But when it was offered up from public debate, Schneier didn't even consider it worth mentioning to his readers. Schneier's great at stoking readers' outrage - not so good at educating them or helping them channel it effectively. In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical.
        bigiain 13y ago
        "I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place." Apologies - I should have noticed that. Having said that, I stand by my call for evidence of application of critical facilities if that's what's being claimed - a call to which you're risen with flying colours. I _broadly_ agree with all of your points - but in my opinion you're selling him short with your final summation sentence "In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical." As I see it, he's built a reputation (and career) about being well-informed on security issues, and also being able to communicate those issues at a "popular media" level - perhaps sometimes oversimplifying, but almost always informing enough that a curious reader has enough knowledge and keywords to search for further information (and, like in this article, often providing many many more detailed and specific links). And while it would be even better if he provided solutions to some of the problems he writes about - educating the wider general public that the problems exist at all does a nett good for society. Expecting him to "show leadership" (or even have any solutions) as a prerequisite to pointing out problems seems unduly onerous.
gridmaths 13y ago
Bruce Schneier gives a more coherent overview on the current HN "surveillance state" theme. tl;dr : massive surveillance is real, there is far more, blow the whistle if you can, take precautions
rosser 13y ago
Our government is putting its own self-interest ahead of the interests of the country. That needs to change. This, this, a thousand times, this.
sneak 13y ago
Fuck, I love Schneier so much. He even ended with a call to action.
camus 13y ago
Welcome to the real world people , everyone has taken their red pile yet ? I mean you are giving up personal infos and data for (crappy) free services , what did you expect ? a free lunch with no hidden cost ? the government has all your datas and it will use it against you sooner or later.
- sfjailbird 13y ago
  This has nothing to do with the services being free.
  - jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
    Actually it does. Free services means the loyalty is NOT to the users but whoever pays the bills (usually ad merchants). That's why there are "privacy policies" and not "privacy guarantees".
    - e12e 13y ago
      With regards to government spying, I think the only way which the business models of Facebook and Google matter, are that they are tuned towards gathering (and centralizing)data in the first place. I think there are big problems with the ad supported business model -- but I don't think it is that central to spying. Remember Hushmail?
    - mcintyre1994 13y ago
      Is there any evidence that paid Google Apps data, for example, wasn't transferred then? If this is because the service is free, they'd be protected, correct?
ck2 13y ago
Today I am throwing out the newspaper I was saving from the day after Obama was elected and all the electronic newspaper front pages from around the world I was saving from that day are being deleted from my hard drive. I've lost all pride. I am utterly disgusted with this administration. Any good he has done is wiped out by being far worse than Bush with the domestic spying and whistleblower prosecutions. How are we any better than China - because we at least eventually find out? Because people don't get disappeared off the street? You remember that feeling of incredible relief when we saw Bush finally being flown away in the helicopter on his last day? Well that feeling is going to be deja vu in a couple years. I just hope the next president doesn't try to do a one-up like Obama did to Bush. Obama's library/museum is going to be even more hypocritical than Bush's.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  >Because people don't get disappeared off the street? dont worry, the legal frameworks are in place for that to start happening too.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Give it two or three presidencies, and it could very well be an actual thing that happens here. You don't have to disappear a lot of people, just enough to get the word out. Putin doesn't have to kill a lot of people with polonium-210, just one or two public cases does the trick. The future looks obvious: don't fight the state, don't disagree with the state, or else. It's a fascism model, very similar to what Russia currently has (how ironic is that end result?!?). We have the widening rich / poor issue and oligarch class to go with it (which is very common under highly industrialized fascist nations).
  - jw_ 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Yes, he's Canadian, but still.
  - sfjailbird 13y ago
    I don't usually do this but... > Because people don't get disappeared off the street inside the U.S. Fixed that for you.
trxblazr 13y ago
So realistically, what can we, the populace, do?
- rosser 13y ago
  I don't know how effective it will be, but until something changes, I plan on very vocally being a one-issue voter. I will vote for, and donate to the campaigns of, anyone who will do something to rein in the surveillance monster, and I will make sure that my sitting representative and senators are aware of this. Unfortunately, one of my senators is Dianne "It's called defending America" Feinstein, and she's got her job for another 5 years, so I'm not expecting much in her case.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Waste of time. No one cares about your vote anymore. If you really care, find like minded people and go into politics yourself. You'll have to start local, then move to state, but even the state level can begin to have an effect. I suspect their may be enough people to make actual change, but so far they waste time by doing online petitions, sending emails to politicians or voting. If you want to change the US at this point you're going to have to do what the founding father's did: become the government you want.
- adventured 13y ago
