8 ms·

U.S. Government Surveillance: Bad for Silicon Valley, Bad for World Democracy

228 points by hype7 13y ago

wtvanhest 13y ago
I think it is reasonable to assume that if the US can do it, at least one other country is actively doing it and that many governments of reasonable wealth are actively trying to gain that capability. I'd be shocked if there are not 10+ countries actively trying to gain technology advantages for spying. If you are going to ask this question, ask "Should any country be involved in spying". Then, if your answer is no, you have the obvious problem of trying to stop them, which is basically impossible. If the answer is yes, where do you draw the line? I would guess that most people (especially US citizens) would be comfortable with the US recording a dictator's phone calls about genocides he is trying to commit but become very uncomfortable when they find out the US government is listening to their phone calls. A lot of people both in the US and globally will draw that line in different places.
- mtgx 13y ago
  > "I'd be shocked if there are not 10+ countries actively trying to gain technology advantages for spying." Yes, and US has spying "partnerships" to spy on each other's citizens, with all of them. If US really wanted to do something about stopping it, they could do it, at least for 80% of the "Internet". Of course, in the end it's up to all of us to demand that. The US government will never do it on its own. Just like it sees an advantage in having the strongest military power over others, it sees in advantage in being able to spy on every citizen on this planet, and having a large arsenal of viruses and hacked systems in other countries. It's up to us to tell it that's wrong, at least if we still care about quaint things such as democracy, freedoms and human rights..
  - postaround820 13y ago
    If your goal is to unilaterally disarm the West in the info wars while China, Russia etc. go unchecked, which of course they would because there is absolutely no chance of accountable governance, then count me out. I want the West to win the info wars, we just need to make sure there is proper oversight.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      I would much rather the west create an infrastructure that minimizes any destruction from an infowar entirely. As much of all infrastructure in every country and all endpoints sold (phones, tablets, computers) should have end-to-end encryption. If the USG wants to protect us from any country they consider an aggressor in the info wars, then they need to equip every one of us (its citizens) with the tools to protect ourselves. The US does not know which of the kids today will grow up to be a Senator, Congressman, President, NSA agent, CIA agent, etc. If one of the infowar aggressors had the kind of information on every US citizen that we suspect the NSA to have, then that means that they could have enough information to blackmail many of this nation's future leaders, with many of us being none the wiser. Take David Patraeus for example. What if a foreign intelligence agency knew about his extramarital affair, but no one else did. That's a perfect circumstance for that agency to coerce him. Add to that fact that the NSA and CIA recruits heavily from the Mormon community. Imagine if one of those people was a gay and still had not come out about that fact. Such a person may be extremely worried about being outed to their friends and family in their religious community. Imagine if a foreign intelligence agency knew everyone who was was still in the closet. They would all be blackmailable. [0] [0] One of my very close friends is bisexual and was raised as a very devout Mormon (but left the Church years ago) and she completely agrees that this could be a reality for a Mormon who has not yet come out of the closet, because of how much that community chastises people who are gay. Most of the people she knew growing up completely disowned her since coming out of the closet and leaving the Church.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > If the USG wants to protect us from any country they consider an aggressor in the info wars, then they need to equip every one of us (its citizens) with the tools to protect ourselves. Well the USG has given us SHA-1, NSA Suite B collection of Cryptographic standards, NIST-organized crypto standards, and have funded the development and most of the ongoing maintainence of Tor. So they're trying to be helpful in that regards, which is why you can't just talk about USG as if it was a single-headed monster.
        13y ago
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Shouldn't the leaders of the free world set the best example for free countries to aspire to? No one begrudges the US, UK, or any other country having spies and what not. They are essential to peace. Remember the point of spying is to understand your opponents real intentions. Imagine how vital it was to know that the USSR was NOT going to start WW3. Its all about how you use them. I think part of problem here is the West using cold war apparatus to fight what is essentially civilian crime, which is what both drugs and terrorism are, after they lost "work" because of the fall of the USSR.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > No one begrudges the US, UK, or any other country having spies and what not. They are essential to peace. Perhaps, but it has certainly not helped that the diplomatic traffic that formerly would have been carried on essentially separate channels is now carried on the Internet with the traffic of normal citizens. Even if we said it was OK for the NSA to peep on dictators and diplomats they'd still be tapping the same channels, but instead would be 'minimizing' a lot more. > I think part of problem here is the West using cold war apparatus to fight what is essentially civilian crime, which is what both drugs and terrorism are, after they lost "work" because of the fall of the USSR. Well, you're right, but the reason is because only the Cold War apparatus (and especially expertise) could realistically handle the demands the U.S. government is trying to put on itself to handle the work of counter-terrorism. The NSA isn't doing the work because they are the NSA and they felt like it, they're doing it because the FBI couldn't hack it even if they tried. Note that even now FBI is the agency that handles the NSLs and warrants and other legal niceties to/from the companies associated with PRISM. The FBI is certainly not completely innocent in this type of stuff. They have COINTELPRO and Carnivore to their credit already, and also CALEA-associated types of technological wiretaps they can employ domestically any time they want (with appropriate documentation, of course)...
