11 ms·

Goddamn right. Every now and then we have defining moments of global consciousness. This has the potential to be one of those moments and we should never let a

• twoodfin 13y ago
  Specifically, what "domestic spying" are you talking about? I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw.
  • grey-area 13y ago
    Specifically, what "domestic spying" are you talking about? Since you ask: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n... In particular see the 3rd slide down for the type of information the NSA claims it can collect. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-in... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-part... I'm curious where the line is you're trying to draw. Can't speak for the OP, but I imagine for most people that line is somewhere well before the mass surveillance of phone records etc which the US is currently engaging in. Are you genuinely confused about why people might oppose that or care about it?
    • josh2600 13y ago
      OP here: as many of you know I work in the bowels of the Internet on very large telecom networks and have for most of my career. It has always been assumed that the traffic that leaves the US border was being monitored; I don't think anyone can or will dispute that. The difference is forcing private businesses to place unmarked rooms inside of buildings with vampire fiber taps at All of the major domestic interconnects. That's a problem and completely unnecessary. I object to dragnets, I do not object to lawful intercepts. The distinction might be moot, but if there wasn't a secret fisa court signing all of these documents the monitored parties could even sue. Remember when the NSA got caught monitoring those Arabic students when they sent them their own call records? The students sued the NSA but the court case was thrown out because the NSA argued that even though the students had possession of the call records, they couldn't use them in court because they were classified. What I want is security through tireless effort not through dragnet expediency. It's hard to be the NSA. It's hard to stop terrorists. I believe our country has enough skilled intelligence officials to deliver security without sacrificing liberty. Is that cynical?
      • lifeisstillgood 13y ago
        > I believe our country has enough skilled intelligence officials to deliver security without sacrificing liberty. Just wonderful :-) Have all the up votes I can give you
        • josh2600 13y ago
          Give the EFF your up votes :). https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
          • lifeisstillgood 13y ago
            A very cool response. I can only regretfully say I have joined the Openrightsgroup as they and I are based in the UK. Same sh*t, different politicians.
    • twoodfin 13y ago
      That's not a line, that's a bunch of stuff you think is over it. Fine, but where's the line? Supporters of such surveillance have a fairly simple test, and one that's more or less supported by current law and Constitutional jurisprudence: If it's metadata that must be voluntarily exposed to a third party (e.g. a pen register) it's unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. As to actual data, if it crossed national boundaries because one participant can be reasonably determined to be outside the U.S., it can be examined for the same reason your luggage can when you cross the border.
      • josh2600 13y ago
        The line is dragnet versus court order.
        • twoodfin 13y ago
          But those aren't mutually exclusive under U.S. law. All these programs now have FISA warrants, so at least one court "ordered" them. I assume you are unhappy with FISA as it stands, but how would you change it? If you're going to require the NSA to name each and every person whose data they might want to collect, you're going to drastically limit their ability to collect information from foreign sources in an era of throwaway email addresses and burner phones.
          • josh2600 13y ago
            AHEM* RANT AHEAD* I would prevent the NSA from backdating warrants. I would prevent the NSA from being able to wiretap for 7 days without a warrant. I would prevent the NSA from using Vampire Taps in Fiber Optic networks. I would allow the disclosure of National Security Letters and I would block indefinite duration gag orders (10 years is fine; infinity is not). I would hold our intelligence organizations accountable for lying to the public. I would enact a new wiretapping act to prevent these domestic abuses. I would only apply these changes to domestic surveillance. Would I trade security for this liberty? In a heartbeat. The punchline for all of this is simple: all of the ridiculous intelligence and security apparati we've developed since 9/11 don't make us any safer, and, in fact, inspire the very terrorism we seek to disrupt. The $X0Billion dollars we spend every year could be used for much better purposes, like going to Mars.
• ihsw 13y ago
  > The danger here is that if we do nothing, that will be seen as tacit acceptance of the world's largest spying apparatus. Your acceptance is not required for the spying programs to continue operating. The sooner you realize that is the sooner you'll realize that your choices are currently very limited.
  • einhverfr 13y ago
    There are two issues that I think that are important to keep in mind though. The first big story here is the extent to which the US government has been (and continues to) compel big internet businesses and telco's to do their spying for them. This is an important thing to keep in mind, and I think that it is important when we look at what products we as founders develop. One of the huge threats that Google poses is the degree to which disparate sources of tracking information are tied together. With Android, for example, your cell phone is connected to an email address. The second is the degree to which companies are being forced to make things intelligence-friendly. Here I think another point here is to build products which are intelligence-unfriendly as a way of pushing back. I have some ideas for start-ups I would be interested in participating in, in this area. My time availability is less than I would like but.... The first would be a verifiable secure telephony platform, resistant to in the middle eavesdropping, ideally incorporated in a country with strong protections for such things (Switzerland sounds nice). The second would be decentralized cryptography services of some sort. All projects I think would have to be open source because this would help put pressure on governments not to interfere.
  • famousactress 13y ago
    I disagree, they work for us. The sooner you realize that is the sooner we get this fixed.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      • sillysaurus 13y ago
        They do work for us. Look at SOPA. Once it became clear that it had the potential to be a national issue (i.e. might cost them votes), various senators and representatives began to publicly voice concerns about passing it. Change isn't easy, but it can be effected.