  Only two sane choices. Fight or flight. 1) Speak out, set up organizations like the EFF or similar to fight for privacy. Or advocate on behalf of such organizations. Work the politicians however you can, to whatever extent that might help. Encourage the people you know to do the same; encourage people to give a shit again. Explain why it's important to fight this. 2) Try to leave the US, or at least begin disappearing yourself. Leave less of a trail. Communicate as little as necessary over the phone or digitally, and keep it strictly business (so to speak). Use good encryption wherever you can. Encourage the people you know to do the same. Either option is valid, both are entirely personal, moral choices. Some people stayed when the Iron Curtain went up in Russia and tried to fight it, some fled; ditto Germany, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on.
jasonjei 13y ago
If you see something, say something. That's funny. That's the slogan they have plastered all over New York's subway system.
- e12e 13y ago
  It's a joke, all right: http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-campaign http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-campai...
tigger 13y ago
Thinking of that George Orwell quote from 1984: “You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.” Perhaps even in darkness!
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  Why use telescreens to watch people when you can just monitor the methods they use to communicate what they're doing? Seems like a pretty reasonable comparison in a way.
kijin 13y ago
> The U.S. government is on a secrecy binge ... We need whistle-blowers. Q: What's the difference between the kind of transparency that Wikileaks et al. tries to promote, and the kind of transparency that Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook users to adopt? A: The former asks transparency of powerful entities, helping to check their power. The latter asks transparency of relatively powerless individuals, enabling the modern surveillance state and making individuals even more powerless. The most important thing that we should keep in mind when we talk about any sort of justice in the context of information is how possession of information alters the balance of power in the world. Because politics, ultimately, boils down to who has how much power over whom. It's not about embarrassment. It's all about the loss of authority that public scrutiny and embarrassment can cause. "Knowledge is power": knowing something about somebody gives you power over that somebody. This rule of thumb even works when we interact with physical objects (if you know how something works, you have the power to use it to your advantage), and it works just as well when we interact with other people. Asymmetric transparency leads to asymmetric power because they know enough about you to take advantage of you but you don't know enough about them to take advantage of them. This is why I firmly believe that powerful entities should be required to be several orders of magnitude more transparent, and therefore open to public scrutiny, than the average chump would ever need to be. The only thing that can balance off the asymmetry of power that complex social organization usually entails is an asymmetry of knowledge in the other direction. Example: Who I talked with on the phone last night is none of your fucking business. But if you're in a position of considerable power, every meeting you ever have with every lobbyist in the Universe should be damn well everyone's business. This is not unfair at all. Clinton had no right to get secret blowjobs in my opinion. Nobody should be allowed to have both power and privacy, because the combination is a recipe for tyranny.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
D9u 13y ago
This just goes to show that it took both political parties, working together for decades, to arrive at the current juncture.
sigkill 13y ago
[Honest question with absolutely zero bad intentions] I hate to bring this up again and again, but how long before the USG turns into Nazi Germany? Right now, they're in the data collection phase, and are squashing dissidents. I don't live in the US but I casually told this news to a 'normal person' I met yesterday [my parents] and they weren't even flinching. Almost like it wasn't their problem. I wonder if the 'not living in the US' part has anything to do with this. The reason I'm worried about this is, now that USG has this tech, they won't hesitate to sell this to other countries. EDIT - To the person who downvoted me, I am not upset but can you tell me why my post does not contribute to the discussion? It is a known fact that any tech the US researches and implements is soon commercialized and sold to other countries, and as compared to weapons, surveillance tech sales is definitely a walk in the park.
- hga 13y ago
  The threshold I generally use is the use of extra-legal violence, e.g. open violence against those "dissidents" with the organs of the state ignoring it. Which won't work very well at all in such a well armed, and better armed every day country (for the last several years every month has had higher gun sales from licensed gun stores compared to the month a year ago, details can be found at http://www.nssf.org/ http://www.nssf.org/). Also makes a very big difference that policing is primarily under local control, and the central government can't stop state prosecutions without explicitly acknowledging the target is a government agent (see the squashing of the state prosecution of Lon Horiuchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charg...). Of course, also in light of Nazi Germany, any serious national effort at gun confiscation will instantly spark the civil war we seem to be sliding towards. On the likelihood of that (kudos to you for acknowledging the systematic "squashing" of dissidents), let me quote the recently woken up Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." She's using "shoot" in a metaphorical sense (tellingly, American English has a lot of shooting and gun metaphors).
neilxdsouza 13y ago
