14 ms·

Restore the Fourth

772 points by sethbannon 13y ago

pekk 13y ago
Because only corporations should be allowed to maintain this kind of pervasive surveillance, for pay.
- ihsw 13y ago
  You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy. Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.
  - ericHosick 13y ago
    > Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is very little transparency?
    - cryptoz 13y ago
      Obama has been very clear about his love of NSA domestic spying since 2006. He voted numerous times to expand and renew the USA PATRIOT Act. If you didn't want a president with a love of spying on his citizens, you should not have voted for him (if you did) in the primary elections. There were other options, like Dennis Kucinich, who has a proven track record of not voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between 2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.
      - cgag 13y ago
        What if the only two choices are both pro-creepy spying?
        cryptoz 13y ago
        That's why the primary elections are important - by the time we get down to the final two choices, they usually are both in favour of all kinds of evil things. But in the primaries in 2016, we'll probably have 10 choices from each major party, and it's much more likely you'll find someone that matches your views. It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.
        philwelch 13y ago
        The problem with elections is that however you vote, the majority always wins.
    - ihsw 13y ago
      There has been quite a lot of transparency recently, and many congressional representatives have come out roaring against the NSA's suspicionless data snooping programs. Whether they're playing political football (jumping on the bandwagon) varies from one representative to the next, but they're out there.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    Your other recourse is to move to a different country, which brings another set of problems.
    - dmix 13y ago
      Moving to another country is not voluntary. It's based on your ability to get immigration status somewhere else and even then it's usually temporary and limited. Which is pretty difficult in most countries unless you have an advanced education.
      - tomelders 13y ago
        When faced with a civil liberties problem, some people think "I'll just move to another country". Now they have two problems.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0]. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/estonians-get-to-vote-online-why-cant-america/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...
    - josephlord 13y ago
      Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
        josephlord 13y ago
        If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
  - axuaq 13y ago
    > Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) If I believe that every man is free to do what they please as long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on someone else's right to be free, how can I vote for someone and give them the implicit power to restrict the freedom of myself and others?
    - lightyrs 13y ago
      Vote for who? The Republican who supports the status quo or the Democrat who supports the status quo? Or the third party candidate who won't win?
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      Take the third option. Invalidate your vote. Invalid votes are a recognized form of civil disobedience. If enough people aren't pleased by choices given, it will reduce credibility of any government significantly.
  - wavesounds 13y ago
    Also a corporation can't put you in jail.
    - lightyrs 13y ago
      Yes, I don't know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      They can by proxy. Basically there should be noone or entity with overwhelming force such that they are above the law. * By proxy I mean a sychophantic gov official in their pocket.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Option 1 is available. Earning less money means you pay less tax, and spending less money means you pay less tax. You have control over both of these things.
  - embolism 13y ago
    For large and powerful corporations, not using their services is just like voting. A pointless exercise when the only alternatives are just as bad. And when society is built around the presence of their services, not using them may not be a realistic option. If you don't like the way banks behave, for example, not using them isn't a realistic option. Therefore mass protest and political action are perfectly reasonable approaches to changing corporate behavior.
joshdotsmith 13y ago
This is my first protest. I shared my reasoning for that here with HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332 I really encourage you to go, even for an hour. If you can't make it but agree in principle, then discuss it with your friends and family at their BBQ, before fireworks, or whatever you're doing to celebrate today. You don't need heated discussion. Just share what you think and why you think it. I think you'll be surprised how many minds can change by simply talking. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.
- MarcScott 13y ago
  I live in th UK so can't physically participate, but you have mine and many other Brit's support on this issue. If nothing's changed by November then I'll be suggesting similar protests over here, all on the 5th.
  - devonbarrett 13y ago
    I'll be with you on that one.
    - triplesec 13y ago
      let's get a website started
      - devonbarrett 13y ago
        Shoot me an email!
- dfc 13y ago
  Thank you for your service, in uniform and in civies.
  - frou_dh 13y ago
    Not questioning the sentiment, but I'm freaked out by how that _exact_ phrase (TYFYS) seems to be so reflexive to American military presence, at least online. Where did it come from?
racl101 13y ago
AMUHRIHCAH!!!
fragmede 13y ago
You might want to leave your cellphone at home for this one: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupier...
- wavesounds 13y ago
  I think posting a pictures on instagram/fb/twitter out weighs the risk of the government knowing I was at a protest. I already signed a petition telling them to stop violating the 4th anyway, its got my address and everything. Im not going to let them scare me into being quiet.
- a3n 13y ago
  I left my cell phone on consciously. I'm not, not going to hide my attendance at a protest from the NSA. It's my right to attend. If you feel you have to hide your attendance, then they've won.
lquist 13y ago
Catchy name but the putative right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the 4th Amendment, but is, "to be found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections." (Namely the 4th, 5th and 9th). More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
- wavesounds 13y ago
