11 ms·

Stop Watching Us

470 points by sethbannon 13y ago

kumarski 13y ago
I'll happily sign it, but is this effective? As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible things can I do to actually change the system/ make a dent in it? Suggestions: 1.) Free SEO growth hacking for politicians that vehemently oppose invasions of online privacy. 2.) Help me out......
- mindcrime 13y ago
  As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible things can I do to actually change the system/ make a dent in it? 1. Cash. Cold, hard, cash. Donate it to the EFF, and/or whatever other organizations you think stand to move public policy in a better direction, or otherwise contribute to improving the situation. Maybe also consider the Free Software Foundation, EPIC, the Libertarian Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, etc. 2. Organize people and educate them. Start a "Digital Privacy Meetup" in your town, and invite speakers to talk about using Tor, I2P, GPG, SSL/TLS, etc. Get some people educated on these issues and then send them out to speak at other events. 3. Join Toastmasters, practice giving speeches and presentations. Get really good at it. Run for public office. Get elected (or not). In either case, your campaign is a platform to promote a message and spread the word about something you believe in. 4. Give cash to the campaigns of candidates who you believe actually reflect your values. Don't limit yourself to Democrats and Republicans either. If the Libertarian Party candidate, or the Green Party candidate, or the Constitution Party candidate, or the Pirate Party candidate are best in your opinion, throw some support their way. 3rd party candidates can influence the debate, and influence the election, even when they aren't the eventual winner. Don't ignore the nth order effects.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  If you can raise a pot of money, you can get politicians' attention. The bigger the pot, the more the attention. Start a PAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee). Yours would be a "non-connected" PAC, meaning it's not associated with a corporation, trade group, etc. This is just a matter of filing a form with the FEC; they even provide a toolkit (http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml#nonconnected http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml#nonconnected) with the required form and instructions on how to fill it out. Now you can start raising money. Use your SEO skills to collect donations online. PACs are restricted to raising $5,000/year from individuals, but in the world of small-dollar online donations, that's fine. Your goal is to get lots of small donations, not a few big ones. Now you've got your pot of money; what can you do with it? First, you can give some of it directly to candidates -- up to $5,000 per cycle to each candidate. That may not sound like a lot, if you establish yourself as a "maxed out" donor to a candidate, they will be very interested in your opinions. More interestingly, you can take that money and make what are called "independent expenditures." This means buying ads that directly urge people to vote for Candidate X or against Candidate Y. The "independent" part just means you can't "coordinate" your ad plan with any campaign; so if you're going to run ads slagging Candidate Y, you can't work with her opponent to harmonize your ad calendar or message with his. There are no limits to how much a PAC can spend on independent expenditures, so if you can raise enough money, you can pick a candidate who's particularly bad on your issues and absolutely carpet-bomb his district with negative ads. It may not be enough to cost him the election, but you'll win either way: if you unseat him, you have a trophy you can wield to convince other candidates they should listen to you; if you don't, you'll have made it very clear to him that you're prepared to make his life difficult every two years as long as he maintains his current position. Many politicians' positions are weakly held, so he may be happy to change his stance in exchange for you carpet-bombing his district with ads saying how great he is next time around.
throwit1979 13y ago
Thank god for this. If there's one thing that really gets despotic police states to change their ways, it's online letters.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  If nothing else, it provides a sense to Congress of how many people are angry about this. And at least some in Congress are angry, too. So it may or may not do much, but it's something at least. It is, I believe, a more valuable action than commenting online about how it won't do anything.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    And how much collective campaign financing will these angry people provide next election? Zero? Then fuck them.
    - legutierr 13y ago
      Campaign financing only exists to buy propaganda to influence people to vote one way or another (excluding some dirty tricks at the margins). Issue voters are largely outside the reach of this propaganda, which is why they often have so much influence (think NRA and Christian conservatives, who are willing to go against party interests to pursue their issues). If a large enough block of organized, committed issue voters were to emerge from this event (especially a bipartisan block), that would do much to change the political landscape, and could significantly undermine the influence of money in certain elections.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        That's a lot of ifs. All I know is, when I was a kid calling your congressmen works. Now hundreds of people spamming phone calls and emails has no effect at all. Advertising works and the politicians know it. They don't care about fringe voters because it's usually not a big enough group to matter.
cryptoz 13y ago
"Please watch us extra carefully."
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Aaaand, there we go. Now we're (rightly) afraid to sign petitions. Land of the etc.
  - future_grad 13y ago
    Sad, isn't it?
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      Very.
  - djim 13y ago
    Yup. I hesitated despite my strong belief that this is wrong, for fear of the backlash down the road. I can come up with some scenarios where the government could hold this against me. Fuck it. We must stand up for our rights. I signed.
    - chatmasta 13y ago
      Don't you think you're being a tad bit dramatic?
      - djim 13y ago
        no. haven't you been paying attention the last few days?
      - Silhouette 13y ago