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > Then, if your answer is no, you have the obvious problem of trying to stop them, which is basically impossible. Are you sure about that? My takeaway from all of this is that we, as a population, need to invest heavily in counter-surveillance technology and employ it everywhere. Even if we were to succeed in legislatively prohibiting the NSA from conducting widespread surveillance, what about other countries? It would be at least as dangerous for China to have the information the NSA is gathering as it is for the NSA to have it. This is a wake up call that something needs to be done in the way of making mass surveillance as difficult as technologically possible. The vulnerability in our infrastructure that the NSA is currently exploiting is one that needs to be patched.
m52go 13y ago
Great empires die from the inside. That's what happened to the Mughal Empire, the Roman Empire, and countless other seemingly untouchable empires of the past. No amount of firepower, surveillance, or money can save a people from the irrational motivators of power, paranoia, and greed of those who rule. Sorry, but as much as I want to fight this crap, history and statistics dictate it's a losing battle.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Statistics doesn't say much of anything, based on the information you've given. You're looking at the odds it was X that destroyed the empire, given that the empire was destroyed. We want the odds the empire will survive a given event like X.
  - m52go 13y ago
    I'm saying when X occurs, the empire tends to be destroyed. That's different.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      That's what you're saying, but you've got a selection bias.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  The Roman Empire collapsed because it became too big, right? Well, "The Global Village" may be kind of a buzz word, but it has a grain of truth to it. Earth may very well shrink enough shrink to fit into a single fist. So personally, I'm thinking heat death of the universe as the last line of defense ^^ I still would find it sad if human civilization could not find a moment to live in truth and peace, even if just because it would be nice, and because anything else is doomed to "shrieking nothingness" and ever worsening delusion anyway. I think I "fight this crap" just to be less of a part of it. Even if I can't stop it, I am still responsible for myself. I'd rather struggle and then rest easy than the other way around, I'd rather be exhausted than have regrets. Also, who knows. If history teaches us anything it's that no day was ever exactly like the one before. Universal peace as a result of cumulative effort through centuries past might come into existence quickly - not unlike a crystal that suddenly forms in a solution which has been slowly prepared. --- Nikola Tesla Yes, the same could be said about total tyranny, and "a boot trampling on a human face, forever". But still, never say never? Just consider how people in power tend to scramble, how much effort is spent on distracting or deceiving the population. The emperors are naked and on very thin ice... and they know it.
alistair77 13y ago
Obama, "you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy." OK, I agree. So how about you and your "security" agencies are a lot less private about what you're doing. Be completely open about your intentions and let your voters decide if they want to spend billions on it and citizens of other countries decide if they want to use US-based services.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. This is a strange quote to me. We DON'T have 100% security. We'll NEVER have 100% security. But they're more than willing to take all 100% of your privacy. The fact that they'll try to sell us an illusion of 100% security in exchange for 100% of our privacy is a terrible tradeoff to anyone who actually understands risks/security.
  - Zarathust 13y ago
    0% privacy is also an impossible concept. Until the day they read your mind and prosecute you for thought crimes
speeder 13y ago
The funny thing is that since my early puberty I told my friends that US would spy on them in certain circunstances, and people kept telling me I was a nutjob that should be using tin foil hat. When I asked them why, they happily told me that US was a bastion of democracy and would never do anything like that... After several of my predictions (like Iraq War, Iraq Civil War, Libya, and some of other stuff) came true, plus this, I am having a deluge of messages (ironically, on Facebook) of people wanting to learn geopolitics with me... And I remember bitterly when in 2011 I explained people (parents included) stuff about Greece protests, and I was chased away with "why care about this geopolitics shit? It would never happen in Brazil!" yeah sure... Now why you are asking ME about brazil protests? I think, people believe governments never change, that good can be absolute, that evil in other places never come to their doorstep, and that slippery slopes arguments are always a fallacy.
- rthomas6 13y ago
  So, uh, what are your next predictions for important world events?
  - speeder 13y ago
    Right now I am more concerned with Brazil stuff... But it would not surprise me in shorter term (less than 10 years): Syria civil war dragging other countries on it or spreading to other countries. Israel engaging some Shia country in actual war. Eurozone disbanding or changing radically. Bitcoin getting much stronger OR attracting governments worldwide to squash it with heavyhanded tactics. Also medium term (about 5 to 20 years from now) is clear we will remain having issues related to debt, this will be particularly bad in the US, that will desperately try to maintain USD as world currency (because otherwise it cannot pay the huge army). Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood want to pull-off something, but I don't figured yet what it is, also it depends on they winning Syria Civil war. There is a chance (I am not much sure) that wars (civil and foreign) might happen in countries with a recent rise in far right nationalism (Greece, Japan, Brazil at least). Long term: UN breakup or centralisation of power... It right now is already quite unstable. Reversal in pro-liberal viewpoints, might lead to extreme violence (ie: lots people actively killing gays, other races, immigrants, instead of isolated cases). - Regarding this, Brazil had some news today, government found out that since passing pro-LGBT laws, violence against LGBT is up 300%, with half of it coming from family members. Instabilities as result of low birth rate and increasing life expectancy. If you want the "why" of each stuff, feel free to ask. Also I might add that currently (instead of 10 years ago) predicting stuff is harder, because there are more forces at play, specially Anonymous and Cipherpunks, they have been consistently making me recalculate stuff, and I never expected their rise in first place (interestingly, Ghost in the Shell series did... kudos to them), and because of general instability on the world (more riots and protests are happening, and communication tech spreads news about them much faster, sometimes spurring more of them). EDIT: if anyone know how to make line breaks in HN please tell me... it just took all my stuff and snagged into a single line :(