  How is reading my email without a specific warrant not a violation of the 4th amendment? Seems cut and dry to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
  - rmc 13y ago
    Sure email is relatively straightforward, since that's the equivalent of "papers". But there is all kinds of privacy related this that aren't explicitly included in those words where have been interpreted as in there, like do you have the right to watch porn in your bedroom, or can the government ban porn? Do you have the right to buy condoms, or can he government ban that?
- darkchasma 13y ago
  That's because the name "Restore the 4th (including the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections found in the 4th, 5th, and 9th)" was already taken by a pedantic moron, so they had to settle on something that got the point across without taking up pages of text.
  - lquist 13y ago
    No need to be snarky. I wasn't actually suggesting they change the name. I was just trying to explain where the right to privacy comes from. It surprises most Americans that it isn't explicitly enumerated and is built up from several different amendments. That also means that it is far from universally agreed upon by legal scholars. It is also the reason that people push for a privacy amendment.
donohoe 13y ago
60,000 active Facebook users just started getting privacy notices regarding the NSA http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warning-users-about-nsa-surveillance http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warni...
anovikov 13y ago
Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted, what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over internet again? Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the government on their own field, you always lose.
- lovemenot 13y ago
  Agreed. I am surprised there are few comments of this nature on sites like HN. Perhaps spammers could be unlikely allies in a future wave of data obfuscation / poisoning?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  No, we need to push hard on both fronts. A government which does not respect the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.
  - anovikov 13y ago
    Good point. We are heading into a direction of a new society which put a lot less trust on institutions, a p2p society, sort of. Nothing which isn't independently and technically verifiable will be trusted, and government will encircle itself, being put out of the loop in most transactions, personal and business (which includes paying taxes, too). Except PRISM, other point were the banks - this isn't visible from the U.S. much, but when Greek bonds were defaulted it was done in a way which avoided the technical default - so, credit-default swaps were not triggered, and people and banks who bought them lost everything. After that, Cyprus banks bankrupted but also in a way avoiding the legal bankruptcy - instead, government instituded a 'tax' on their deposits. All lies! Which means banks also cannot be trusted any longer. With the banks and governments out, what remains?
  - a3n 13y ago
    Yes, this absolutely. I'm not so personally worried about intercepted communications, as distasteful as that is. The danger is in having a government that is wholly unconstrained by the Constitution. These are not spot violations by corrupt individuals. These are government programs supported by billions of dollars. This isn't individuals, it's policy. That's horrifying.
tokenadult 13y ago
I will be at the Minneapolis Restore the Fourth protest (with my wife, a first-generation immigrant, and our two youngest children). I've put a link to the main Restore the Fourth website on my Facebook wall, and heard that my oldest son, now living in New York City, will be at the New York City protest. We like our freedom in our family. We are not afraid to go out in public and express our opinions on public policy in the view of onlookers, cameras, and the police. (The Minneapolis protest is on the plaza of the Hennepin County Government Center, a familiar first amendment space in our state, which is right across from the City Hall and headquarters of the Minneapolis police.) Petitioning the government peacefully for the redress of grievances is what America is all about. Being out in public to indicate our support of the Bill of Rights and oversight of the government by elected officials is an appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. See you there if you are in the Twin Cities. By the way, there are other means we can use to work together to promote freedom. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of the Albert Einstein Institution, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen), Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the world.
- future_grad 13y ago
  Thank you for sharing the link to the publications. Looks like they will be a wonderful read.
  - SnowProblem 13y ago
    I 2nd this. Wouldn't it be great if nonviolent strategies for change were required learning in secondary schools? Not just history lesson facts like Ghandi did X and Martin Luther King did Y, but a real education about power in society and methods for change.
rmc 13y ago
The US fourth amendment only applies to US citizens. Us non americans have lots of data in US jurisdiction, but we have no rights. Go beyond the 4th.
- joshuaellinger 13y ago
  I suspect that non americans will be moving a lot of it to other places. And if we can't get our own government to obey the basic founding rules of the country, we're got going to get any real protections for non citizens.
mikemoka 13y ago
The leaks have been corroborated by the Director of the NSA itself actually, the FAQ could be updated to reflect it: "To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_dir.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_...
jedbrown 13y ago
I attended the Chicago event. There were a couple hundred people, short speeches for maybe half an hour in Daley Plaza, then walking a few blocks to Millennium Park (several chants, of which "NSA has TMI" was the most enthusiastic). There was one idiot yelling at the cops and eventually ticketed for writing on the sidewalk. Everyone else was decent, but the rhetoric too frequently strayed from asking for implementable legislation like judicial transparency, actual oversight, and the extent to which terrorism can be used to justify secrecy and the compromise of civil liberties to Snowden (which I consider relevant only insofar as his treatment will affect future whistleblowers and that the human story may cause more people to learn what he leaked) and further to the OWS agenda.
- Jd 13y ago
