13 ms·

I don't mean to be cynical, but a mere petition is just the tip of the iceberg. This is a government agency that is commiting widespread breach of privacy. A p

I don't mean to be cynical, but a mere petition is just the tip of the iceberg. This is a government agency that is commiting widespread breach of privacy. A petition will not be respected. It's an OK start, but it will be essentially meaningless. If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace. The ease of an action corresponds to what it can achieve. Do you want change? Show the government how badly you want it. Fight for your rights. Don't just click a link. They've demonstrated they don't care for the voice of the people. So change the domain to something they do care about.

jfoutz 13y ago
Just to be clear, which law was it that you think they broke? I'd happily agree what the NSA did was just as wrong as, say, making it to easy to get mortgages. But the law and morality don't always agree.
- samstave 13y ago
  Taxation without representation. Personally, I think that anyone against this should show a civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
  - pvnick 13y ago
    Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up
  - timr 13y ago
    PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
    - spikels 13y ago
      I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it? You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
      - timr 13y ago
        "I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?" Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage. What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court. Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
        ixnu 13y ago
        Did Spitzer or Petraeus have conversations with foreign participants?
        spikels 13y ago
        I know for a fact is does not. Even with the traditional criminal warrant (say a mafia boss) they only need a warrant for ONE person on the call.
    - eightyone 13y ago
  - btilly 13y ago
    Playing Devil's advocate here. The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.
    - ahallock 13y ago
      But how do we know that? There is no accountability. They do everything under secrecy. It might be different if we had a third-party, non-governmental agency verifying that they are not violating the 4th amendment. Why have no accountability and no transparency if they were not going to violate our privacy? I'm flipping the "If you have nothing to hide" bit on them. But even if there were oversight, the main issue is the potential for abuse. Having all that data in the hands of an entity that can imprison you is a pretty frightening idea. Sure, maybe they're following the rules now, but in desperate times, people can behave immorally and radically. Do not trust other human beings, even if they are under the umbrella of "government". Look at what evil humans have done in the last century alone and you'll agree that we should limit the potential for abuse as much as possible.
      - btilly 13y ago
        The government's position is that both Congress and the courts provide accountability here, and the reason for not being transparent is that they do not want the people who are being monitored to be aware of exactly what capabilities the USA does and does not have. The rest of your argument is about reality as civil libertarians see it, and not how the government sees it. (Because, after all, they think that the briefing that Congress gets and the oversight of the FISA court is sufficient protection.)
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.
  - dm2 13y ago
    That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second. First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.
    - freeman478 13y ago
      > Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. This reminds me of the copyright talks but obviously when it's citizens doing it, copying is stealing but when it's NSA, copying is not an issue because it does not remove anything ...
- sigzero 13y ago
  Exactly. The FISA court probably ok'd it, which makes it legal (as far as that goes).
  - ohazi 13y ago
    A FISA court stamp doesn't give them some magical ability to suddenly ignore the 4th amendment.
  - eightyone 13y ago
    This is false. The FISC found the NSA spying to be unconstitonal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
- eightyone 13y ago
  "In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program." [1] [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
  - jfoutz 13y ago
    That is a good argument. However, the NSA isn't breaking the law until the supreme court strikes down the FISA amendments, right? I don't understand exactly what happens when a law is found unconstitutional. I can't imagine an analyst at the NSA would be retroactively charged with a crime, would they?
    - eightyone 13y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's correct. I believe they have to abide by the FISC ruling until a higher court rules in their favor. Obviously they don't want to take it to a higher court because then the public would find out. There's a reason why they are trying to keep the documents of the ruling a secret. Any lawyers here feel free to chime in.
vowelless 13y ago
> The ease of an action corresponds to what it can achieve. Well put.
billsix 13y ago
> If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. How do you define "to riot", and "civil disobedience". They sound mutually exclusive to me.
- madaxe 13y ago
  A riot where you obey the authorities isn't much of a riot.
- angusangus 13y ago
  The 'civil' in 'civil disobedience' refers to disobeying the civil government, not disobeying politely.
  - billsix 13y ago
    And "to riot"?
cinquemb 13y ago
True, but let us give them the chance to ignore yet another petition and truly prove to us that we as citizens have little say in the status quo in the government that is supposed to represent all its people. More fuel for the fire couldn't hurt eh? Besides it's summer time…
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  How many more times do they need to prove this to us? "Well, I know he punched me in the face, kicked me in the balls and raped my girlfriend in front of me but I'm still not convinced he wants trouble".
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    I don't know, but is it better than just getting up and leaving, since that doesn't really address the reach of the issues that confront the world today?
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      You don't have to leave if you don't want to. But your choices are to do nothing (which includes meaningless actions like online petitions) or get directly involved in politics. At this point I'd say there is literally no one to vote for, so if you want to change things you'll need to run yourself. If enough of us do that we could make a change. I see literally no other possibilities at this point.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Or to sign petitions, organize protests, do outreach in the community or other more subversive things. Why put limits on what one can do due to the perceived (lack of) value others may give it?
snitko 13y ago
Or use Bitcoin exclusively instead of the USD.
csomar 13y ago