        The trouble is, no-one knows whether this kind of concern is over-dramatised or not any more. The current situation is exactly what the term "chilling effect" was coined for. And the very fact that the risk is even considered plausible by normal, reasonable people demonstrates that there is a problem with the current situation. This is actually bad news for elected representatives. Having an electorate who are apathetic about an issue is no problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are vocal about an issue, but who are ultimately not going to do anything practical to back it up, is not much of a problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are deliberately trying to look apathetic about a problem but who will in some cases change their vote because of it can put a politician out of a job, and because of the culture of silence they might not even see it coming.
return0 13y ago
You don't have to shout it, just post it on facebook, they can hear.
- pezh0re 13y ago
  I thought you had to post to facebook and change your profile picture in some way... like making it green or with a red star?
  - return0 13y ago
    no worries, thanks to PRISM that chore is no longer needed
- smacktoward 13y ago
  "Please speak clearly into the potted plant."
  - return0 13y ago
    but, but PRISM didn't mention anything about pot-maker companies
MichaelApproved 13y ago
Enough with these useless petitions on HN. All they're good for is getting your name on a marketing list to be solicited for donations.
- sinak 13y ago
  Hey Michael, just a quick note to say that we're actually delivering emails to Congress, not just signing a petition. The language could probably be clearer on that.
  - MichaelApproved 13y ago
    Thanks for the reply. I had no idea this website was actually run by the names behind it. The site looks like some opportunistic person put an email form on a page and tried to collect email addresses. There was a hint of something legit with the Mozilla terms but it was more confusing than reassuring. There are a lot of big trusted names behind this project, it should be made clear who the creators are.
bpellin 13y ago
If you are asking someone to sign a letter, shouldn't the text of the letter be present by default before the field to sign? Blind signing is a reason why petition results aren't treated as strong signals.
graycat 13y ago
Does sending letters to members of Congress affect legislation significantly? Definitely yes. Example 1: PIPA and SOPA. Both bills were about to pass; voters got up on their hind legs against the bills, and both bills went down in flames. Why? Because most elections are decided closer than 60-40. So, for a person in elected office to totally torque off 10% of his constituents is a good path to another job. Even 5% of constituents can be influential. Actually, even 1% can be influential because the member of Congress can easily understand that if torque off 1% here, another 1% there, and have that 1+% talking to others, the results can really add up. That's why members of Congress are good at smiling, kissing babies, shaking hands, speaking in generalities with platitudes and cliches, etc.: Find ways to please or sooth voters, ways that don't torque off even 1%. Members of Congress are good at counting votes and letters from constituents. They can also count campaign dollars, but dollars don't actually vote, and constituents can and, when motivated, do. Not everyone in Congress really 'gets it' on these points, but nearly all members of Congress who have won more than one election do. For a little more, just think: Take just the Verizon data. With that data, can pick a Verizon customer and know where they were at each phone call. So, really, can track their movements. Also know who they they called. So, if there are any 'secret romantic connections' going on (and is there any doubt about that?), then have a good shot at detecting some of them. Presto: Blackmail, shakedown, extortion, recruit as an informer or a mole, etc. So, now a large fraction of all the Verizon customers are torqued. So, in any congressional district or state with a lot of Verizon customers, the relevant member of Congress needs to be quite concerned. Combine data such as that from Verizon with IRS data and actions, and have more opportunities for blackmail, shakedown. Could throttle opposing political efforts, not that anyone in the Cincinnati office of the IRS would ever actually try such a thing. Gee, I omitted banking records! So, some big shot is paying the condo fees for his mistress; can see that in his financial records, especially if he bought a new BMW for his mistress for over $10,000 (is there any other kind?). Then combine that data with phone data and location data and show that he was often in the condo or calling the phone of the mistress. Now, have got the guy; have him on a short leash. So, back to the movie, 'Godfather II' where the Senator suddenly became a really big supporter of the Corleone family. It's called blackmail, and it's one of the oldest professions. That Verizon data is a wide open, engraved invitation to massive blackmail. Did Nixon ever consider using IRS data? Hmm .... Really, that Verizon data is a wide open, engraved invitation to a dirty dictatorship. But Verizon could use that data for such dirty stuff now? Yes, and about the second time they tried, the effort would become public and their brand name would be dirt and their business dead. Also Verizon doesn't connect closely with the IRS, FBI, INS, DHS, etc. but the NSA can. One of the best parts of the US is our Constitution. So, a big part of protecting the US is protecting the Constitution. So, 'protecting the US' while trashing the Constitution is destroying the US, not protecting it. Yes, maybe trashing the Constitution would make it easier to catch loser, wacko, nutjobs like the Boston bombers, but: (1) As we know, the NSA, CIA, DHS, INS, FBI, and the Boston police didn't catch the Boston loser, wacko, nutjobs even though Russia had told us that they were dangerous wackos. (2) NSA did trash the Constitution. So, the NSA is good at trashing the Constitution but not so good at helping catch loser, wacko, dangerous nutjobs, even when given good hints that they are dangerous nutjobs. The job of the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. is both (1) protect the Constitution and (2) catch the bad guys. Both. Trashing the Constitution destroys much of the US and, thus, necessarily cannot be part of protecting the US. Yes, yes, yes, we know: The NSA cooked up an excuse: First they