  Despite attending an "activist" undergrad school, I've never attended any protests -- since I'm out of the US at the moment I can't attend this one even though I would like to. But here's the question, what can be done to yoke a protest and popular frustration to a particular implementable agenda? It seems that there is a natural tendency in these things to something I can only call "dumb populism" with the loudest people generally making their way most easily to the microphone. I don't know if this is inevitable, but it certainly seems the norm. Any thoughts?
mshron 13y ago
I went to the Restore the Fourth rally in NYC. It was, by a long shot, the most cohesive march I have ever been on. It helps that the context was threefold: NSA spying, NYPD Stop & Frisk, and NYPD unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout the tri-state area. All clear 4th Amendment issues. We had a diverse crowd, with a mix of geeks, Occupy-types, Tea Partiers, and members of the Muslim community. We marched, we chanted, we even took some streets in lower Manhattan. Hard to say how big, but probably about a thousand there. The farthest anyone got off-topic was "Free Bradley Manning." Very rare to see that kind of discipline in a diverse crowd. I was very impressed.
- itg 13y ago
  Mashable claims it was around 300 people at the NYC protest. https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-protests/ https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-protests/ I imagine a few more people would have shown up but on the 4th, plenty of folks already have their day planned out or want to spend the day with family/friends instead.
dllthomas 13y ago
The SF event was fantastic, and I am proud to have been a part. Even in the face of the BART strike, we had a reasonable turnout. One thing that was going through my head during the march: much ado has been made about Obama's statement that "you can't have 100% security and also have 100% privacy." I think it deserves rebuttal, but a more careful one than a simple statement that it is false. It is not false; if Obama had stopped before the "and" it would have still been true: you can't have 100% security. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the fact that liberty itself - while valuable in its own right - is also an essential part of security against some threats. It is also unreasonable that "there are tradeoffs" be used as an excuse to avoid discussion of whether the decisions being made are appropriate.
jonmrodriguez 13y ago
My POV experience of today's protest in LA: https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb/ https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb...
wavesounds 13y ago
Great energy in LA today! Thanks and great job everyone! We even had a supportive police officer who blocked traffic for us during the march!
- jurassic 13y ago
  Totally. It was a small crowd but very positive, focused, and on message. I'd go again. The saddest thing was how many people we passed at Grand Park that had no fucking clue about the surveillance scandal. At all. The media is the problem. Edit: And the county sheriffs officers out in full combat gear, with M-4s and body armor, were alarming. But not surprising.
  - wavesounds 13y ago
    Apparently they were running a training drill that included 1300 officers, heavy weaponry and random bag checks.
Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
Total numbers, out of a nation of 320,000,000: Less than 10,000 (and that's being extremely generous). Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about being transparent? Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself). Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it. Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an extreme non-event. Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+ protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a magnitude far higher than this. Happy 4th of July, America! p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the 'motley crew' of under 20 activists! Wise the fuck up.
presidentender 13y ago
The Missoula, MT protest was sparsely attended (I think we had sixteen people at the peak, perhaps 20 individuals altogether), but the passersby were all enthusiastic and supportive, honking their horns and shouting their support.
pg 13y ago
I have to admit, I didn't realize before this how explicitly the Bill of Rights forbids fishing expeditions. If I were working at the NSA I'd be worried about that. It may be inconvenient to be restrained by the constitution, but violating it seems the policy equivalent of selling one's soul to the devil. Once you've started down that road, where do you stop?
- lupatus 13y ago
  First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't broken...?)[1]. Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version. Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner. In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), paragraph 4. [2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_IV https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...
  - tlogan 13y ago
    I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not do that without warrant.
kevinbluer 13y ago
A few pictures from today's NYC event (with a particular focus on the creative signs / props...also no faces, just in case): https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa64573f6/albums/e763e89687cc4a92bdf0383fc3db1a27 https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa6...
sneak 13y ago
One issue I have with this is that the goals here seem to be "end the unconstitutional spying on Americans". This isn't necessarily a bad goal, but even if NSA entirely stopped all domestic spying, it would still continue to tap cables headed for foreign lands, and would still be able to compel silent cooperation of any US company to allow them to spy on foreigners. This is unacceptable if the United States wishes to continue competing on the Internet. If every US-based company can be silently forced to turn over their data to the US government, why use US services? There are a whole lot more customers on the web outside of the US than there are who are US citizens. Why host on AWS, then, if you know it'll scare your customers away? Why use Google Apps for your email? Why buy Android devices or iPhones for your employees if that data's going straight to NSA via Google? There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. There are only about 315 million US citizens, or about 4.5%. The vast majority of the profits to be made from the Internet are _not in the USA_. It's short-sighted. The US military really needs to serve the interests of the country and its businesses, not some stupid fear-based warmongering agenda of its own.
kimlelly 13y ago
Seeing the numbers of yesterday's "Restore the Fourth" protesters, I guess I'm gonna need some "Restore the Faith" now...
- a3n 13y ago
  Consider that for every protester there are a handful of people who would never attend a protest of any kind, yet agree or are influenced by the fact of the protest. Those people are talking about this right now at dinner, at work and at the gym.