If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace. Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change? You know, Tunisia went on a relatively peaceful revolution and now we have less freedom and more problems/unemployment. It's even worse for countries where the revolution is violent. Having lived that experience, I'll be against rioting/civil disobedience any time and for any cause. Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.
- baby 13y ago
  Revolution in France in 1789. We don't learn history in school for nothing I hope.
  - btilly 13y ago
    That made change. Not necessarily the DESIRED change, but it certainly changed things!
    - baby 13y ago
      That brought Democracy. Which is closer to what people wanted at that time : A country ruled by the people. Let's not forget that it brought us something even more beautiful : The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Ma...
      - btilly 13y ago
        It also brought us Napoleon. And dictatorship. The guillotine. Many wars. More executions. The identification of the political right vs the political left. And on, and on, and on. The world was certainly changed. Not always for the better.
        whatusername 13y ago
anigbrowl 13y ago
If you want results, riot in the streets. Talk is cheap. What sort of riot do you plan on participating in? The sort where you surround a government building, or the kind where you just trash whatever comes to hand?
timberlane 13y ago
I'd understand if you wanted to do additional actions that can help. But signing this petition takes 30 seconds and is useful. I urge you to consider it.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Citation needed that it's even remotely useful because I've only ever seen evidence to the contrary.
rd108 13y ago
This is foolish. Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law, Gandhi did the same and freed India from the British empire. And today we're much more networked and able to communicate directly, P2P, without the media or government as message passer. Our system works remarkably well, considering how poorly it works ;) Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- these government agencies can be reined in, they live on government budgets every year just like the rest of government. It is the End of privacy, and that's okay.. But as an aside, I reckon surveillance equipment should also gaze back at the Police State itself. Google glass and Steve Mann's ideas about "sousveillance" will hopefully continue to evolve, they're all much smarter people than me. Every gov official should be under 24-7 video and email surveillance ;). i think a good rule is, the more power you have the more you have to be spied on constantly by the people.
- olefoo 13y ago
  Actually, the national security budgets are remarkably insulated from the rest of the government, and there is plenty of evidence that the CIA at the very least, has not been shy about creating other sources of income to fund it's off the books activities. But yes, transparency should go up as well as down.
  - rd108 13y ago
    I didn't realize that NSA funding was harder to nil out! I guess because the Pentagon gets their budget and then can do what they want with it? I'm sure strings could be attached to the Pentagon's budget though. Upvoting your comment here too, though. Thank you.
- cup 13y ago
  I think non-violent protests only work when the state (or entity you are protesting against) is forced to negotiate. By that I mean all these non violent protests occured at a time during violent protests. Martin Luther King Jnr was given negotiating power because the State preferred a non violent entity over the black panthers and other militaristic groups. If there is no threat of repercussion, why would any entity bother negotiating with you?
olefoo 13y ago
A more effective list of tactics (for the long term): 1. poison databases; feed bogus information to surveillance systems at all levels, do this as a matter of course, make it pop culture. 2. build darknets: for instance wifi nodes disconnected from the internet that multiple communities use as a dropbox and rendezvous point ( a linux box, a solar cell, some git magic (or UUCP/Usenet for the old school feel ), and you have something that exists beyond the knowledge of the network ) for extra kicks confine it to only a few locations and times. Or build entire networks air-gapped from the internet; wire your neighborhood and make your own media. 3. If everybody's an informant, make a game of it. Rat out your enemies to the authorities, better yet rat out the informants as rabble rousers... 4. Get serious; break into secret databases, copy them and spread them around. 5. Identify effective advocates of the national security state and neutralize them. But only the effective ones. If you're doing the job right the 10 people within the NSA who are politically adept and technically competent should be in jail for child pornography by this time next year. Any mid-level member of the intelligence community who isn't regularly getting hit with bogus charges and stupid anonymous pranks is probably grossly incompetent. 6. If you know anyone who works in the intelligence community, shame them socially; ask them why they are making the USA into East Germany. 7. Occupy 8. Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cpursley 13y ago
  Good idea. Overwhelm the system with the keywords they're flagging. i.e., bomb. pentagon. drop-point. fertilizer. sarah jessica parker.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    What (jihad) are you (allah) talking (semtex) talking about (thermite) dude? That is the worst (white house ) plot or plan I've ever heard in my (uranium) life. I can C4 myself that this plot is not "the bomb", as they say. This needs to bake, or should I say "pressure cooker" a little bit longer before we explode it on people. If we (hack secure systems) find useful (enriched) data and share it (hack the planet) with the people who really need it( secure, classified, NOFORN) we won't let them trash our rights. Trust your techolust.
waltz 13y ago
They are cunning and you should be above it.
stefanix 13y ago
There is certainly more you can do, specifically non-violent ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k http://beautifultrouble.org/ http://beautifultrouble.org/
dllthomas 13y ago
Don't just click a link, but still click the link!
snowwrestler 13y ago
There is a survivorship bias when looking at the history of activism. It looks like it takes extremely high effort to achieve anything worthwhile: look at what the labor and civil rights movements had to endure, for instance. But, there are plenty of examples of other change that was achieved at lower cost. The environmental movement, for instance, generally did not face levels of institutional rejection and physical violence that labor and civil rights did. Why? Because they had a message that a broad swath of Americans could believe in. Regardless of party, ideology, or race, no one wants their kids to get sick from pollution. So, the first steps in activism should be the easiest steps. They might work! And if they don't, having tried them creates the moral authority for more aggressive tactics. Movements that jump straight to civic unrest are typically rejected by the broader American culture. Most people highly value law and order, and are only willing to tolerate departures when they think it's absolutely necessary.