I have even scarier thoughts that this. Let's say the CIA, FBI etc had a commong brainstorming session on how to target spying on people. Here are some ideas they could come up with: 1. Intel is the biggest distributor of computer chips, lets target them 2. Microsoft is the biggest supplier of desktop software, lets target them. 3. If we can pick up signals from distant galaxies can we not make our own special network out of those thousands of desktops running those powerful computer chips today? Problem: If someone at intel/MS directly works with us, we will be found out. Solution: Let's target a high level exec, he wont do anything other than allow them to employ a few of our special programmers. Take the chip plans from Intel. Make some modifications to add another core, which is activated in a special mode and instruction running its own Operating System/wifi etc. Deployment: Tell the high level exec, tell us when your next upgrade to manufacturing hardware will arrive. Just give us the date and the shipping information. Intercept the hardware and modify it's software to dynamically change the plans, with a new one. For MS, hack the build system using something similar to the Ken Thompson hack. If I was into spying, with a govt agency I would definitely do this. Which is why I always assume my computer is compromised.
- gasull 13y ago
  Alvin Toffler already talked about this possibility in his 1993 book Future Wars http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-Flashpoints/dp/0446364215&#x2F http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-Flashpoin...;
eightyone 13y ago
This is off topic, but... Mozilla should develop Firefox OS to be as secure as possible.
- anon1385 13y ago
  That's impossible unless they throw out all the web technologies they currently use. Users need to be able to encrypt their data such that the cloud providers can't ever see it. The web as it stands is just not designed to be used like this; even if all my google docs data is encrypted and google does not have the key, it will need to be decrypted in-browser to be displayed which means a) broken javascript crypto and b) the page can then send all the data back to google anyway. A further problem is the economics of the web: it's largely based on providing services that are free to use but paid for by advertisers. You can't target advertising if you don't have data about user habits. Economically Google can't exist without tracking people and recording as much data as possible.
vixen99 13y ago
As a non-American I am surprised no one here has commented specifically on this electric call to arms: "Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it. If you see something, say something. There are many people in the U.S. that will appreciate and admire you. "
eldr 13y ago
I'm usually skeptical of conspiracies, but now I guess I have to be more open to the possibility of this kind of behaviour. If they went to these lengths with tech companies can't we assume that surveillance in place within financial institutions is even worse than what we know it is? It could hint at another angle beyond having lots of money where Wall Street has leverage over Washington. I can imagine bank execs threatening leaks should things not go their way.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  You should always be skeptical, but you must always keep in mind that conspiracies do happen all the time [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_the_Business_Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_t...
scanr 13y ago
As a foreigner, it's pretty disappointing that spying on us is considered fair game. That said, it appears that any American who communicates with someone overseas also gets to join our special club. This feels like a fairly large loophole. Does replying to this comment count?
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  As a European it sort of makes you wonder about this Data Protection Act, with its loophole safe harbours to allow data transfer to the US. How exactly is that protected under these circumstances, and have Europe just given up on protecting anything because the US told them so?
  - mcpie 13y ago
    Nothing was 'given up'. Something was traded. European intelligence agencies regularly 'launder' intercepts through foreign governments ('hey NSA, we'll trade you some info, if you can get us some info on one of our own...').
    - mcintyre1994 13y ago
      I asked have they just given up, so in that context given up referred to stopped trying to protect us. Your comment seems to suggest that yes, they have given up on protecting Europeans' data.
  - andrewmccall 13y ago
    EU data protection regulations are in force. There will no doubt be some scrutiny as to what data safe harbour companies have transfered outside the EU and what steps were taken to protect it. Far from giving up the EU is engaged in strengthening the directives far beyond what's required now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulat...
- tomjen3 13y ago
  As a European I take it as an example of the classical US "the world ends at our borders, everything else doesn't matter" mentality. But hey at least when China rises to be a world power it will become even worse.
tn13 13y ago
Just now I heard on NPR that China hacked several key military systems of United States. US government has already chickened on this issue. Not just governments but any institution when starts hurting those who can not hit back, you know they are on decline. If US interests are under threat from anyone then it is not Afghanistan or Iran or Syria but China. US government wont get anything by spying on US citizens but by standing upto China.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  I hope the US tries to stand up to China. The US has been long over due for a good hard smack down, and it would be beautiful to watch China give it to them.
hooande 13y ago