mhartl 13y ago
I find it so odd when people say "bad for democracy" when they just mean "bad".
- buenavista 13y ago
  It's not just odd, it's meaningless.
D9u 13y ago
This: "... recently, an unknown company brought a case before the FISA court which resulted in a secret 2011 holding that the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment." As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. (Yellow cake uranium, etc) With this kind of a track record how are we supposed to have confidence in the US intelligence apparatus? This is a clear case of "it's not fascism when we do it."
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. according to current definition of WMD, Saddam had(and a billion other people have): http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_fa... "“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);" and section 921 has : "(4) The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and "
  - postaround820 13y ago
    The FBI and the Attorney General have no jurisdiction in international affairs and neither does their definition of WMD.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You're conflating the military definition of WMD (which has essentially always been related to CBRN) with the U.S. civilian legal definition of WMD, which pre-dates the invasion of Iraq.
aznjons 13y ago
One perspective on the current debate over whether governments should spy on other countries seems very similar to arms race issues. However, instead of debating whether nuclear weapons should be decommissioned in the canonical example of an arms race, the debate is trending toward whether more subtle, and arguably more powerful infoweapons and "cyberwarfare" should be allowed on an international scale. Especially when it can be used to enforce oppressive, Orwellian, Kafkaesque regimes maybe not now, but sometime in the future. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the general populations of the world are as cognizant of the implications of powerful information apparatuses as they should be. A legitimate question seems to be, would you rather have a stockpile of nuclear weapons that you cannot use due to the their blatant destructive power and the threat of mutually assured destruction, or would you rather have secret global panopticon surveillance backed by increasing powerful analytics technologies to sift through the firehose of information? Why rely on nukes when you can do so much more with greater degrees of omniscience? Quash domestic and foreign threats alike before they even emerge with targeted action founded on near full informational awareness.
malandrew 13y ago
I posted the following comment in another thread[0], but it is even more relevant here: The other thing that is so worrying about the US having the communications of people around the world indiscriminately is that it basically means that the NSA is in a position to blackmail any citizen of any country that enters into a position of power in that country. Forget installing a shah of Iran or propping some dictator in a South American country. They can now do the same at an arms length. Just collect dirt on all foreigners, wait until they get into power, then use whatever dirt you collected over many years to blackmail that person to do things that are in the self interest of the people at the NSA instead of the self interest of the people that duly elected that representative. This whole situation is a legitimate threat to democracy in this country, but Congress may try to put checks and balances in place to slow the rate at which it erodes democracy at home. However, of more immediate importance is how this is a legitimate threat to democracy everywhere outside the US. Many Americans may hear the NSA say things like "We don't do anything illegal and coercive with this information at home" and may believe them. But do most Americans think it is reasonable to coerce elected officials or other countries using any information gathered by the NSA? Should we not be asking the NSA if they actually do that? This is one of the questions I most want to see asked: "General Keith B. Alexander, has the NSA ever wittingly used collected information on any foreigner elected to office by his or her citizens to coerce or blackmail that duly elected official to pursue policies that may not be in the interest of the citizens that elected them?" IMHO any type of coercion or blackmail of any leader of any country is tantamout to an act of war against the citizens of that country. However these acts would often never be known by the citizens of those countries. Instead, if they are unhappy with coerced actions, they can only blame the politician being coerced instead of being able to blame the people pulling the strings. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271
- shadowfox 13y ago
  While I happen to agree with you, I suspect that many Americans don't see anything wrong with using information like that. Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about. (It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
It's very good for democracy: mob rule by whatever faction is most popular at the moment. It is very, very bad for republics.
sharpneli 13y ago
As a non US resident I'm mostly worried about the attitude that non US citizens are completely worthless. Basically the attitude of US is that we can be tortured and all our communications can be read. All in all we have no rights whatsoever. Do our property rights even hold? Because of that I've recently started to think about moving away from US based services. I've maybe grown overly dependent on gmail and dropbox. Does anyone have any ideas on how to move away from such services? It seems that the email address is the most difficult one, it's a rare service that allows me to change the email. Should I just purchase my own domain and handle all my mails via that? What about dropbox replacements? (I can't wait to visit US eventually for SIGGRAPH or similar, it's not far fetched anymore to think that this very comment might prevent my entry to that country)
- genwin 13y ago
  US citizens are almost as worthless. Our comments might at least get us on the no-fly list. People find out at the airport that they aren't allowed on the plane. They're not criminals, yet are still forbidden from flying for the rest of their lives, with no reason given and no appeal possible.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    If you are on the "no fly" list, is it reasonable to live near a US border near an international city like Vancouver or Toronto and simply drive across the border and catch a plane from those cities, or does the no fly list also apply to people flying out of Canada?
    - genwin 13y ago