• daywalker 13y ago
  You've just been added to the "List".
  • josh2600 13y ago
    I work for 2600hz, which is literally the number 1 keyword on the CyberTerrorism watch list. I guarantee I'm already on every list.
    • michaelwww 13y ago
      I think you're making a good assumption. I think any one of us who "fits the profile" can assume that they're on a list.
      • josh2600 13y ago
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-avoid-using-online-dont-want-government-spying-you.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hun... I think I use a lot of those words every day. It's hilarious to me that 2600 and Phreaking are both on there when they haven't been a serious threat since the 5ESS switches hit back in the 70's and 80's...
        • noir_lord 13y ago
          I can't imagine they will ever take stuff off the list. The funnier thing to do would be for people who are likely on the list to begin using language the way the political class do.
        • MichaelGG 13y ago
          That list also contains "Social media", so I think it's fair to say it's an irrelevant list that flags everyone in the world.
• theklub 13y ago
  It's time for a new political party. Forget the people who say it can't be done. Now is the time. We are stuck in a rut and its time to get out. You have a choice, be lazy and accept what is happening or step up and make change. Its clear our current system is rotten.
  • pstuart 13y ago
    Please share your vision of that party's platform.
    • m_myers 13y ago
      In multiparty systems, it is possible to have a single-issue party which is actually electable (see the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany). But in the US, any party must have a completely defined platform which is acceptable to a majority - or at least a plurality - of voters. That is why the Libertarian and Green parties, both of which receive quite a few votes, are never elected. And that is why the proposed new party has very little chance. If its platform is defined by San Francisco hackers, there's a good chance that I will agree with half of the platform and strongly disagree with the other half, and most of the country will have the same reaction.
      • Androsynth 13y ago
        it doesnt have to be a national party initially. If you took a pro-privacy, socially-liberal, fiscally conservative platform you could make a strong push in large urban centers across the nation. I know that the bay area would be accepting of this (accepting != elected, but it wouldnt get laughed at by the voters, only by the national media). you just cant name it pirate party. In the us that would probably work against you.
    • theklub 13y ago
      The vision that I have includes allowing web based voting on party issues for party members. Complete financial transparency. Debate and decide what the party should support from within. Decide what issues are most important and attempt to tackle those first. I think the platform is that there is no real platform and the members decide what is important. Forget about gay marriage there are real problems in America. (education, war, privacy) I could go on and on about what I think are the issues in America but the point is we need to have a place to discuss these issues and have a group of people that can decide what should be done and then do something about it. Leaving it to a group of old men who are constantly lobbied is no longer an option.
• marquis 13y ago
  This discussion has propelled us internally to completely review all our networking infrastructure, both of us and for our customers. We will definitely be letting everyone one know when we feel 'compliant' for privacy, and where we can't be, and allow for users to opt-out or permanently delete any history we may keep. I think it's been great for us to make this happen and I hope other businesses also look to this as an opportunity. On that note - it should also be an opportunity for any experts here who do security reviews to get some exposure.
• parasubvert 13y ago
  I grew up in the Bush v1- Clinton era with Operation Sundevil, the Steve Jackson Games raid, NSA clipper chip, DMCA, Communications Decency Act, PGP legal battles, etc. The movie Sneakers from 1992 was a great example of the NSA paranoia that existed at the time. The result? Won some, lost some, and the world moved on. What's different now is that this surveillance is legal at scale because the majority of the populace wants it to be. They're more afraid of terrorists than having privacy. Look at the polls: Hacker News (and techies in general) seem to be in quite a bubble in this regard. We have more clout than we did in the 90s, but the difference now is that there's a big Terrorism counter argument to anything we say. A majority of the USA prefers to have the electric eye of Sauron to watch over them, because the alternative -- more freedom that might lead to more terror attacks -- is too scary for them to accept. In that sense, the terrorists have won. There are two viable paths going forward, in my view: (a) Work to convince people they want privacy, and don't want Brin's transparent society - this slows what appears to be the inevitable; (b) Work to ensure accountable oversight of surveillance. No more FISA secret courts, but real public courts and judges and warrants. What's not likely viable is (a) encouraging people to stop using social networks -- they won't, we broadly LIKE being noticed by others, it gives meaning to our otherwise alienated capitalistic existence; (b) encouraging government to stop tracking people -- they're just getting into the game that Google and Facebook is in. If a company can track people, so will the government. The key is that government can and must be held accountable to a degree that companies don't have to be. The US public has chosen not to exercise this power to date out of ignorance, laziness, and/or lack of desire. The likely outcome of all of this is a resurrection and growth in the "darknet", where younger techies go to hide.
  • paganel 13y ago
    > the majority of the USA prefers to have the electric eye of Sauron to watch over them, because the alternative -- more freedom that might lead to more terror attacks -- is too scary for them to accept. As a guy who has never set foot in the States I found it strange when I first heard Dakota Fanning asking Tom Cruise "Is that the terrorists?" in Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" (when an airplane falls over the house they're in), I was asking to myself "why does the Americans' first instinct in case of unknown danger focus on terrorists?". And talking about "the eye of Sauron", there is of course this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytDzjuBGJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytDzjuBGJI , which still gives me the chills. An under-estimated movie, IMHO.