I want to provide some perspective here, at the risk of being downvoted. To compare what the US government is doing to a truly oppressive regime is insulting. People in the world today live in fear of physical harm from their own government. They aren't worried about phone call meta data or blanket call logging. They're worried about being taken by force with no trial, no ACLU or EFF to help them. Just gone. Ai Weiwei served months in jail for art projects that were critical of the government. Can anyone imagine that happening here, in the country where flag burning is constitutionally protected? There are dozens of countries in the world today that have a near 100% conviction rate for political dissidents. Here in America confessed terrorists have the right to an attorney and god help the prosecution if there was any missed technicality during the arrest. Don't dare be a girl trying to go to school in many middle eastern countries. Might get run over by a tank if you openly oppose the chinese government. Offend the king of saud with your actions and you'll be literally stoned to death in the street. And we're worried about phone call meta data? I think a lot of this is ignorance about how modern counter terrorism works. The most effective tool we have is social network analysis. Find a terrorist and see who calls them, then see who calls those people and out and out. Look at the vertices and edges and dependency networks and we can learn a lot about complex organizations without risking any lives. It's understood that this is offensive to many people's privacy beliefs, but it's the best tool we have. If you want to know why government agency's are engaging in this wildly unpopular behavior, here's the answer: On 9/11 a lot of people swore to god that it would never happen again. That might sound like a joke to people who never held up their hand and vowed protect and defend. People give their fucking lives to stop threats that you'll never know about. Question their methods all you want, they aren't going to listen. Also: Save the slippery slope nonsense. There is a 0% chance of the US government becoming an oppressive regime, surveillance or not. Those things just don't happen in times of peace and prosperity. No country has ever gone from being an advanced democracy to being a tyrannical regime. Obama can't even pass a law without 37 votes to repeal.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > People in the world today live in fear of physical harm from their own government. They aren't worried about phone call meta data or blanket call logging. They're worried about being taken by force with no trial, no ACLU or EFF to help them. Just gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
coldtea 13y ago
A few quick notes: 1) They have and will be spying on citizens forever. Anybody who believes mission statements, officials, and that they "follow the law", is extremely naive. 2) More important than any terrorists to them, are dissident citizens. Not of the gun-totting, hillbilly mountain militia type. The kind that can effect political change to the system type, from Joe Hill and Mother Jones, to MLK and Malcom X, to Occupy Wall Street (if that thing ever got anywhere coherent). People making waves.
merraksh 13y ago
This is one of the best parts: If you see something, say something. and it's directed to potential whistle-blowers.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mun2mun 13y ago
People at r/conspiracy are like "I told you so" :). Also free software supporters are feeling same thing I hope.
wslh 13y ago
And then... they can't prevent attacks such as the Boston bombings. They gather data but where is the intelligence?
pfortuny 13y ago
And we are now exactly where the terrorists wanted: a terrified administration knee-jerking, kneeling before them, breaking the law and treading on the american constitutional rights because 'they are a threat' or even 'can be a threat' ... they? Man, if Bin Laden were still alive he would be salivating right now. This is freaking unbelieable: the Administration is (has been and seems to be going to be) simply TERRIFIED. They may not believe in God (I do not know) but they do certainly believe in the Devil and they call it 'Terror'. So, they have won, and they have won big. The classical thrashing of the enemy. Has the Administration really learnt nothing since McCarthy? These people talk about due process but they really know (or willfully reject) anything about it. "Get all that Roman Law and burn it, it is useless: what is that about citicens? WE RULE, and WE RULE THE WORLD." S.H.A.M.E-O.N.-Y.O.U. NSA and the Administration (whatever the party, whatever the President). Thankfully, there was someone with a conscience out there.
prollyignored 13y ago
Has anybody seen Sam Lowry ?
tshile 13y ago
The media finally has an opportunity to be what they always want us to believe they are: a form of power of the citizenry to keep the government in check. There's lots of discussion on how the people have no power since this problem isn't an issue of voting for one side or the other - there's only one side represented by politicians, and it's the pro-spying activity side. (Side note: I don't mean to diminish those people's concerns, I'm sure majority of them are honestly trying to protect us the best they can.) The only way for real change to come about this style of government is for the media to demand it. They've sat idly by watching it (ore more appropriately, ignoring it) for over a decade now. It's time for them to put up or shut up. Hopefully the AP/Reporter spying by the DOJ was enough to put a fire under their butts about it. Hopefully this is just the start to intense scrutiny by all media outlets (not just foxnews, not just msnbc, ie: not just one party's mouth piece, but all of them.) Unfortunately we just have to wait and see. The media has a chance to redeem themselves for the past decade+ of caring more about what is trending on Youtube and Twitter than protecting their viewership. Hopefully they rise to the task.
venomsnake 13y ago
There was this joke in my country when a recent wiretapping scandal broke - the US equivalent will be: How can you wish Happy Birthday to President Obama - just tell it on the phone while talking to a friend - Erik Holder will already be listening and will send the greetings.
DamnYuppie 13y ago
Having read all the comments I am disappointed. This is a great opportunity to discuss this issue and make more people aware of the dangers of such activity. Yet the bulk of the discourse has degraded into partisan drivel of "Obama vs Bush". Honestly who cares? Every administration has played a part in this and they all have equal blame so get over it! Attempting to say one side did this or that will not solve the issue. What they are doing is bad, it shouldn't happen, all who support it need to be kicked out..full stop...no excuses...
jack_trades 13y ago
Not sure how this story is breaking and unexpected. This is exactly the type and style of program that was expected right after 9/11. It's totally the NSA's playground and the co-operation and/or backdooring of major, communication-funneling corporations would be assured. How is this shocking? It has little to do with political winds and everything to do with the spawn of the military-industrial complex... the military-infocomm complex. James Bamford