jfoutz 13y ago

Just to be clear, which law was it that you think they broke? I'd happily agree what the NSA did was just as wrong as, say, making it to easy to get mortgages. But the law and morality don't always agree.

samstave 13y ago
Taxation without representation. Personally, I think that anyone against this should show a civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes.
WildUtah 13y ago
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- pvnick 13y ago
  Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up
- timr 13y ago
  PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
  - spikels 13y ago
    I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it? You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
    - timr 13y ago
      "I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?" Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage. What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court. Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
      - ixnu 13y ago
        Did Spitzer or Petraeus have conversations with foreign participants?
      - spikels 13y ago
        I know for a fact is does not. Even with the traditional criminal warrant (say a mafia boss) they only need a warrant for ONE person on the call.
  - eightyone 13y ago
- btilly 13y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate here. The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.
  - ahallock 13y ago
    But how do we know that? There is no accountability. They do everything under secrecy. It might be different if we had a third-party, non-governmental agency verifying that they are not violating the 4th amendment. Why have no accountability and no transparency if they were not going to violate our privacy? I'm flipping the "If you have nothing to hide" bit on them. But even if there were oversight, the main issue is the potential for abuse. Having all that data in the hands of an entity that can imprison you is a pretty frightening idea. Sure, maybe they're following the rules now, but in desperate times, people can behave immorally and radically. Do not trust other human beings, even if they are under the umbrella of "government". Look at what evil humans have done in the last century alone and you'll agree that we should limit the potential for abuse as much as possible.
    - btilly 13y ago
      The government's position is that both Congress and the courts provide accountability here, and the reason for not being transparent is that they do not want the people who are being monitored to be aware of exactly what capabilities the USA does and does not have. The rest of your argument is about reality as civil libertarians see it, and not how the government sees it. (Because, after all, they think that the briefing that Congress gets and the oversight of the FISA court is sufficient protection.)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.
- dm2 13y ago
  That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second. First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.
  - freeman478 13y ago
    > Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. This reminds me of the copyright talks but obviously when it's citizens doing it, copying is stealing but when it's NSA, copying is not an issue because it does not remove anything ...
sigzero 13y ago
Exactly. The FISA court probably ok'd it, which makes it legal (as far as that goes).
- ohazi 13y ago
  A FISA court stamp doesn't give them some magical ability to suddenly ignore the 4th amendment.
- eightyone 13y ago
  This is false. The FISC found the NSA spying to be unconstitonal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
eightyone 13y ago
"In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program." [1] [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
- jfoutz 13y ago
  That is a good argument. However, the NSA isn't breaking the law until the supreme court strikes down the FISA amendments, right? I don't understand exactly what happens when a law is found unconstitutional. I can't imagine an analyst at the NSA would be retroactively charged with a crime, would they?
  - eightyone 13y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's correct. I believe they have to abide by the FISC ruling until a higher court rules in their favor. Obviously they don't want to take it to a higher court because then the public would find out. There's a reason why they are trying to keep the documents of the ruling a secret. Any lawyers here feel free to chime in.