      It's a US-only list, so I believe that alternative would work.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        Except for the fact that being on the no-fly list means you can't even enter US airspace regardless of your origin and destination and many (most?) flights from Canada still pass through US airspace. Same thing with most Mexican flights to Europe. Here are some eye-opening stories: http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/02/16/british-man-marooned-in-canada-because-of-us-no-fly-list/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/02/16/british-man-marooned-i... http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/05/25/us-intervenes-to-block-uk-to-canada-trip-by-ex-gitmo-prisoner/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/05/25/us-intervenes-to-block... http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/07/25/mexico-barcelona-flight-barred-from-overflying-the-us/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/07/25/mexico-barcelona-fligh... http://papersplease.org/wp/2009/05/16/air-france-passenger-data-and-no-fly-orders/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2009/05/16/air-france-passenger-d... http://papersplease.org/wp/2010/06/07/another-paris-mexico-flight-barred-from-us-airspace/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2010/06/07/another-paris-mexico-f...
mpyne 13y ago
I think this one's officially a dead horse for us. But I did want to point out that even if a legislator did not envision a given interpretation of the law when they drafted it, doesn't mean that interpretation is actually illegal. That type of concern (having to fix laws with unanticipated loopholes) as probably as old as the Code of Hammurabi. That's where the legislator can say, "I didn't mean for that to be legal", but it doesn't automatically follow that means the thing is illegal. That's for the courts to decide. On that note, hopefully we'll have an answer soon about what that secret FISC ruling was in the first place.
- sk00byd00 13y ago
  There is a difference between legal and lawful.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Not really, at least in the U.S. common law meaning. Do you mean there's a difference between "legal" and "moral"/"right"?
    - sk00byd00 13y ago
      No, I meant exactly what I wrote.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Government secrecy is a complex issue and I don't feel that I'm not informed enough on it to have strong opinions. There are many things I don't like, but I recognize that there are details I don't know. I'll focus on what I know, which is the technology industry. I'm very glad to see the moral legitimacy of the main players, and the current software-industry culture of authoritarian mediocrity in which technologists get minimal autonomy and respect, fall to pieces. In Silicon Valley, it's time for a regime change. FWD.us and Sean Parker's wedding and closed allocation and that jungle party with the 600-pound tiger (WTF?) prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this elite is not materially different from any of the others and that it is utterly unfit to rule over (or even steward) modern society's most important activities: science and technology.
ivanca 13y ago
Hollywood likes to have movies where you can clearly distinguish between the "good guys" and the "bad guys"; well, everyone is realising that America is clearly not the former.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  The realization is that there were no good guys.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    Corruption came for being so big; too much power in few hands; if Google and the other companies were located in different countries -instead of just in the USA- the NSA would never have amazed so much power. Fear created a breach to give too much power to the government but power corrupts, and big powers corrupts big time.
graycat 13y ago
The article is just awash in good points. Some of the points will really hit hard: "This is still America. Cash!" (from the movie 'Seabiscuit'). Long ago Google was getting more revenue from outside the US than inside; so, the article outlines in effect how Google is in line to take a torpedo in 1/2 + of their revenue. If my start up works, then I, too, will have international users. Chuck Schumer, listen up: We're talking $ for NY. Here's what I think will happen: (1) Nearly all politicians will run for cover and keep their heads down, issue cliches and platitudes, and do nothing important. (2) Legal cases are and will be brought. E.g., apparently Google is bringing a case. By now there have to be a lot of people with 'standing' to bring cases -- how about 130 million or so Verizon customers? A standard claim of those cases will be violation of at least the Fourth Amendment. (3) The cases will make it to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) which will accept some of the more important cases. (4) Whatever opinions the SCOTUS hands down, bet your last penny that the SCOTUS will, as a no-brainer, have the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment come out 100% iron-clad whole. For the NSA behavior, the FISA 'court', the 'Patriot Act', expendable! Then all the politicians can come out of hiding and blame the SCOTUS and otherwise philosophize, posture, pontificate, genuflect, etc. But it does help that a lot of ordinary citizens, at HN, The Atlantic, EFF, ACLU, etc. agree with the OP. It also helps that little Ecuador just told the big, bad, mean US to take their NSA and stuff it up their wherever and, besides, stuff the 'trade agreement', and, besides, here's $24 million apparently the US needs to educate its citizens on the Constitution. I'm a fully loyal US citizen, but I do remember "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, I've got "freedom of speech". And I don't have to agree with some of the worst of W, Cheney, Obama, Hillary, or, now, the guy, what's his name, you know, the one supported by H. J. Heinz and its 57 varieties, our current Secretary of State, the little hyperflexible invertebrate John Kerry, and to think I voted for that twit for president. Thank you, thank you, thank you SCOTUS, the Constitution, and the founding fathers. Now we learn again how much we need you! Jihaders, expect no comfort, and you will have none. The NSA people were never the brightest bulbs on the tree, and we don't need their new work since 9/11 to defend the US.
lispm 13y ago
> Even worse, a shift away from U.S.-based Internet services is a blow to free expression around the world. I thought it would be clear by now, that this is not the case. As a foreigner, the US does not ensure my free expression at all. For example the US already scans social networks and uses it to keep 'unwanted' people out of the country. My data privacy is not respected by the US. The US has signed some privacy agreements with the EU, but in practice this is a bad joke. Putting data onto US servers just makes it easier for the US to spy on me (for whatever reasons they decide to do that). Currently NOT using US IT services is a better way to protect my pricacy AND my freedom of expression.