Restore the Fourth

772 points by sethbannon 13y ago

pekk 13y ago

Because only corporations should be allowed to maintain this kind of pervasive surveillance, for pay.

ihsw 13y ago
You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy. Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.
- ericHosick 13y ago
  > Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is very little transparency?
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    Obama has been very clear about his love of NSA domestic spying since 2006. He voted numerous times to expand and renew the USA PATRIOT Act. If you didn't want a president with a love of spying on his citizens, you should not have voted for him (if you did) in the primary elections. There were other options, like Dennis Kucinich, who has a proven track record of not voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between 2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.
    - cgag 13y ago
      What if the only two choices are both pro-creepy spying?
      - cryptoz 13y ago
        That's why the primary elections are important - by the time we get down to the final two choices, they usually are both in favour of all kinds of evil things. But in the primaries in 2016, we'll probably have 10 choices from each major party, and it's much more likely you'll find someone that matches your views. It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.
        philwelch 13y ago
        The problem with elections is that however you vote, the majority always wins.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    There has been quite a lot of transparency recently, and many congressional representatives have come out roaring against the NSA's suspicionless data snooping programs. Whether they're playing political football (jumping on the bandwagon) varies from one representative to the next, but they're out there.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  Your other recourse is to move to a different country, which brings another set of problems.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Moving to another country is not voluntary. It's based on your ability to get immigration status somewhere else and even then it's usually temporary and limited. Which is pretty difficult in most countries unless you have an advanced education.
    - tomelders 13y ago
      When faced with a civil liberties problem, some people think "I'll just move to another country". Now they have two problems.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0]. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/estonians-get-to-vote-online-why-cant-america/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
      - josephlord 13y ago
        If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
- axuaq 13y ago
  > Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) If I believe that every man is free to do what they please as long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on someone else's right to be free, how can I vote for someone and give them the implicit power to restrict the freedom of myself and others?
  - lightyrs 13y ago
    Vote for who? The Republican who supports the status quo or the Democrat who supports the status quo? Or the third party candidate who won't win?
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Take the third option. Invalidate your vote. Invalid votes are a recognized form of civil disobedience. If enough people aren't pleased by choices given, it will reduce credibility of any government significantly.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  Also a corporation can't put you in jail.
  - lightyrs 13y ago
    Yes, I don't know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    They can by proxy. Basically there should be noone or entity with overwhelming force such that they are above the law. * By proxy I mean a sychophantic gov official in their pocket.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Option 1 is available. Earning less money means you pay less tax, and spending less money means you pay less tax. You have control over both of these things.
- embolism 13y ago
  For large and powerful corporations, not using their services is just like voting. A pointless exercise when the only alternatives are just as bad. And when society is built around the presence of their services, not using them may not be a realistic option. If you don't like the way banks behave, for example, not using them isn't a realistic option. Therefore mass protest and political action are perfectly reasonable approaches to changing corporate behavior.