just collect all that data, e.g., all the Verizon data, all the data through that AT&T building in San Francisco, all current Internet e-mail data, etc. So, their excuse is that just collecting that data does not hurt anyone because they have yet to look at that data or have yet to use that data to look at any individual. Or maybe for the e-mail data they look only at the header lines. Sure that's all they do! Trust them on that! Second they argue that they only look at that data for one individual at a time given a good national security reason to look at that individual. And then they only use data that crossed a US border. Yup, Virginia, you can be sure; you can trust your Federal Government! Third, they claim that, thus, their actions don't use data that was only 'domestic', don't involve just any US citizens, and, thus, don't violate the Constitution. That is, they have this huge box of chocolates, but they never open the box. Right, that's what they claim. And, right again, they would never let that data, that they are keeping essentially forever in Utah, be used for anything else. Right, and this car was driven only by a little old lady and only to church on Sundays, and trust me on this. To heck with the lame, contrived, tricky, delicate excuses: The NSA is not supposed to be collecting data that is only within the US and is not supposed to be collecting data on ordinary US citizens and certainly not on all or nearly all US citizens. Right, anyone could use such an excuse: "I confess; I stole the book; but that's okay because I haven't yet read it! And, yes, that prime rib roast, I stole that too, but that's okay, too, because I haven't yet eaten it!". So, the NSA trashed the Constitution. The US government works for us, the US citizens; we don't work for them; we are the ones to be trusted, not them; we are the ones presumed innocent until proven guilty, not them. Their job is to protect us and the Constitution, not to monitor and control us and trash the Constitution. Yes, if we get the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. back within the law and back to respecting the Constitution, then the next pressure cooker that goes "Boom" in a crowded place will raise the question of, can we afford the Constitution? The answer is simple: (1) We need the Constitution; trashing the Constitution trashes much of our country and, thus, necessarily does not protect it. (2) If we have too many bad guys, then we need better police work, not a weaker Constitution. (3) Police work is not perfect, and our security cannot be perfect. For one more, the main issues in US national security are not loser, wacko, nutjobs with backpacks with pressure cookers. Indeed, now wackos hijacking airplanes are no longer a main issue in US national security. Instead the main issues, for which we need the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. are: (1) Actions by nation states, e.g., China hacking the Internet in the US. China stealing US military secrets. Pakistan building more nuclear weapons. Iran going nuclear. (2) Actions by small groups, terrorists, e.g., Al Qaeda, toward a serious WMD deployed in the US, e.g., a nuclear fission explosion in the hold of a ship in a major US port. At (1) and (2), we are pretty good: NSA's SIGINT and the CIA's HUMINT, etc. can be quite good well within the Constitution. For nuclear fission devices, must first get the materials, and that's still not so easy. We've been working hard for decades locking down the materials. We need to protect the US and the Constitution, not try to protect the US and trash the Constitution. So, the Constitution is under attack, and we have to push back and protect and defend the Constitution. Could this be true? Actually, not only true but expected: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
zmanian 13y ago
I'm thinking hard about what the next steps should be on driving policy change. The basic mechanism needs to stripping policy makers of legitimacy because they have undermined democratic norms. One approach might a recall campaign against Diane Feinstein.
comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
I encourage people who are concerned about this to voice their opinion. I am not greatly concerned myself, however... I am more concerned about the Bigger Issue. If Congress obliterated the FISA court, it would not matter. The NSA would eventually find means to convince large corporations to "voluntarily" offer selected bits of their corporate-owned data for gov't inspection. We have no legal standing to complain about such things, because corporate-owned data is not ours, even if it happens to reveal everything about our habits and activities. The NSA is playing catch up here. The coming wave of corporate controlled data mining is going to blow away the value of a simple Call Detail Records database. What we need to do is spell out our privacy rights, in a manner that is understandable and enforceable in the modern age. Any less is just a band-aid.
digitalWestie 13y ago
While you're at it - can you also ask them to stop watching us (as in us outside the US)?
- jacobquick 13y ago
  Actually we can't. We specifically don't get to vote on foreign relations, ever, and it doesn't pass through the normal bicameral legislative thing. It's just the president draws up whatever and then the senate OKs it. Last election they ran all the 'progressives' out of the senate, next election there will be no anti-surveillance candidates except to the house where no one can do anything.
rosser 13y ago
If you really want to signal your feelings on this to your congresscritter, don't write, don't email, and don't sign a petition. Call them. Speak with a human being in their office, and make sure that person understands that you're a voter, in his or her district, and that you're willing not only to vote, but to donate to or against a candidate and campaign on the basis of this issue. Source: my cousin and his wife were both Senate staffers for several years.
- graycat 13y ago
  Nice!
crusso 13y ago
Looks like a good way to sign up for an audit from the IRS. ;)
wahsd 13y ago
It is only the top shard of ice on the iceberg. If you only knew how big the iceberg was.
fatjokes 13y ago
On the bright side, you can rest assured the NSA has heard you at least!
KevinEldon 13y ago
Sign the form and then donate to the EFF. Your signature matters and putting your money where you digital mouth is matters a lot (more?) too.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
swombat 13y ago
Is there a point in signing this as a Swiss citizen living in the UK?