228 points by hype7 13y ago

I think it is reasonable to assume that if the US can do it, at least one other country is actively doing it and that many governments of reasonable wealth are actively trying to gain that capability. I'd be shocked if there are not 10+ countries actively trying to gain technology advantages for spying. If you are going to ask this question, ask "Should any country be involved in spying". Then, if your answer is no, you have the obvious problem of trying to stop them, which is basically impossible. If the answer is yes, where do you draw the line? I would guess that most people (especially US citizens) would be comfortable with the US recording a dictator's phone calls about genocides he is trying to commit but become very uncomfortable when they find out the US government is listening to their phone calls. A lot of people both in the US and globally will draw that line in different places.

mtgx 13y ago
> "I'd be shocked if there are not 10+ countries actively trying to gain technology advantages for spying." Yes, and US has spying "partnerships" to spy on each other's citizens, with all of them. If US really wanted to do something about stopping it, they could do it, at least for 80% of the "Internet". Of course, in the end it's up to all of us to demand that. The US government will never do it on its own. Just like it sees an advantage in having the strongest military power over others, it sees in advantage in being able to spy on every citizen on this planet, and having a large arsenal of viruses and hacked systems in other countries. It's up to us to tell it that's wrong, at least if we still care about quaint things such as democracy, freedoms and human rights..
- postaround820 13y ago
  If your goal is to unilaterally disarm the West in the info wars while China, Russia etc. go unchecked, which of course they would because there is absolutely no chance of accountable governance, then count me out. I want the West to win the info wars, we just need to make sure there is proper oversight.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    I would much rather the west create an infrastructure that minimizes any destruction from an infowar entirely. As much of all infrastructure in every country and all endpoints sold (phones, tablets, computers) should have end-to-end encryption. If the USG wants to protect us from any country they consider an aggressor in the info wars, then they need to equip every one of us (its citizens) with the tools to protect ourselves. The US does not know which of the kids today will grow up to be a Senator, Congressman, President, NSA agent, CIA agent, etc. If one of the infowar aggressors had the kind of information on every US citizen that we suspect the NSA to have, then that means that they could have enough information to blackmail many of this nation's future leaders, with many of us being none the wiser. Take David Patraeus for example. What if a foreign intelligence agency knew about his extramarital affair, but no one else did. That's a perfect circumstance for that agency to coerce him. Add to that fact that the NSA and CIA recruits heavily from the Mormon community. Imagine if one of those people was a gay and still had not come out about that fact. Such a person may be extremely worried about being outed to their friends and family in their religious community. Imagine if a foreign intelligence agency knew everyone who was was still in the closet. They would all be blackmailable. [0] [0] One of my very close friends is bisexual and was raised as a very devout Mormon (but left the Church years ago) and she completely agrees that this could be a reality for a Mormon who has not yet come out of the closet, because of how much that community chastises people who are gay. Most of the people she knew growing up completely disowned her since coming out of the closet and leaving the Church.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > If the USG wants to protect us from any country they consider an aggressor in the info wars, then they need to equip every one of us (its citizens) with the tools to protect ourselves. Well the USG has given us SHA-1, NSA Suite B collection of Cryptographic standards, NIST-organized crypto standards, and have funded the development and most of the ongoing maintainence of Tor. So they're trying to be helpful in that regards, which is why you can't just talk about USG as if it was a single-headed monster.
      - 13y ago
alan_cx 13y ago
Shouldn't the leaders of the free world set the best example for free countries to aspire to? No one begrudges the US, UK, or any other country having spies and what not. They are essential to peace. Remember the point of spying is to understand your opponents real intentions. Imagine how vital it was to know that the USSR was NOT going to start WW3. Its all about how you use them. I think part of problem here is the West using cold war apparatus to fight what is essentially civilian crime, which is what both drugs and terrorism are, after they lost "work" because of the fall of the USSR.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > No one begrudges the US, UK, or any other country having spies and what not. They are essential to peace. Perhaps, but it has certainly not helped that the diplomatic traffic that formerly would have been carried on essentially separate channels is now carried on the Internet with the traffic of normal citizens. Even if we said it was OK for the NSA to peep on dictators and diplomats they'd still be tapping the same channels, but instead would be 'minimizing' a lot more. > I think part of problem here is the West using cold war apparatus to fight what is essentially civilian crime, which is what both drugs and terrorism are, after they lost "work" because of the fall of the USSR. Well, you're right, but the reason is because only the Cold War apparatus (and especially expertise) could realistically handle the demands the U.S. government is trying to put on itself to handle the work of counter-terrorism. The NSA isn't doing the work because they are the NSA and they felt like it, they're doing it because the FBI couldn't hack it even if they tried. Note that even now FBI is the agency that handles the NSLs and warrants and other legal niceties to/from the companies associated with PRISM. The FBI is certainly not completely innocent in this type of stuff. They have COINTELPRO and Carnivore to their credit already, and also CALEA-associated types of technological wiretaps they can employ domestically any time they want (with appropriate documentation, of course)...
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Then, if your answer is no, you have the obvious problem of trying to stop them, which is basically impossible. Are you sure about that? My takeaway from all of this is that we, as a population, need to invest heavily in counter-surveillance technology and employ it everywhere. Even if we were to succeed in legislatively prohibiting the NSA from conducting widespread surveillance, what about other countries? It would be at least as dangerous for China to have the information the NSA is gathering as it is for the NSA to have it. This is a wake up call that something needs to be done in the way of making mass surveillance as difficult as technologically possible. The vulnerability in our infrastructure that the NSA is currently exploiting is one that needs to be patched.