vowelless 13y ago

> The ease of an action corresponds to what it can achieve. Well put.

billsix 13y ago

> If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. How do you define "to riot", and "civil disobedience". They sound mutually exclusive to me.

madaxe 13y ago
A riot where you obey the authorities isn't much of a riot.
angusangus 13y ago
The 'civil' in 'civil disobedience' refers to disobeying the civil government, not disobeying politely.
- billsix 13y ago
  And "to riot"?

cinquemb 13y ago

True, but let us give them the chance to ignore yet another petition and truly prove to us that we as citizens have little say in the status quo in the government that is supposed to represent all its people. More fuel for the fire couldn't hurt eh? Besides it's summer time…

flyinRyan 13y ago
How many more times do they need to prove this to us? "Well, I know he punched me in the face, kicked me in the balls and raped my girlfriend in front of me but I'm still not convinced he wants trouble".
- cinquemb 13y ago
  I don't know, but is it better than just getting up and leaving, since that doesn't really address the reach of the issues that confront the world today?
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    You don't have to leave if you don't want to. But your choices are to do nothing (which includes meaningless actions like online petitions) or get directly involved in politics. At this point I'd say there is literally no one to vote for, so if you want to change things you'll need to run yourself. If enough of us do that we could make a change. I see literally no other possibilities at this point.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Or to sign petitions, organize protests, do outreach in the community or other more subversive things. Why put limits on what one can do due to the perceived (lack of) value others may give it?

snitko 13y ago

Or use Bitcoin exclusively instead of the USD.

csomar 13y ago

If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace. Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change? You know, Tunisia went on a relatively peaceful revolution and now we have less freedom and more problems/unemployment. It's even worse for countries where the revolution is violent. Having lived that experience, I'll be against rioting/civil disobedience any time and for any cause. Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.

baby 13y ago
Revolution in France in 1789. We don't learn history in school for nothing I hope.
- btilly 13y ago
  That made change. Not necessarily the DESIRED change, but it certainly changed things!
  - baby 13y ago
    That brought Democracy. Which is closer to what people wanted at that time : A country ruled by the people. Let's not forget that it brought us something even more beautiful : The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Ma...
    - btilly 13y ago
      It also brought us Napoleon. And dictatorship. The guillotine. Many wars. More executions. The identification of the political right vs the political left. And on, and on, and on. The world was certainly changed. Not always for the better.
      - whatusername 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

If you want results, riot in the streets. Talk is cheap. What sort of riot do you plan on participating in? The sort where you surround a government building, or the kind where you just trash whatever comes to hand?

timberlane 13y ago

I'd understand if you wanted to do additional actions that can help. But signing this petition takes 30 seconds and is useful. I urge you to consider it.

flyinRyan 13y ago
Citation needed that it's even remotely useful because I've only ever seen evidence to the contrary.