470 points by sethbannon 13y ago

I'll happily sign it, but is this effective? As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible things can I do to actually change the system/ make a dent in it? Suggestions: 1.) Free SEO growth hacking for politicians that vehemently oppose invasions of online privacy. 2.) Help me out......

mindcrime 13y ago
As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible things can I do to actually change the system/ make a dent in it? 1. Cash. Cold, hard, cash. Donate it to the EFF, and/or whatever other organizations you think stand to move public policy in a better direction, or otherwise contribute to improving the situation. Maybe also consider the Free Software Foundation, EPIC, the Libertarian Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, etc. 2. Organize people and educate them. Start a "Digital Privacy Meetup" in your town, and invite speakers to talk about using Tor, I2P, GPG, SSL/TLS, etc. Get some people educated on these issues and then send them out to speak at other events. 3. Join Toastmasters, practice giving speeches and presentations. Get really good at it. Run for public office. Get elected (or not). In either case, your campaign is a platform to promote a message and spread the word about something you believe in. 4. Give cash to the campaigns of candidates who you believe actually reflect your values. Don't limit yourself to Democrats and Republicans either. If the Libertarian Party candidate, or the Green Party candidate, or the Constitution Party candidate, or the Pirate Party candidate are best in your opinion, throw some support their way. 3rd party candidates can influence the debate, and influence the election, even when they aren't the eventual winner. Don't ignore the nth order effects.
smacktoward 13y ago
If you can raise a pot of money, you can get politicians' attention. The bigger the pot, the more the attention. Start a PAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee). Yours would be a "non-connected" PAC, meaning it's not associated with a corporation, trade group, etc. This is just a matter of filing a form with the FEC; they even provide a toolkit (http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml#nonconnected http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml#nonconnected) with the required form and instructions on how to fill it out. Now you can start raising money. Use your SEO skills to collect donations online. PACs are restricted to raising $5,000/year from individuals, but in the world of small-dollar online donations, that's fine. Your goal is to get lots of small donations, not a few big ones. Now you've got your pot of money; what can you do with it? First, you can give some of it directly to candidates -- up to $5,000 per cycle to each candidate. That may not sound like a lot, if you establish yourself as a "maxed out" donor to a candidate, they will be very interested in your opinions. More interestingly, you can take that money and make what are called "independent expenditures." This means buying ads that directly urge people to vote for Candidate X or against Candidate Y. The "independent" part just means you can't "coordinate" your ad plan with any campaign; so if you're going to run ads slagging Candidate Y, you can't work with her opponent to harmonize your ad calendar or message with his. There are no limits to how much a PAC can spend on independent expenditures, so if you can raise enough money, you can pick a candidate who's particularly bad on your issues and absolutely carpet-bomb his district with negative ads. It may not be enough to cost him the election, but you'll win either way: if you unseat him, you have a trophy you can wield to convince other candidates they should listen to you; if you don't, you'll have made it very clear to him that you're prepared to make his life difficult every two years as long as he maintains his current position. Many politicians' positions are weakly held, so he may be happy to change his stance in exchange for you carpet-bombing his district with ads saying how great he is next time around.