joshdotsmith 13y ago

This is my first protest. I shared my reasoning for that here with HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332 I really encourage you to go, even for an hour. If you can't make it but agree in principle, then discuss it with your friends and family at their BBQ, before fireworks, or whatever you're doing to celebrate today. You don't need heated discussion. Just share what you think and why you think it. I think you'll be surprised how many minds can change by simply talking. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.

MarcScott 13y ago
I live in th UK so can't physically participate, but you have mine and many other Brit's support on this issue. If nothing's changed by November then I'll be suggesting similar protests over here, all on the 5th.
- devonbarrett 13y ago
  I'll be with you on that one.
  - triplesec 13y ago
    let's get a website started
    - devonbarrett 13y ago
      Shoot me an email!
dfc 13y ago
Thank you for your service, in uniform and in civies.
- frou_dh 13y ago
  Not questioning the sentiment, but I'm freaked out by how that _exact_ phrase (TYFYS) seems to be so reflexive to American military presence, at least online. Where did it come from?

racl101 13y ago

AMUHRIHCAH!!!

fragmede 13y ago

You might want to leave your cellphone at home for this one: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupier...

wavesounds 13y ago
I think posting a pictures on instagram/fb/twitter out weighs the risk of the government knowing I was at a protest. I already signed a petition telling them to stop violating the 4th anyway, its got my address and everything. Im not going to let them scare me into being quiet.
a3n 13y ago
I left my cell phone on consciously. I'm not, not going to hide my attendance at a protest from the NSA. It's my right to attend. If you feel you have to hide your attendance, then they've won.

lquist 13y ago

Catchy name but the putative right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the 4th Amendment, but is, "to be found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections." (Namely the 4th, 5th and 9th). More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

wavesounds 13y ago
How is reading my email without a specific warrant not a violation of the 4th amendment? Seems cut and dry to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
- rmc 13y ago
  Sure email is relatively straightforward, since that's the equivalent of "papers". But there is all kinds of privacy related this that aren't explicitly included in those words where have been interpreted as in there, like do you have the right to watch porn in your bedroom, or can the government ban porn? Do you have the right to buy condoms, or can he government ban that?
darkchasma 13y ago
That's because the name "Restore the 4th (including the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections found in the 4th, 5th, and 9th)" was already taken by a pedantic moron, so they had to settle on something that got the point across without taking up pages of text.
- lquist 13y ago
  No need to be snarky. I wasn't actually suggesting they change the name. I was just trying to explain where the right to privacy comes from. It surprises most Americans that it isn't explicitly enumerated and is built up from several different amendments. That also means that it is far from universally agreed upon by legal scholars. It is also the reason that people push for a privacy amendment.

donohoe 13y ago

60,000 active Facebook users just started getting privacy notices regarding the NSA http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warning-users-about-nsa-surveillance http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warni...

anovikov 13y ago

Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted, what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over internet again? Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the government on their own field, you always lose.

