26 ms·

> Civil Liberties Groups Are Ganging Up on NSA That's a very odd turn of phrase. The NSA is a multi-billion dollar behemoth whereas civil liberty groups are ju

> Civil Liberties Groups Are Ganging Up on NSA That's a very odd turn of phrase. The NSA is a multi-billion dollar behemoth whereas civil liberty groups are just social gadflys.

bad_user 13y ago
Sometimes money and being a privileged government institution is not enough as long as free speech is still allowed. What these groups have is an audience. It's not a big audience, but it's important to recognize that a lot of people do follow EFF, Reddit and the others in the list of 86 [1] - and because of this the effects can multiply exponentially, because this trial will get news coverage. You see, government agencies and politicians that violate our rights do so hoping either (a) that people don't find out about it or (b) that people forget about it in a week. But if organizations and companies keep the issue relevant and in the news, then it persists and things can quickly escalate, just as it happened with SOPA or ACTA. And then you'll also see the online giants protesting it, because first of all, it's bad for business. And then you'll also see street protests, even from other countries. And then you'll finally see the real shit-storm that no amount of money can quickly wash away (although such issues tend to reappear, because those in power tried shoving too many things down our throats at once, who knows, maybe people will grow a social conscience after all). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-internet-companies-demand-end-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-gro...
hnriot 13y ago
Yeah, I'm sure the NSA are trembling, if they gave two shits about laws or civil liberties we would be here, so I'm sure this isn't going to do a thing.
- mjolk 13y ago
  Nothing they were doing is illegal, so I'm not sure how you can make a claim that they don't give a shit about laws.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    I am not sure how you can make such an assertion, when almost everything they do is classified and they have repeatedly lied about the very existence of the programs in question for years now. Until the details of the program are available and subject to legal scrutiny, I would not assume that they were following the law, regardless of what President Obama or his allies in Congress have to say.
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      And furthermore, they're operating based on a DoJ interpretation of FISA that they have also classified so the public cannot know how they are interpreting the law.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  They will if US voters vote in a President who gives a .... I suppose the only problem then is, where would they find one?
  - grecy 13y ago
    They won't find one so long as the candidates are shuffled to the top by billion dollar corporations with unlimited campaign contributions.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Maybe step 1 is to ditch FPTP and give minority parties a fighting chance?
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      Yeah, moving from FPTP to Approval voting or Cordocet voting or something would be a huge improvement, at least in those terms. It's a tough fight though. Critics say "oooh, that's too complicated, it'll confuse the voters" blah, blah. Hell, in NC the SBOE (State Board of Elections) has used "voter confusion" as justification for policies that historically made it all but impossible for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot. To give some perspective... in NC, in the modern era, only one 3rd party has ever achieved ballot access (the Libertarian Party). And until a few years ago, the rules were rigged to force the LP to constantly recertify through a long, tedious and expensive petitioning process every election cycle. When the LP, Green Party and others sued the SBOE, they actually argued that having "too many candidates on the ballot could confuse voters", despite their essentially never being more than 3 candidates for any given office. Further, in most election years many, many races are actually uncontested! But we'll confuse the voters if we allow the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. on the ballot. Sheesh.
  - khuey 13y ago
    Arguably voters tried that ... http://boingboing.net/2013/06/07/obama-promised-to-end-warrantl.html http://boingboing.net/2013/06/07/obama-promised-to-end-warra...
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  They probably actually are a bit worried. The circular logic they were relying on to make the law go away, "can't sue without standing, can't get standing without evidence, can't get evidence without suing" has been cut at step 3.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Except that they claim that the leaked material is still classified. If you have clearance and you download that material to your personal computer, they would say that you were leaking it (seriously). This is one of those cases where "things that make sense" is not the same as "the law."
    - JulianMorrison 13y ago
      They declassified some of it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

> Civil Liberties Groups Are Ganging Up on NSA That's a very odd turn of phrase. The NSA is a multi-billion dollar behemoth whereas civil liberty groups are just social gadflys.

bad_user 13y ago

Sometimes money and being a privileged government institution is not enough as long as free speech is still allowed. What these groups have is an audience. It's not a big audience, but it's important to recognize that a lot of people do follow EFF, Reddit and the others in the list of 86 [1] - and because of this the effects can multiply exponentially, because this trial will get news coverage. You see, government agencies and politicians that violate our rights do so hoping either (a) that people don't find out about it or (b) that people forget about it in a week. But if organizations and companies keep the issue relevant and in the news, then it persists and things can quickly escalate, just as it happened with SOPA or ACTA. And then you'll also see the online giants protesting it, because first of all, it's bad for business. And then you'll also see street protests, even from other countries. And then you'll finally see the real shit-storm that no amount of money can quickly wash away (although such issues tend to reappear, because those in power tried shoving too many things down our throats at once, who knows, maybe people will grow a social conscience after all). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-internet-companies-demand-end-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-gro...

hnriot 13y ago

Yeah, I'm sure the NSA are trembling, if they gave two shits about laws or civil liberties we would be here, so I'm sure this isn't going to do a thing.

mjolk 13y ago
Nothing they were doing is illegal, so I'm not sure how you can make a claim that they don't give a shit about laws.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I am not sure how you can make such an assertion, when almost everything they do is classified and they have repeatedly lied about the very existence of the programs in question for years now. Until the details of the program are available and subject to legal scrutiny, I would not assume that they were following the law, regardless of what President Obama or his allies in Congress have to say.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    And furthermore, they're operating based on a DoJ interpretation of FISA that they have also classified so the public cannot know how they are interpreting the law.
alan_cx 13y ago
They will if US voters vote in a President who gives a .... I suppose the only problem then is, where would they find one?
- grecy 13y ago
  They won't find one so long as the candidates are shuffled to the top by billion dollar corporations with unlimited campaign contributions.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Maybe step 1 is to ditch FPTP and give minority parties a fighting chance?
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Yeah, moving from FPTP to Approval voting or Cordocet voting or something would be a huge improvement, at least in those terms. It's a tough fight though. Critics say "oooh, that's too complicated, it'll confuse the voters" blah, blah. Hell, in NC the SBOE (State Board of Elections) has used "voter confusion" as justification for policies that historically made it all but impossible for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot. To give some perspective... in NC, in the modern era, only one 3rd party has ever achieved ballot access (the Libertarian Party). And until a few years ago, the rules were rigged to force the LP to constantly recertify through a long, tedious and expensive petitioning process every election cycle. When the LP, Green Party and others sued the SBOE, they actually argued that having "too many candidates on the ballot could confuse voters", despite their essentially never being more than 3 candidates for any given office. Further, in most election years many, many races are actually uncontested! But we'll confuse the voters if we allow the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. on the ballot. Sheesh.
- khuey 13y ago
  Arguably voters tried that ... http://boingboing.net/2013/06/07/obama-promised-to-end-warrantl.html http://boingboing.net/2013/06/07/obama-promised-to-end-warra...
JulianMorrison 13y ago
They probably actually are a bit worried. The circular logic they were relying on to make the law go away, "can't sue without standing, can't get standing without evidence, can't get evidence without suing" has been cut at step 3.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Except that they claim that the leaked material is still classified. If you have clearance and you download that material to your personal computer, they would say that you were leaking it (seriously). This is one of those cases where "things that make sense" is not the same as "the law."
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    They declassified some of it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]