throwit1979 13y ago

Thank god for this. If there's one thing that really gets despotic police states to change their ways, it's online letters.

LoganCale 13y ago
If nothing else, it provides a sense to Congress of how many people are angry about this. And at least some in Congress are angry, too. So it may or may not do much, but it's something at least. It is, I believe, a more valuable action than commenting online about how it won't do anything.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  And how much collective campaign financing will these angry people provide next election? Zero? Then fuck them.
  - legutierr 13y ago
    Campaign financing only exists to buy propaganda to influence people to vote one way or another (excluding some dirty tricks at the margins). Issue voters are largely outside the reach of this propaganda, which is why they often have so much influence (think NRA and Christian conservatives, who are willing to go against party interests to pursue their issues). If a large enough block of organized, committed issue voters were to emerge from this event (especially a bipartisan block), that would do much to change the political landscape, and could significantly undermine the influence of money in certain elections.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      That's a lot of ifs. All I know is, when I was a kid calling your congressmen works. Now hundreds of people spamming phone calls and emails has no effect at all. Advertising works and the politicians know it. They don't care about fringe voters because it's usually not a big enough group to matter.

cryptoz 13y ago

"Please watch us extra carefully."

StavrosK 13y ago
Aaaand, there we go. Now we're (rightly) afraid to sign petitions. Land of the etc.
- future_grad 13y ago
  Sad, isn't it?
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Very.
- djim 13y ago
  Yup. I hesitated despite my strong belief that this is wrong, for fear of the backlash down the road. I can come up with some scenarios where the government could hold this against me. Fuck it. We must stand up for our rights. I signed.
  - chatmasta 13y ago
    Don't you think you're being a tad bit dramatic?
    - djim 13y ago
      no. haven't you been paying attention the last few days?
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      The trouble is, no-one knows whether this kind of concern is over-dramatised or not any more. The current situation is exactly what the term "chilling effect" was coined for. And the very fact that the risk is even considered plausible by normal, reasonable people demonstrates that there is a problem with the current situation. This is actually bad news for elected representatives. Having an electorate who are apathetic about an issue is no problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are vocal about an issue, but who are ultimately not going to do anything practical to back it up, is not much of a problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are deliberately trying to look apathetic about a problem but who will in some cases change their vote because of it can put a politician out of a job, and because of the culture of silence they might not even see it coming.

return0 13y ago

You don't have to shout it, just post it on facebook, they can hear.

pezh0re 13y ago
I thought you had to post to facebook and change your profile picture in some way... like making it green or with a red star?
- return0 13y ago
  no worries, thanks to PRISM that chore is no longer needed
smacktoward 13y ago
"Please speak clearly into the potted plant."
- return0 13y ago
  but, but PRISM didn't mention anything about pot-maker companies

MichaelApproved 13y ago

Enough with these useless petitions on HN. All they're good for is getting your name on a marketing list to be solicited for donations.

sinak 13y ago
Hey Michael, just a quick note to say that we're actually delivering emails to Congress, not just signing a petition. The language could probably be clearer on that.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I had no idea this website was actually run by the names behind it. The site looks like some opportunistic person put an email form on a page and tried to collect email addresses. There was a hint of something legit with the Mozilla terms but it was more confusing than reassuring. There are a lot of big trusted names behind this project, it should be made clear who the creators are.