460 points by ssclafani 13y ago

The Atlantic, who spams HN for hits, just happens to also have insight on what the NSA is up to? Yeah, right. There is nothing in this article.

crgt 13y ago
In this case "The Atlantic" is Bruce Schneier. Who, if you take a peek, does seem like he might be in a position to have some insight on what the NSA is up to. http://www.schneier.com/about.html http://www.schneier.com/about.html On the merits, I do think he's right to highlight the importance of secure channels for whistleblowers in the current climate.
gridmaths 13y ago
irrelevant, its Bruce Schneier
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'll just suspend my critical faculties then.
  - gridmaths 13y ago
    IMO, you can ignore the arguably bad reputation of The Atlantic, and focus all your critical faculties on the article itself [ which happens to be written by Bruce Schneier :]
  - bigiain 13y ago
    So exactly how are you demonstrating any use of your "critical facilities" by dismissing Schneier's entire article with no thought-through critisism, but just "Tha Atlantic? Meh…" followed by "There is nothing in this article." You clearly haven't _read_ the article, and have some axe to grind against the website. Fine - but don't try and claim this is your use of critical facilities.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I have read it, twice. Also, I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place. Here are my objections to his position: 1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). 2. While saying that it's scary what we don't know, he makes no effort to educate his audience on what we do know, such as how this sort of activity comes to be legal and constitutional in the first place, the answers to which lie in the 1970s (see my other comments on Smith v. Maryland today, for example). 3. Schneier has absolutely nothing to say on how this state of affairs might be fixed, or what it is that US citizens should demand of their senators and state representatives to repair the situation through democratic means. My answer to that question is that that we need a constitutional amendment that creates an explicit right to privacy and another that narrows the power of Congress to abdicate its oversight of the Executive branch, which latter is conveniently required to maximize its defensive capabilities. I also think it's high time that the AUMF was rescinded. 4. Schneier has made a fine career out of complaining about the security state but shows no leadership when it comes to rolling it back. We all hate the TSA's instrusive searches and silly rules, yes? But when the TSA proposed loosening the restrictions on what you could take onto a plane, to allow practical exceptions like small pocketknives and so on, airlines lobbied heavily against it on behalf of their staff (who, in fairness, would be facing an elevated risk). Despite years of complaining about the TSA, Schneier did not AFAIK write anything about the proposed changes, let alone express support or encourage others to do so. Although the proposed rule change was pretty small, it would have represented at least a minor victory for common sense instead of security theater. But when it was offered up from public debate, Schneier didn't even consider it worth mentioning to his readers. Schneier's great at stoking readers' outrage - not so good at educating them or helping them channel it effectively. In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical.
      - bigiain 13y ago
        "I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place." Apologies - I should have noticed that. Having said that, I stand by my call for evidence of application of critical facilities if that's what's being claimed - a call to which you're risen with flying colours. I _broadly_ agree with all of your points - but in my opinion you're selling him short with your final summation sentence "In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical." As I see it, he's built a reputation (and career) about being well-informed on security issues, and also being able to communicate those issues at a "popular media" level - perhaps sometimes oversimplifying, but almost always informing enough that a curious reader has enough knowledge and keywords to search for further information (and, like in this article, often providing many many more detailed and specific links). And while it would be even better if he provided solutions to some of the problems he writes about - educating the wider general public that the problems exist at all does a nett good for society. Expecting him to "show leadership" (or even have any solutions) as a prerequisite to pointing out problems seems unduly onerous.

gridmaths 13y ago

Bruce Schneier gives a more coherent overview on the current HN "surveillance state" theme. tl;dr : massive surveillance is real, there is far more, blow the whistle if you can, take precautions

rosser 13y ago

Our government is putting its own self-interest ahead of the interests of the country. That needs to change. This, this, a thousand times, this.

sneak 13y ago

Fuck, I love Schneier so much. He even ended with a call to action.

camus 13y ago

Welcome to the real world people , everyone has taken their red pile yet ? I mean you are giving up personal infos and data for (crappy) free services , what did you expect ? a free lunch with no hidden cost ? the government has all your datas and it will use it against you sooner or later.

sfjailbird 13y ago
This has nothing to do with the services being free.
- jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
  Actually it does. Free services means the loyalty is NOT to the users but whoever pays the bills (usually ad merchants). That's why there are "privacy policies" and not "privacy guarantees".
  - e12e 13y ago
    With regards to government spying, I think the only way which the business models of Facebook and Google matter, are that they are tuned towards gathering (and centralizing)data in the first place. I think there are big problems with the ad supported business model -- but I don't think it is that central to spying. Remember Hushmail?
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    Is there any evidence that paid Google Apps data, for example, wasn't transferred then? If this is because the service is free, they'd be protected, correct?

ck2 13y ago

Today I am throwing out the newspaper I was saving from the day after Obama was elected and all the electronic newspaper front pages from around the world I was saving from that day are being deleted from my hard drive. I've lost all pride. I am utterly disgusted with this administration. Any good he has done is wiped out by being far worse than Bush with the domestic spying and whistleblower prosecutions. How are we any better than China - because we at least eventually find out? Because people don't get disappeared off the street? You remember that feeling of incredible relief when we saw Bush finally being flown away in the helicopter on his last day? Well that feeling is going to be deja vu in a couple years. I just hope the next president doesn't try to do a one-up like Obama did to Bush. Obama's library/museum is going to be even more hypocritical than Bush's.

throwaway2048 13y ago
>Because people don't get disappeared off the street? dont worry, the legal frameworks are in place for that to start happening too.
- adventured 13y ago
  Give it two or three presidencies, and it could very well be an actual thing that happens here. You don't have to disappear a lot of people, just enough to get the word out. Putin doesn't have to kill a lot of people with polonium-210, just one or two public cases does the trick. The future looks obvious: don't fight the state, don't disagree with the state, or else. It's a fascism model, very similar to what Russia currently has (how ironic is that end result?!?). We have the widening rich / poor issue and oligarch class to go with it (which is very common under highly industrialized fascist nations).
- jw_ 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Yes, he's Canadian, but still.
- sfjailbird 13y ago
  I don't usually do this but... > Because people don't get disappeared off the street inside the U.S. Fixed that for you.

trxblazr 13y ago

So realistically, what can we, the populace, do?