lovemenot 13y ago
Agreed. I am surprised there are few comments of this nature on sites like HN. Perhaps spammers could be unlikely allies in a future wave of data obfuscation / poisoning?
dllthomas 13y ago
No, we need to push hard on both fronts. A government which does not respect the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.
- anovikov 13y ago
  Good point. We are heading into a direction of a new society which put a lot less trust on institutions, a p2p society, sort of. Nothing which isn't independently and technically verifiable will be trusted, and government will encircle itself, being put out of the loop in most transactions, personal and business (which includes paying taxes, too). Except PRISM, other point were the banks - this isn't visible from the U.S. much, but when Greek bonds were defaulted it was done in a way which avoided the technical default - so, credit-default swaps were not triggered, and people and banks who bought them lost everything. After that, Cyprus banks bankrupted but also in a way avoiding the legal bankruptcy - instead, government instituded a 'tax' on their deposits. All lies! Which means banks also cannot be trusted any longer. With the banks and governments out, what remains?
- a3n 13y ago
  Yes, this absolutely. I'm not so personally worried about intercepted communications, as distasteful as that is. The danger is in having a government that is wholly unconstrained by the Constitution. These are not spot violations by corrupt individuals. These are government programs supported by billions of dollars. This isn't individuals, it's policy. That's horrifying.

tokenadult 13y ago

I will be at the Minneapolis Restore the Fourth protest (with my wife, a first-generation immigrant, and our two youngest children). I've put a link to the main Restore the Fourth website on my Facebook wall, and heard that my oldest son, now living in New York City, will be at the New York City protest. We like our freedom in our family. We are not afraid to go out in public and express our opinions on public policy in the view of onlookers, cameras, and the police. (The Minneapolis protest is on the plaza of the Hennepin County Government Center, a familiar first amendment space in our state, which is right across from the City Hall and headquarters of the Minneapolis police.) Petitioning the government peacefully for the redress of grievances is what America is all about. Being out in public to indicate our support of the Bill of Rights and oversight of the government by elected officials is an appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. See you there if you are in the Twin Cities. By the way, there are other means we can use to work together to promote freedom. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of the Albert Einstein Institution, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen), Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the world.

future_grad 13y ago
Thank you for sharing the link to the publications. Looks like they will be a wonderful read.
- SnowProblem 13y ago
  I 2nd this. Wouldn't it be great if nonviolent strategies for change were required learning in secondary schools? Not just history lesson facts like Ghandi did X and Martin Luther King did Y, but a real education about power in society and methods for change.

rmc 13y ago

The US fourth amendment only applies to US citizens. Us non americans have lots of data in US jurisdiction, but we have no rights. Go beyond the 4th.

joshuaellinger 13y ago
I suspect that non americans will be moving a lot of it to other places. And if we can't get our own government to obey the basic founding rules of the country, we're got going to get any real protections for non citizens.

mikemoka 13y ago

The leaks have been corroborated by the Director of the NSA itself actually, the FAQ could be updated to reflect it: "To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_dir.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_...

jedbrown 13y ago

I attended the Chicago event. There were a couple hundred people, short speeches for maybe half an hour in Daley Plaza, then walking a few blocks to Millennium Park (several chants, of which "NSA has TMI" was the most enthusiastic). There was one idiot yelling at the cops and eventually ticketed for writing on the sidewalk. Everyone else was decent, but the rhetoric too frequently strayed from asking for implementable legislation like judicial transparency, actual oversight, and the extent to which terrorism can be used to justify secrecy and the compromise of civil liberties to Snowden (which I consider relevant only insofar as his treatment will affect future whistleblowers and that the human story may cause more people to learn what he leaked) and further to the OWS agenda.

Jd 13y ago
Despite attending an "activist" undergrad school, I've never attended any protests -- since I'm out of the US at the moment I can't attend this one even though I would like to. But here's the question, what can be done to yoke a protest and popular frustration to a particular implementable agenda? It seems that there is a natural tendency in these things to something I can only call "dumb populism" with the loudest people generally making their way most easily to the microphone. I don't know if this is inevitable, but it certainly seems the norm. Any thoughts?

mshron 13y ago

I went to the Restore the Fourth rally in NYC. It was, by a long shot, the most cohesive march I have ever been on. It helps that the context was threefold: NSA spying, NYPD Stop & Frisk, and NYPD unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout the tri-state area. All clear 4th Amendment issues. We had a diverse crowd, with a mix of geeks, Occupy-types, Tea Partiers, and members of the Muslim community. We marched, we chanted, we even took some streets in lower Manhattan. Hard to say how big, but probably about a thousand there. The farthest anyone got off-topic was "Free Bradley Manning." Very rare to see that kind of discipline in a diverse crowd. I was very impressed.