bpellin 13y ago

If you are asking someone to sign a letter, shouldn't the text of the letter be present by default before the field to sign? Blind signing is a reason why petition results aren't treated as strong signals.

graycat 13y ago

Does sending letters to members of Congress affect legislation significantly? Definitely yes. Example 1: PIPA and SOPA. Both bills were about to pass; voters got up on their hind legs against the bills, and both bills went down in flames. Why? Because most elections are decided closer than 60-40. So, for a person in elected office to totally torque off 10% of his constituents is a good path to another job. Even 5% of constituents can be influential. Actually, even 1% can be influential because the member of Congress can easily understand that if torque off 1% here, another 1% there, and have that 1+% talking to others, the results can really add up. That's why members of Congress are good at smiling, kissing babies, shaking hands, speaking in generalities with platitudes and cliches, etc.: Find ways to please or sooth voters, ways that don't torque off even 1%. Members of Congress are good at counting votes and letters from constituents. They can also count campaign dollars, but dollars don't actually vote, and constituents can and, when motivated, do. Not everyone in Congress really 'gets it' on these points, but nearly all members of Congress who have won more than one election do. For a little more, just think: Take just the Verizon data. With that data, can pick a Verizon customer and know where they were at each phone call. So, really, can track their movements. Also know who they they called. So, if there are any 'secret romantic connections' going on (and is there any doubt about that?), then have a good shot at detecting some of them. Presto: Blackmail, shakedown, extortion, recruit as an informer or a mole, etc. So, now a large fraction of all the Verizon customers are torqued. So, in any congressional district or state with a lot of Verizon customers, the relevant member of Congress needs to be quite concerned. Combine data such as that from Verizon with IRS data and actions, and have more opportunities for blackmail, shakedown. Could throttle opposing political efforts, not that anyone in the Cincinnati office of the IRS would ever actually try such a thing. Gee, I omitted banking records! So, some big shot is paying the condo fees for his mistress; can see that in his financial records, especially if he bought a new BMW for his mistress for over $10,000 (is there any other kind?). Then combine that data with phone data and location data and show that he was often in the condo or calling the phone of the mistress. Now, have got the guy; have him on a short leash. So, back to the movie, 'Godfather II' where the Senator suddenly became a really big supporter of the Corleone family. It's called blackmail, and it's one of the oldest professions. That Verizon data is a wide open, engraved invitation to massive blackmail. Did Nixon ever consider using IRS data? Hmm .... Really, that Verizon data is a wide open, engraved invitation to a dirty dictatorship. But Verizon could use that data for such dirty stuff now? Yes, and about the second time they tried, the effort would become public and their brand name would be dirt and their business dead. Also Verizon doesn't connect closely with the IRS, FBI, INS, DHS, etc. but the NSA can. One of the best parts of the US is our Constitution. So, a big part of protecting the US is protecting the Constitution. So, 'protecting the US' while trashing the Constitution is destroying the US, not protecting it. Yes, maybe trashing the Constitution would make it easier to catch loser, wacko, nutjobs like the Boston bombers, but: (1) As we know, the NSA, CIA, DHS, INS, FBI, and the Boston police didn't catch the Boston loser, wacko, nutjobs even though Russia had told us that they were dangerous wackos. (2) NSA did trash the Constitution. So, the NSA is good at trashing the Constitution but not so good at helping catch loser, wacko, dangerous nutjobs, even when given good hints that they are dangerous nutjobs. The job of the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. is both (1) protect the Constitution and (2) catch the bad guys. Both. Trashing the Constitution destroys much of the US and, thus, necessarily cannot be part of protecting the US. Yes, yes, yes, we know: The NSA cooked up an excuse: First they just collect all that data, e.g., all the Verizon data, all the data through that AT&T building in San Francisco, all current Internet e-mail data, etc. So, their excuse is that just collecting that data does not hurt anyone because they have yet to look at that data or have yet to use that data to look at any individual. Or maybe for the e-mail data they look only at the header lines. Sure that's all they do! Trust them on that! Second they argue that they only look at that data for one individual at a time given a good national security reason to look at that individual. And then they only use data that crossed a US border. Yup, Virginia, you can be sure; you can trust your Federal Government! Third, they claim that, thus, their actions don't use data that was only 'domestic', don't involve just any US citizens, and, thus, don't violate the Constitution. That is, they have this huge box of chocolates, but they never open the box. Right, that's what they claim. And, right again, they would never let that data, that they are keeping essentially forever in Utah, be used for anything else. Right, and this car was driven only by a little old lady and only to church on Sundays, and trust me on this. To heck with the lame, contrived, tricky, delicate excuses: The NSA is not supposed to be collecting data that is only within the US and is not supposed to be collecting data on ordinary US citizens and certainly not on all or nearly all US citizens. Right, anyone could use such an excuse: "I confess; I stole the book; but that's okay because I haven't yet read it! And, yes, that prime rib roast, I stole that too, but that's okay, too, because I haven't yet eaten it!". So, the NSA trashed the Constitution. The US government works for us, the US citizens; we don't work for them; we are the ones to be trusted, not them; we are the ones presumed innocent until proven guilty, not them. Their job is to protect us and the Constitution, not to monitor and control us and trash the Constitution. Yes, if we get the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. back within the law and back to respecting the Constitution, then the next pressure cooker that goes "Boom" in a crowded place will raise the question of, can we afford the Constitution? The answer is simple: (1) We need the Constitution; trashing the Constitution trashes much of our country and, thus, necessarily does not protect it. (2) If we have too many bad guys, then we need better police work, not a weaker Constitution. (3) Police work is not perfect, and our security cannot be perfect. For one more, the main issues in US national security are not loser, wacko, nutjobs with backpacks with pressure cookers. Indeed, now wackos hijacking airplanes are no longer a main issue in US national security. Instead the main issues, for which we need the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. are: (1) Actions by nation states, e.g., China hacking the Internet in the US. China stealing US military secrets. Pakistan building more nuclear weapons. Iran going nuclear. (2) Actions by small groups, terrorists, e.g., Al Qaeda, toward a serious WMD deployed in the US, e.g., a nuclear fission explosion in the hold of a ship in a major US port. At (1) and (2), we are pretty good: NSA's SIGINT and the CIA's HUMINT, etc. can be quite good well within the Constitution. For nuclear fission devices, must first get the materials, and that's still not so easy. We've been working hard for decades locking down the materials. We need to protect the US and the Constitution, not try to protect the US and trash the Constitution. So, the Constitution is under attack, and we have to push back and protect and defend the Constitution. Could this be true? Actually, not only true but expected: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