rd108 13y ago

This is foolish. Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law, Gandhi did the same and freed India from the British empire. And today we're much more networked and able to communicate directly, P2P, without the media or government as message passer. Our system works remarkably well, considering how poorly it works ;) Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- these government agencies can be reined in, they live on government budgets every year just like the rest of government. It is the End of privacy, and that's okay.. But as an aside, I reckon surveillance equipment should also gaze back at the Police State itself. Google glass and Steve Mann's ideas about "sousveillance" will hopefully continue to evolve, they're all much smarter people than me. Every gov official should be under 24-7 video and email surveillance ;). i think a good rule is, the more power you have the more you have to be spied on constantly by the people.

olefoo 13y ago
Actually, the national security budgets are remarkably insulated from the rest of the government, and there is plenty of evidence that the CIA at the very least, has not been shy about creating other sources of income to fund it's off the books activities. But yes, transparency should go up as well as down.
- rd108 13y ago
  I didn't realize that NSA funding was harder to nil out! I guess because the Pentagon gets their budget and then can do what they want with it? I'm sure strings could be attached to the Pentagon's budget though. Upvoting your comment here too, though. Thank you.
cup 13y ago
I think non-violent protests only work when the state (or entity you are protesting against) is forced to negotiate. By that I mean all these non violent protests occured at a time during violent protests. Martin Luther King Jnr was given negotiating power because the State preferred a non violent entity over the black panthers and other militaristic groups. If there is no threat of repercussion, why would any entity bother negotiating with you?

olefoo 13y ago

A more effective list of tactics (for the long term): 1. poison databases; feed bogus information to surveillance systems at all levels, do this as a matter of course, make it pop culture. 2. build darknets: for instance wifi nodes disconnected from the internet that multiple communities use as a dropbox and rendezvous point ( a linux box, a solar cell, some git magic (or UUCP/Usenet for the old school feel ), and you have something that exists beyond the knowledge of the network ) for extra kicks confine it to only a few locations and times. Or build entire networks air-gapped from the internet; wire your neighborhood and make your own media. 3. If everybody's an informant, make a game of it. Rat out your enemies to the authorities, better yet rat out the informants as rabble rousers... 4. Get serious; break into secret databases, copy them and spread them around. 5. Identify effective advocates of the national security state and neutralize them. But only the effective ones. If you're doing the job right the 10 people within the NSA who are politically adept and technically competent should be in jail for child pornography by this time next year. Any mid-level member of the intelligence community who isn't regularly getting hit with bogus charges and stupid anonymous pranks is probably grossly incompetent. 6. If you know anyone who works in the intelligence community, shame them socially; ask them why they are making the USA into East Germany. 7. Occupy 8. Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cpursley 13y ago
Good idea. Overwhelm the system with the keywords they're flagging. i.e., bomb. pentagon. drop-point. fertilizer. sarah jessica parker.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  What (jihad) are you (allah) talking (semtex) talking about (thermite) dude? That is the worst (white house ) plot or plan I've ever heard in my (uranium) life. I can C4 myself that this plot is not "the bomb", as they say. This needs to bake, or should I say "pressure cooker" a little bit longer before we explode it on people. If we (hack secure systems) find useful (enriched) data and share it (hack the planet) with the people who really need it( secure, classified, NOFORN) we won't let them trash our rights. Trust your techolust.

waltz 13y ago

They are cunning and you should be above it.

stefanix 13y ago

There is certainly more you can do, specifically non-violent ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k http://beautifultrouble.org/ http://beautifultrouble.org/

dllthomas 13y ago

Don't just click a link, but still click the link!

snowwrestler 13y ago

There is a survivorship bias when looking at the history of activism. It looks like it takes extremely high effort to achieve anything worthwhile: look at what the labor and civil rights movements had to endure, for instance. But, there are plenty of examples of other change that was achieved at lower cost. The environmental movement, for instance, generally did not face levels of institutional rejection and physical violence that labor and civil rights did. Why? Because they had a message that a broad swath of Americans could believe in. Regardless of party, ideology, or race, no one wants their kids to get sick from pollution. So, the first steps in activism should be the easiest steps. They might work! And if they don't, having tried them creates the moral authority for more aggressive tactics. Movements that jump straight to civic unrest are typically rejected by the broader American culture. Most people highly value law and order, and are only willing to tolerate departures when they think it's absolutely necessary.