m52go 13y ago

Great empires die from the inside. That's what happened to the Mughal Empire, the Roman Empire, and countless other seemingly untouchable empires of the past. No amount of firepower, surveillance, or money can save a people from the irrational motivators of power, paranoia, and greed of those who rule. Sorry, but as much as I want to fight this crap, history and statistics dictate it's a losing battle.

dllthomas 13y ago
Statistics doesn't say much of anything, based on the information you've given. You're looking at the odds it was X that destroyed the empire, given that the empire was destroyed. We want the odds the empire will survive a given event like X.
- m52go 13y ago
  I'm saying when X occurs, the empire tends to be destroyed. That's different.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    That's what you're saying, but you've got a selection bias.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
The Roman Empire collapsed because it became too big, right? Well, "The Global Village" may be kind of a buzz word, but it has a grain of truth to it. Earth may very well shrink enough shrink to fit into a single fist. So personally, I'm thinking heat death of the universe as the last line of defense ^^ I still would find it sad if human civilization could not find a moment to live in truth and peace, even if just because it would be nice, and because anything else is doomed to "shrieking nothingness" and ever worsening delusion anyway. I think I "fight this crap" just to be less of a part of it. Even if I can't stop it, I am still responsible for myself. I'd rather struggle and then rest easy than the other way around, I'd rather be exhausted than have regrets. Also, who knows. If history teaches us anything it's that no day was ever exactly like the one before. Universal peace as a result of cumulative effort through centuries past might come into existence quickly - not unlike a crystal that suddenly forms in a solution which has been slowly prepared. --- Nikola Tesla Yes, the same could be said about total tyranny, and "a boot trampling on a human face, forever". But still, never say never? Just consider how people in power tend to scramble, how much effort is spent on distracting or deceiving the population. The emperors are naked and on very thin ice... and they know it.

alistair77 13y ago

Obama, "you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy." OK, I agree. So how about you and your "security" agencies are a lot less private about what you're doing. Be completely open about your intentions and let your voters decide if they want to spend billions on it and citizens of other countries decide if they want to use US-based services.

joelrunyon 13y ago
> you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. This is a strange quote to me. We DON'T have 100% security. We'll NEVER have 100% security. But they're more than willing to take all 100% of your privacy. The fact that they'll try to sell us an illusion of 100% security in exchange for 100% of our privacy is a terrible tradeoff to anyone who actually understands risks/security.
- Zarathust 13y ago
  0% privacy is also an impossible concept. Until the day they read your mind and prosecute you for thought crimes

speeder 13y ago

The funny thing is that since my early puberty I told my friends that US would spy on them in certain circunstances, and people kept telling me I was a nutjob that should be using tin foil hat. When I asked them why, they happily told me that US was a bastion of democracy and would never do anything like that... After several of my predictions (like Iraq War, Iraq Civil War, Libya, and some of other stuff) came true, plus this, I am having a deluge of messages (ironically, on Facebook) of people wanting to learn geopolitics with me... And I remember bitterly when in 2011 I explained people (parents included) stuff about Greece protests, and I was chased away with "why care about this geopolitics shit? It would never happen in Brazil!" yeah sure... Now why you are asking ME about brazil protests? I think, people believe governments never change, that good can be absolute, that evil in other places never come to their doorstep, and that slippery slopes arguments are always a fallacy.

rthomas6 13y ago
So, uh, what are your next predictions for important world events?
- speeder 13y ago
  Right now I am more concerned with Brazil stuff... But it would not surprise me in shorter term (less than 10 years): Syria civil war dragging other countries on it or spreading to other countries. Israel engaging some Shia country in actual war. Eurozone disbanding or changing radically. Bitcoin getting much stronger OR attracting governments worldwide to squash it with heavyhanded tactics. Also medium term (about 5 to 20 years from now) is clear we will remain having issues related to debt, this will be particularly bad in the US, that will desperately try to maintain USD as world currency (because otherwise it cannot pay the huge army). Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood want to pull-off something, but I don't figured yet what it is, also it depends on they winning Syria Civil war. There is a chance (I am not much sure) that wars (civil and foreign) might happen in countries with a recent rise in far right nationalism (Greece, Japan, Brazil at least). Long term: UN breakup or centralisation of power... It right now is already quite unstable. Reversal in pro-liberal viewpoints, might lead to extreme violence (ie: lots people actively killing gays, other races, immigrants, instead of isolated cases). - Regarding this, Brazil had some news today, government found out that since passing pro-LGBT laws, violence against LGBT is up 300%, with half of it coming from family members. Instabilities as result of low birth rate and increasing life expectancy. If you want the "why" of each stuff, feel free to ask. Also I might add that currently (instead of 10 years ago) predicting stuff is harder, because there are more forces at play, specially Anonymous and Cipherpunks, they have been consistently making me recalculate stuff, and I never expected their rise in first place (interestingly, Ghost in the Shell series did... kudos to them), and because of general instability on the world (more riots and protests are happening, and communication tech spreads news about them much faster, sometimes spurring more of them). EDIT: if anyone know how to make line breaks in HN please tell me... it just took all my stuff and snagged into a single line :(

mhartl 13y ago

I find it so odd when people say "bad for democracy" when they just mean "bad".

buenavista 13y ago
It's not just odd, it's meaningless.