itg 13y ago
Mashable claims it was around 300 people at the NYC protest. https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-protests/ https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-protests/ I imagine a few more people would have shown up but on the 4th, plenty of folks already have their day planned out or want to spend the day with family/friends instead.

dllthomas 13y ago

The SF event was fantastic, and I am proud to have been a part. Even in the face of the BART strike, we had a reasonable turnout. One thing that was going through my head during the march: much ado has been made about Obama's statement that "you can't have 100% security and also have 100% privacy." I think it deserves rebuttal, but a more careful one than a simple statement that it is false. It is not false; if Obama had stopped before the "and" it would have still been true: you can't have 100% security. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the fact that liberty itself - while valuable in its own right - is also an essential part of security against some threats. It is also unreasonable that "there are tradeoffs" be used as an excuse to avoid discussion of whether the decisions being made are appropriate.

jonmrodriguez 13y ago

My POV experience of today's protest in LA: https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb/ https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb...

wavesounds 13y ago

Great energy in LA today! Thanks and great job everyone! We even had a supportive police officer who blocked traffic for us during the march!

jurassic 13y ago
Totally. It was a small crowd but very positive, focused, and on message. I'd go again. The saddest thing was how many people we passed at Grand Park that had no fucking clue about the surveillance scandal. At all. The media is the problem. Edit: And the county sheriffs officers out in full combat gear, with M-4s and body armor, were alarming. But not surprising.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  Apparently they were running a training drill that included 1300 officers, heavy weaponry and random bag checks.

Helpful_Bunny 13y ago

Total numbers, out of a nation of 320,000,000: Less than 10,000 (and that's being extremely generous). Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about being transparent? Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself). Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it. Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an extreme non-event. Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+ protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a magnitude far higher than this. Happy 4th of July, America! p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the 'motley crew' of under 20 activists! Wise the fuck up.

presidentender 13y ago

The Missoula, MT protest was sparsely attended (I think we had sixteen people at the peak, perhaps 20 individuals altogether), but the passersby were all enthusiastic and supportive, honking their horns and shouting their support.

pg 13y ago

I have to admit, I didn't realize before this how explicitly the Bill of Rights forbids fishing expeditions. If I were working at the NSA I'd be worried about that. It may be inconvenient to be restrained by the constitution, but violating it seems the policy equivalent of selling one's soul to the devil. Once you've started down that road, where do you stop?

lupatus 13y ago
First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't broken...?)[1]. Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version. Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner. In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), paragraph 4. [2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_IV https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...
- tlogan 13y ago
  I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not do that without warrant.

kevinbluer 13y ago

A few pictures from today's NYC event (with a particular focus on the creative signs / props...also no faces, just in case): https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa64573f6/albums/e763e89687cc4a92bdf0383fc3db1a27 https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa6...

sneak 13y ago

One issue I have with this is that the goals here seem to be "end the unconstitutional spying on Americans". This isn't necessarily a bad goal, but even if NSA entirely stopped all domestic spying, it would still continue to tap cables headed for foreign lands, and would still be able to compel silent cooperation of any US company to allow them to spy on foreigners. This is unacceptable if the United States wishes to continue competing on the Internet. If every US-based company can be silently forced to turn over their data to the US government, why use US services? There are a whole lot more customers on the web outside of the US than there are who are US citizens. Why host on AWS, then, if you know it'll scare your customers away? Why use Google Apps for your email? Why buy Android devices or iPhones for your employees if that data's going straight to NSA via Google? There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. There are only about 315 million US citizens, or about 4.5%. The vast majority of the profits to be made from the Internet are _not in the USA_. It's short-sighted. The US military really needs to serve the interests of the country and its businesses, not some stupid fear-based warmongering agenda of its own.

kimlelly 13y ago

Seeing the numbers of yesterday's "Restore the Fourth" protesters, I guess I'm gonna need some "Restore the Faith" now...

a3n 13y ago
Consider that for every protester there are a handful of people who would never attend a protest of any kind, yet agree or are influenced by the fact of the protest. Those people are talking about this right now at dinner, at work and at the gym.