rosser 13y ago
I don't know how effective it will be, but until something changes, I plan on very vocally being a one-issue voter. I will vote for, and donate to the campaigns of, anyone who will do something to rein in the surveillance monster, and I will make sure that my sitting representative and senators are aware of this. Unfortunately, one of my senators is Dianne "It's called defending America" Feinstein, and she's got her job for another 5 years, so I'm not expecting much in her case.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Waste of time. No one cares about your vote anymore. If you really care, find like minded people and go into politics yourself. You'll have to start local, then move to state, but even the state level can begin to have an effect. I suspect their may be enough people to make actual change, but so far they waste time by doing online petitions, sending emails to politicians or voting. If you want to change the US at this point you're going to have to do what the founding father's did: become the government you want.
adventured 13y ago
Only two sane choices. Fight or flight. 1) Speak out, set up organizations like the EFF or similar to fight for privacy. Or advocate on behalf of such organizations. Work the politicians however you can, to whatever extent that might help. Encourage the people you know to do the same; encourage people to give a shit again. Explain why it's important to fight this. 2) Try to leave the US, or at least begin disappearing yourself. Leave less of a trail. Communicate as little as necessary over the phone or digitally, and keep it strictly business (so to speak). Use good encryption wherever you can. Encourage the people you know to do the same. Either option is valid, both are entirely personal, moral choices. Some people stayed when the Iron Curtain went up in Russia and tried to fight it, some fled; ditto Germany, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on.

jasonjei 13y ago

If you see something, say something. That's funny. That's the slogan they have plastered all over New York's subway system.

e12e 13y ago
It's a joke, all right: http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-campaign http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-campai...

tigger 13y ago

Thinking of that George Orwell quote from 1984: “You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.” Perhaps even in darkness!

mcintyre1994 13y ago
Why use telescreens to watch people when you can just monitor the methods they use to communicate what they're doing? Seems like a pretty reasonable comparison in a way.

kijin 13y ago

> The U.S. government is on a secrecy binge ... We need whistle-blowers. Q: What's the difference between the kind of transparency that Wikileaks et al. tries to promote, and the kind of transparency that Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook users to adopt? A: The former asks transparency of powerful entities, helping to check their power. The latter asks transparency of relatively powerless individuals, enabling the modern surveillance state and making individuals even more powerless. The most important thing that we should keep in mind when we talk about any sort of justice in the context of information is how possession of information alters the balance of power in the world. Because politics, ultimately, boils down to who has how much power over whom. It's not about embarrassment. It's all about the loss of authority that public scrutiny and embarrassment can cause. "Knowledge is power": knowing something about somebody gives you power over that somebody. This rule of thumb even works when we interact with physical objects (if you know how something works, you have the power to use it to your advantage), and it works just as well when we interact with other people. Asymmetric transparency leads to asymmetric power because they know enough about you to take advantage of you but you don't know enough about them to take advantage of them. This is why I firmly believe that powerful entities should be required to be several orders of magnitude more transparent, and therefore open to public scrutiny, than the average chump would ever need to be. The only thing that can balance off the asymmetry of power that complex social organization usually entails is an asymmetry of knowledge in the other direction. Example: Who I talked with on the phone last night is none of your fucking business. But if you're in a position of considerable power, every meeting you ever have with every lobbyist in the Universe should be damn well everyone's business. This is not unfair at all. Clinton had no right to get secret blowjobs in my opinion. Nobody should be allowed to have both power and privacy, because the combination is a recipe for tyranny.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

D9u 13y ago

This just goes to show that it took both political parties, working together for decades, to arrive at the current juncture.

sigkill 13y ago

[Honest question with absolutely zero bad intentions] I hate to bring this up again and again, but how long before the USG turns into Nazi Germany? Right now, they're in the data collection phase, and are squashing dissidents. I don't live in the US but I casually told this news to a 'normal person' I met yesterday [my parents] and they weren't even flinching. Almost like it wasn't their problem. I wonder if the 'not living in the US' part has anything to do with this. The reason I'm worried about this is, now that USG has this tech, they won't hesitate to sell this to other countries. EDIT - To the person who downvoted me, I am not upset but can you tell me why my post does not contribute to the discussion? It is a known fact that any tech the US researches and implements is soon commercialized and sold to other countries, and as compared to weapons, surveillance tech sales is definitely a walk in the park.

hga 13y ago
The threshold I generally use is the use of extra-legal violence, e.g. open violence against those "dissidents" with the organs of the state ignoring it. Which won't work very well at all in such a well armed, and better armed every day country (for the last several years every month has had higher gun sales from licensed gun stores compared to the month a year ago, details can be found at http://www.nssf.org/ http://www.nssf.org/). Also makes a very big difference that policing is primarily under local control, and the central government can't stop state prosecutions without explicitly acknowledging the target is a government agent (see the squashing of the state prosecution of Lon Horiuchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charg...). Of course, also in light of Nazi Germany, any serious national effort at gun confiscation will instantly spark the civil war we seem to be sliding towards. On the likelihood of that (kudos to you for acknowledging the systematic "squashing" of dissidents), let me quote the recently woken up Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." She's using "shoot" in a metaphorical sense (tellingly, American English has a lot of shooting and gun metaphors).