D9u 13y ago

This: "... recently, an unknown company brought a case before the FISA court which resulted in a secret 2011 holding that the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment." As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. (Yellow cake uranium, etc) With this kind of a track record how are we supposed to have confidence in the US intelligence apparatus? This is a clear case of "it's not fascism when we do it."

VladRussian2 13y ago
>As well as the US government insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, used as an excuse to invade Iraq, yet no WMD were found. according to current definition of WMD, Saddam had(and a billion other people have): http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_fa... "“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);" and section 921 has : "(4) The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and "
- postaround820 13y ago
  The FBI and the Attorney General have no jurisdiction in international affairs and neither does their definition of WMD.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You're conflating the military definition of WMD (which has essentially always been related to CBRN) with the U.S. civilian legal definition of WMD, which pre-dates the invasion of Iraq.

aznjons 13y ago

One perspective on the current debate over whether governments should spy on other countries seems very similar to arms race issues. However, instead of debating whether nuclear weapons should be decommissioned in the canonical example of an arms race, the debate is trending toward whether more subtle, and arguably more powerful infoweapons and "cyberwarfare" should be allowed on an international scale. Especially when it can be used to enforce oppressive, Orwellian, Kafkaesque regimes maybe not now, but sometime in the future. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the general populations of the world are as cognizant of the implications of powerful information apparatuses as they should be. A legitimate question seems to be, would you rather have a stockpile of nuclear weapons that you cannot use due to the their blatant destructive power and the threat of mutually assured destruction, or would you rather have secret global panopticon surveillance backed by increasing powerful analytics technologies to sift through the firehose of information? Why rely on nukes when you can do so much more with greater degrees of omniscience? Quash domestic and foreign threats alike before they even emerge with targeted action founded on near full informational awareness.

malandrew 13y ago

I posted the following comment in another thread[0], but it is even more relevant here: The other thing that is so worrying about the US having the communications of people around the world indiscriminately is that it basically means that the NSA is in a position to blackmail any citizen of any country that enters into a position of power in that country. Forget installing a shah of Iran or propping some dictator in a South American country. They can now do the same at an arms length. Just collect dirt on all foreigners, wait until they get into power, then use whatever dirt you collected over many years to blackmail that person to do things that are in the self interest of the people at the NSA instead of the self interest of the people that duly elected that representative. This whole situation is a legitimate threat to democracy in this country, but Congress may try to put checks and balances in place to slow the rate at which it erodes democracy at home. However, of more immediate importance is how this is a legitimate threat to democracy everywhere outside the US. Many Americans may hear the NSA say things like "We don't do anything illegal and coercive with this information at home" and may believe them. But do most Americans think it is reasonable to coerce elected officials or other countries using any information gathered by the NSA? Should we not be asking the NSA if they actually do that? This is one of the questions I most want to see asked: "General Keith B. Alexander, has the NSA ever wittingly used collected information on any foreigner elected to office by his or her citizens to coerce or blackmail that duly elected official to pursue policies that may not be in the interest of the citizens that elected them?" IMHO any type of coercion or blackmail of any leader of any country is tantamout to an act of war against the citizens of that country. However these acts would often never be known by the citizens of those countries. Instead, if they are unhappy with coerced actions, they can only blame the politician being coerced instead of being able to blame the people pulling the strings. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271

shadowfox 13y ago
While I happen to agree with you, I suspect that many Americans don't see anything wrong with using information like that. Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about. (It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

It's very good for democracy: mob rule by whatever faction is most popular at the moment. It is very, very bad for republics.

sharpneli 13y ago

As a non US resident I'm mostly worried about the attitude that non US citizens are completely worthless. Basically the attitude of US is that we can be tortured and all our communications can be read. All in all we have no rights whatsoever. Do our property rights even hold? Because of that I've recently started to think about moving away from US based services. I've maybe grown overly dependent on gmail and dropbox. Does anyone have any ideas on how to move away from such services? It seems that the email address is the most difficult one, it's a rare service that allows me to change the email. Should I just purchase my own domain and handle all my mails via that? What about dropbox replacements? (I can't wait to visit US eventually for SIGGRAPH or similar, it's not far fetched anymore to think that this very comment might prevent my entry to that country)

genwin 13y ago
US citizens are almost as worthless. Our comments might at least get us on the no-fly list. People find out at the airport that they aren't allowed on the plane. They're not criminals, yet are still forbidden from flying for the rest of their lives, with no reason given and no appeal possible.
- malandrew 13y ago
  If you are on the "no fly" list, is it reasonable to live near a US border near an international city like Vancouver or Toronto and simply drive across the border and catch a plane from those cities, or does the no fly list also apply to people flying out of Canada?
  - genwin 13y ago
    It's a US-only list, so I believe that alternative would work.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Except for the fact that being on the no-fly list means you can't even enter US airspace regardless of your origin and destination and many (most?) flights from Canada still pass through US airspace. Same thing with most Mexican flights to Europe. Here are some eye-opening stories: http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/02/16/british-man-marooned-in-canada-because-of-us-no-fly-list/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/02/16/british-man-marooned-i... http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/05/25/us-intervenes-to-block-uk-to-canada-trip-by-ex-gitmo-prisoner/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/05/25/us-intervenes-to-block... http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/07/25/mexico-barcelona-flight-barred-from-overflying-the-us/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/07/25/mexico-barcelona-fligh... http://papersplease.org/wp/2009/05/16/air-france-passenger-data-and-no-fly-orders/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2009/05/16/air-france-passenger-d... http://papersplease.org/wp/2010/06/07/another-paris-mexico-flight-barred-from-us-airspace/ http://papersplease.org/wp/2010/06/07/another-paris-mexico-f...