zmanian 13y ago

I'm thinking hard about what the next steps should be on driving policy change. The basic mechanism needs to stripping policy makers of legitimacy because they have undermined democratic norms. One approach might a recall campaign against Diane Feinstein.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago

I encourage people who are concerned about this to voice their opinion. I am not greatly concerned myself, however... I am more concerned about the Bigger Issue. If Congress obliterated the FISA court, it would not matter. The NSA would eventually find means to convince large corporations to "voluntarily" offer selected bits of their corporate-owned data for gov't inspection. We have no legal standing to complain about such things, because corporate-owned data is not ours, even if it happens to reveal everything about our habits and activities. The NSA is playing catch up here. The coming wave of corporate controlled data mining is going to blow away the value of a simple Call Detail Records database. What we need to do is spell out our privacy rights, in a manner that is understandable and enforceable in the modern age. Any less is just a band-aid.

digitalWestie 13y ago

While you're at it - can you also ask them to stop watching us (as in us outside the US)?

jacobquick 13y ago
Actually we can't. We specifically don't get to vote on foreign relations, ever, and it doesn't pass through the normal bicameral legislative thing. It's just the president draws up whatever and then the senate OKs it. Last election they ran all the 'progressives' out of the senate, next election there will be no anti-surveillance candidates except to the house where no one can do anything.

rosser 13y ago

If you really want to signal your feelings on this to your congresscritter, don't write, don't email, and don't sign a petition. Call them. Speak with a human being in their office, and make sure that person understands that you're a voter, in his or her district, and that you're willing not only to vote, but to donate to or against a candidate and campaign on the basis of this issue. Source: my cousin and his wife were both Senate staffers for several years.

graycat 13y ago
Nice!

crusso 13y ago

Looks like a good way to sign up for an audit from the IRS. ;)

wahsd 13y ago

It is only the top shard of ice on the iceberg. If you only knew how big the iceberg was.

fatjokes 13y ago

On the bright side, you can rest assured the NSA has heard you at least!

KevinEldon 13y ago

Sign the form and then donate to the EFF. Your signature matters and putting your money where you digital mouth is matters a lot (more?) too.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

swombat 13y ago

Is there a point in signing this as a Swiss citizen living in the UK?