neilxdsouza 13y ago

I have even scarier thoughts that this. Let's say the CIA, FBI etc had a commong brainstorming session on how to target spying on people. Here are some ideas they could come up with: 1. Intel is the biggest distributor of computer chips, lets target them 2. Microsoft is the biggest supplier of desktop software, lets target them. 3. If we can pick up signals from distant galaxies can we not make our own special network out of those thousands of desktops running those powerful computer chips today? Problem: If someone at intel/MS directly works with us, we will be found out. Solution: Let's target a high level exec, he wont do anything other than allow them to employ a few of our special programmers. Take the chip plans from Intel. Make some modifications to add another core, which is activated in a special mode and instruction running its own Operating System/wifi etc. Deployment: Tell the high level exec, tell us when your next upgrade to manufacturing hardware will arrive. Just give us the date and the shipping information. Intercept the hardware and modify it's software to dynamically change the plans, with a new one. For MS, hack the build system using something similar to the Ken Thompson hack. If I was into spying, with a govt agency I would definitely do this. Which is why I always assume my computer is compromised.

gasull 13y ago
Alvin Toffler already talked about this possibility in his 1993 book Future Wars http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-Flashpoints/dp/0446364215&#x2F http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-Flashpoin...;

eightyone 13y ago

This is off topic, but... Mozilla should develop Firefox OS to be as secure as possible.

anon1385 13y ago
That's impossible unless they throw out all the web technologies they currently use. Users need to be able to encrypt their data such that the cloud providers can't ever see it. The web as it stands is just not designed to be used like this; even if all my google docs data is encrypted and google does not have the key, it will need to be decrypted in-browser to be displayed which means a) broken javascript crypto and b) the page can then send all the data back to google anyway. A further problem is the economics of the web: it's largely based on providing services that are free to use but paid for by advertisers. You can't target advertising if you don't have data about user habits. Economically Google can't exist without tracking people and recording as much data as possible.

vixen99 13y ago

As a non-American I am surprised no one here has commented specifically on this electric call to arms: "Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it. If you see something, say something. There are many people in the U.S. that will appreciate and admire you. "

eldr 13y ago

I'm usually skeptical of conspiracies, but now I guess I have to be more open to the possibility of this kind of behaviour. If they went to these lengths with tech companies can't we assume that surveillance in place within financial institutions is even worse than what we know it is? It could hint at another angle beyond having lots of money where Wall Street has leverage over Washington. I can imagine bank execs threatening leaks should things not go their way.

flyinRyan 13y ago
You should always be skeptical, but you must always keep in mind that conspiracies do happen all the time [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_the_Business_Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_t...

scanr 13y ago

As a foreigner, it's pretty disappointing that spying on us is considered fair game. That said, it appears that any American who communicates with someone overseas also gets to join our special club. This feels like a fairly large loophole. Does replying to this comment count?

mcintyre1994 13y ago
As a European it sort of makes you wonder about this Data Protection Act, with its loophole safe harbours to allow data transfer to the US. How exactly is that protected under these circumstances, and have Europe just given up on protecting anything because the US told them so?
- mcpie 13y ago
  Nothing was 'given up'. Something was traded. European intelligence agencies regularly 'launder' intercepts through foreign governments ('hey NSA, we'll trade you some info, if you can get us some info on one of our own...').
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    I asked have they just given up, so in that context given up referred to stopped trying to protect us. Your comment seems to suggest that yes, they have given up on protecting Europeans' data.
- andrewmccall 13y ago
  EU data protection regulations are in force. There will no doubt be some scrutiny as to what data safe harbour companies have transfered outside the EU and what steps were taken to protect it. Far from giving up the EU is engaged in strengthening the directives far beyond what's required now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulat...
tomjen3 13y ago
As a European I take it as an example of the classical US "the world ends at our borders, everything else doesn't matter" mentality. But hey at least when China rises to be a world power it will become even worse.

tn13 13y ago

Just now I heard on NPR that China hacked several key military systems of United States. US government has already chickened on this issue. Not just governments but any institution when starts hurting those who can not hit back, you know they are on decline. If US interests are under threat from anyone then it is not Afghanistan or Iran or Syria but China. US government wont get anything by spying on US citizens but by standing upto China.

flyinRyan 13y ago
I hope the US tries to stand up to China. The US has been long over due for a good hard smack down, and it would be beautiful to watch China give it to them.