mpyne 13y ago

I think this one's officially a dead horse for us. But I did want to point out that even if a legislator did not envision a given interpretation of the law when they drafted it, doesn't mean that interpretation is actually illegal. That type of concern (having to fix laws with unanticipated loopholes) as probably as old as the Code of Hammurabi. That's where the legislator can say, "I didn't mean for that to be legal", but it doesn't automatically follow that means the thing is illegal. That's for the courts to decide. On that note, hopefully we'll have an answer soon about what that secret FISC ruling was in the first place.

sk00byd00 13y ago
There is a difference between legal and lawful.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Not really, at least in the U.S. common law meaning. Do you mean there's a difference between "legal" and "moral"/"right"?
  - sk00byd00 13y ago
    No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Government secrecy is a complex issue and I don't feel that I'm not informed enough on it to have strong opinions. There are many things I don't like, but I recognize that there are details I don't know. I'll focus on what I know, which is the technology industry. I'm very glad to see the moral legitimacy of the main players, and the current software-industry culture of authoritarian mediocrity in which technologists get minimal autonomy and respect, fall to pieces. In Silicon Valley, it's time for a regime change. FWD.us and Sean Parker's wedding and closed allocation and that jungle party with the 600-pound tiger (WTF?) prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this elite is not materially different from any of the others and that it is utterly unfit to rule over (or even steward) modern society's most important activities: science and technology.

ivanca 13y ago

Hollywood likes to have movies where you can clearly distinguish between the "good guys" and the "bad guys"; well, everyone is realising that America is clearly not the former.

noonespecial 13y ago
The realization is that there were no good guys.
- ivanca 13y ago
  Corruption came for being so big; too much power in few hands; if Google and the other companies were located in different countries -instead of just in the USA- the NSA would never have amazed so much power. Fear created a breach to give too much power to the government but power corrupts, and big powers corrupts big time.

graycat 13y ago

The article is just awash in good points. Some of the points will really hit hard: "This is still America. Cash!" (from the movie 'Seabiscuit'). Long ago Google was getting more revenue from outside the US than inside; so, the article outlines in effect how Google is in line to take a torpedo in 1/2 + of their revenue. If my start up works, then I, too, will have international users. Chuck Schumer, listen up: We're talking $ for NY. Here's what I think will happen: (1) Nearly all politicians will run for cover and keep their heads down, issue cliches and platitudes, and do nothing important. (2) Legal cases are and will be brought. E.g., apparently Google is bringing a case. By now there have to be a lot of people with 'standing' to bring cases -- how about 130 million or so Verizon customers? A standard claim of those cases will be violation of at least the Fourth Amendment. (3) The cases will make it to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) which will accept some of the more important cases. (4) Whatever opinions the SCOTUS hands down, bet your last penny that the SCOTUS will, as a no-brainer, have the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment come out 100% iron-clad whole. For the NSA behavior, the FISA 'court', the 'Patriot Act', expendable! Then all the politicians can come out of hiding and blame the SCOTUS and otherwise philosophize, posture, pontificate, genuflect, etc. But it does help that a lot of ordinary citizens, at HN, The Atlantic, EFF, ACLU, etc. agree with the OP. It also helps that little Ecuador just told the big, bad, mean US to take their NSA and stuff it up their wherever and, besides, stuff the 'trade agreement', and, besides, here's $24 million apparently the US needs to educate its citizens on the Constitution. I'm a fully loyal US citizen, but I do remember "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, I've got "freedom of speech". And I don't have to agree with some of the worst of W, Cheney, Obama, Hillary, or, now, the guy, what's his name, you know, the one supported by H. J. Heinz and its 57 varieties, our current Secretary of State, the little hyperflexible invertebrate John Kerry, and to think I voted for that twit for president. Thank you, thank you, thank you SCOTUS, the Constitution, and the founding fathers. Now we learn again how much we need you! Jihaders, expect no comfort, and you will have none. The NSA people were never the brightest bulbs on the tree, and we don't need their new work since 9/11 to defend the US.

lispm 13y ago

> Even worse, a shift away from U.S.-based Internet services is a blow to free expression around the world. I thought it would be clear by now, that this is not the case. As a foreigner, the US does not ensure my free expression at all. For example the US already scans social networks and uses it to keep 'unwanted' people out of the country. My data privacy is not respected by the US. The US has signed some privacy agreements with the EU, but in practice this is a bad joke. Putting data onto US servers just makes it easier for the US to spy on me (for whatever reasons they decide to do that). Currently NOT using US IT services is a better way to protect my pricacy AND my freedom of expression.