hooande 13y ago

I want to provide some perspective here, at the risk of being downvoted. To compare what the US government is doing to a truly oppressive regime is insulting. People in the world today live in fear of physical harm from their own government. They aren't worried about phone call meta data or blanket call logging. They're worried about being taken by force with no trial, no ACLU or EFF to help them. Just gone. Ai Weiwei served months in jail for art projects that were critical of the government. Can anyone imagine that happening here, in the country where flag burning is constitutionally protected? There are dozens of countries in the world today that have a near 100% conviction rate for political dissidents. Here in America confessed terrorists have the right to an attorney and god help the prosecution if there was any missed technicality during the arrest. Don't dare be a girl trying to go to school in many middle eastern countries. Might get run over by a tank if you openly oppose the chinese government. Offend the king of saud with your actions and you'll be literally stoned to death in the street. And we're worried about phone call meta data? I think a lot of this is ignorance about how modern counter terrorism works. The most effective tool we have is social network analysis. Find a terrorist and see who calls them, then see who calls those people and out and out. Look at the vertices and edges and dependency networks and we can learn a lot about complex organizations without risking any lives. It's understood that this is offensive to many people's privacy beliefs, but it's the best tool we have. If you want to know why government agency's are engaging in this wildly unpopular behavior, here's the answer: On 9/11 a lot of people swore to god that it would never happen again. That might sound like a joke to people who never held up their hand and vowed protect and defend. People give their fucking lives to stop threats that you'll never know about. Question their methods all you want, they aren't going to listen. Also: Save the slippery slope nonsense. There is a 0% chance of the US government becoming an oppressive regime, surveillance or not. Those things just don't happen in times of peace and prosperity. No country has ever gone from being an advanced democracy to being a tyrannical regime. Obama can't even pass a law without 37 votes to repeal.

jacquesm 13y ago
> People in the world today live in fear of physical harm from their own government. They aren't worried about phone call meta data or blanket call logging. They're worried about being taken by force with no trial, no ACLU or EFF to help them. Just gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

coldtea 13y ago

A few quick notes: 1) They have and will be spying on citizens forever. Anybody who believes mission statements, officials, and that they "follow the law", is extremely naive. 2) More important than any terrorists to them, are dissident citizens. Not of the gun-totting, hillbilly mountain militia type. The kind that can effect political change to the system type, from Joe Hill and Mother Jones, to MLK and Malcom X, to Occupy Wall Street (if that thing ever got anywhere coherent). People making waves.

merraksh 13y ago

This is one of the best parts: If you see something, say something. and it's directed to potential whistle-blowers.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mun2mun 13y ago

People at r/conspiracy are like "I told you so" :). Also free software supporters are feeling same thing I hope.

wslh 13y ago

And then... they can't prevent attacks such as the Boston bombings. They gather data but where is the intelligence?

pfortuny 13y ago

And we are now exactly where the terrorists wanted: a terrified administration knee-jerking, kneeling before them, breaking the law and treading on the american constitutional rights because 'they are a threat' or even 'can be a threat' ... they? Man, if Bin Laden were still alive he would be salivating right now. This is freaking unbelieable: the Administration is (has been and seems to be going to be) simply TERRIFIED. They may not believe in God (I do not know) but they do certainly believe in the Devil and they call it 'Terror'. So, they have won, and they have won big. The classical thrashing of the enemy. Has the Administration really learnt nothing since McCarthy? These people talk about due process but they really know (or willfully reject) anything about it. "Get all that Roman Law and burn it, it is useless: what is that about citicens? WE RULE, and WE RULE THE WORLD." S.H.A.M.E-O.N.-Y.O.U. NSA and the Administration (whatever the party, whatever the President). Thankfully, there was someone with a conscience out there.

prollyignored 13y ago

Has anybody seen Sam Lowry ?

tshile 13y ago

The media finally has an opportunity to be what they always want us to believe they are: a form of power of the citizenry to keep the government in check. There's lots of discussion on how the people have no power since this problem isn't an issue of voting for one side or the other - there's only one side represented by politicians, and it's the pro-spying activity side. (Side note: I don't mean to diminish those people's concerns, I'm sure majority of them are honestly trying to protect us the best they can.) The only way for real change to come about this style of government is for the media to demand it. They've sat idly by watching it (ore more appropriately, ignoring it) for over a decade now. It's time for them to put up or shut up. Hopefully the AP/Reporter spying by the DOJ was enough to put a fire under their butts about it. Hopefully this is just the start to intense scrutiny by all media outlets (not just foxnews, not just msnbc, ie: not just one party's mouth piece, but all of them.) Unfortunately we just have to wait and see. The media has a chance to redeem themselves for the past decade+ of caring more about what is trending on Youtube and Twitter than protecting their viewership. Hopefully they rise to the task.

venomsnake 13y ago

There was this joke in my country when a recent wiretapping scandal broke - the US equivalent will be: How can you wish Happy Birthday to President Obama - just tell it on the phone while talking to a friend - Erik Holder will already be listening and will send the greetings.

DamnYuppie 13y ago

Having read all the comments I am disappointed. This is a great opportunity to discuss this issue and make more people aware of the dangers of such activity. Yet the bulk of the discourse has degraded into partisan drivel of "Obama vs Bush". Honestly who cares? Every administration has played a part in this and they all have equal blame so get over it! Attempting to say one side did this or that will not solve the issue. What they are doing is bad, it shouldn't happen, all who support it need to be kicked out..full stop...no excuses...

jack_trades 13y ago

Not sure how this story is breaking and unexpected. This is exactly the type and style of program that was expected right after 9/11. It's totally the NSA's playground and the co-operation and/or backdooring of major, communication-funneling corporations would be assured. How is this shocking? It has little to do with political winds and everything to do with the spawn of the military-industrial complex... the military-infocomm complex. James Bamford