7 ms·

Excellent article ... The comments on the article's page are interesting. He's obviously not advocating treason, but one of the comments goes to great lengths

by smoyer 13y ago

Excellent article ... The comments on the article's page are interesting. He's obviously not advocating treason, but one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. I was tempted to compare this type of end-to-end security to the second amendment (the right to bear arms), which was a right given to the people (in part) to ensure they could overthrow a corrupt government should one form - I don't think we're to that point and overreaching by the government has contracted back to reasonable levels before. But thinking about this issue from a constitutional level, we have indeed (as the article states) given away our fourth amendment rights, and I don't see how developing the systems described in the article could be construed as treason - I'm simply making myself personally responsible for enforcing my fourth amendment rights. My steps: - Replace Google Apps for domains with my own servers. - Stop using drop-box - Establish private communications channels for IM (and perhaps something like Twitter. Then I'll only use public infrastructure for data/messages I want to be public. Unfortunately, the list above represents a lot of work and is exactly the reason we seeded control of our data to outside corporations. We gave them our data as a means to simplify our lives or to gain greater "connectivity". It won't be so easy to go back.

temphn 13y ago
one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. And how powerless are they? The unelected Clapper did anything, while the elected Wyden could do nothing. The technologist Snowden did everything. Democracy didn't bell the cat of the government bureaucracy. Technology did. Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation. How many web sites do you visit with ads compared to the ones you don't, again? I mean, the whole "eternal September" concept is predicated on certain technologies being diluted/coopted.
- raintrees 13y ago
  Aren't you comparing/confusing the tool with behavior? It seems to me I could restate that as "The pencil is more powerful than the mathematical equation E=MC^2 it writes"...
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy That's an interesting statement, and I think one I represents a a troubling undercurrent of thought in the tech community. "We refuse to submit to the democratic process and will override the democratic consensus through technology."
  - rohamg 13y ago
    no. the correct phrasing for the current of thought you reference would be "we refuse to submit to undemocratic/unconstitutional restrictions on the democratic process and will attempt to overturn the administrative consensus through technology". The majority of the time this comes through democratizing access to information, thus raising awareness and allowing the democratic process to work as designed.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      You can't claim to be fighting for the democratic process when public opinion is not on your side.
      - rohamg 13y ago
        this is a silly comment. democratic process != majority rule. My point was precisely that by democratizing access to information, technology helps the public form an informed opinion.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Sure you can. Our democratic process involves people choosing a credible representative, who then hires a staff and meets with other representatives in order to make decisions. An activist working within the system can, as I feel like you've pointed out before, ignore public opinion and lobby representatives directly; "lobby" is a curse word around here, but obviously it's not always a bad thing.
  - eloisius 13y ago
    And I think it invokes the rarely considered idea that maybe democracy isn't the pinnacle of human social organization. Corrupt power structures may have finally optimized for dominating a democratically organized society and we should be at least philosophizing about a favorable post-democracy world. I.e., what's more "democratic" than democracy?
rainsford 13y ago
The interesting thing to consider is that, from a 4th amendment perspective, the technology the author is discussing in theory goes way, way beyond protecting any rights found in the 4th amendment. I think this may have been the point of the article's title (aside from being attention grabbing). The 4th amendment gives Americans the right against unreasonable searches without a warrant, and some similar legal protections exist in many other countries. But the technology the author is discussing generally has a design goal of preventing all searches, under any circumstances. In other words, to technologically ensure a right you never possessed in the legal sense. It provides protection for people and in situations not even the most rights respecting government would be likely to legally protect. This doesn't make the technology bad, but it's a very interesting thing to think about, which is what I suspect was one of the points of the article. For better or worse, technological protection has the potential to go well beyond legal protections.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  The whole point is that in technology, there is no such thing as privacy/secrecy that's conditional on having a legally proper warrant. Either the data or system is secure, or it isn't. Technologically, if there is a way for a judge to authorize reading a single X; then it is a hole that eventually will allow to read all X without the warrant by others as well. As an example, if a cellphone network software allows for FBI wiretaps, then that can be used also by illegal wiretapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%80%932005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%... - the criminals weren't even identified). And if a system is secure (for any reasonable definition of the word secure), then noone can break that security, no matter what warrants they have. There is no middle way. If I'm allowed to protect my communications from random illegal snoopers (say, corporate espionage); then that protection will be just as effective against legal snoopers.
  - rohamg 13y ago
    If digital locks are treated as physical locks, a warrant would compel you to decrypt your files. If you refuse, that is obstruction of justice. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are few forms of commercially available encryption the government could not crack given time + resources, which a warrant would provide.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>but one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. I saw this too and thought how insanely naive it was. Also how nonsensical a response it is. The very point is that people feel betrayed by their government. By definition, then, those "duly elected people" are not representing the will of the people. That is, there is something broken about the system that must be fixed, but cannot be fixed by merely participating more in that broken system. This dysfunction is also evidenced by the fact that much of this was done in secret by these elected officials and there is much effort to maintain that secrecy. A democracy cannot flourish in secret, as it relies upon an informed populace. But, if not for someone breaking laws created by "duly elected officials", we would not even know of these programs and hence the need to consider holding these officials accountable democratically. In fact, that was the very point of the article: we have lost the reins and must now protect ourselves. And, the article itself was very thought provoking. Not so much for the technological solutions it suggested, but for the justification and context for their neccessity.
- lurchpop 13y ago
  It's very much a "blame the victim" argument government apologists & partisans always run to. It's the same as the redneck's "love it or leave it" choice. If the government is violating my rights I can either elect a different Democrat or I can live as an illegal alien in another country.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > The very point is that people feel betrayed by their government. Here is the problem: the people don't feel betrayed. Just look at the turnout of the recent "Restore the 4th" in San Francisco--a pathetic ~400 people turned out. You claim that our elected representatives are not representing the "will of the people," but what you mean is that they are not representing the viewpoints of you and your friends. It's disingenuous. And it's not because people are entirely apathetic. Just look at how many people Tea Party rallies attract. Tea Party rallies regularly get tens of thousands of people to turn out at events all over the country. Maybe, just maybe, the people know and just don't think the slope is so slippery as you and your friends think it is?
panarky 13y ago
To be truly secure from government intrusion, we must accept the inevitable and horrific consequences. The freedom to own lethal weapons leads directly and inevitably to the massacre of innocent first graders. Likewise, the freedom to be truly "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" leads directly and inevitably to monstrous and evil acts. Freedom is dangerous. Both the second amendment and the fourth cause us to "arm our enemies". Freedom is also analog, not digital. We can accept some limits on our freedom to reduce the risk.
- rmc 13y ago
  Yes freedom is analog and has rewards and consequences. There are countries which have decided that giving the common person guns is not worth it.
- GigabyteCoin 13y ago
  >We can accept some limits on our freedom to reduce the risk. Speak for yourself. I don't wish to limit my freedom for any reason.
  - srin 13y ago
    any freedom? isnt that a bit drastic? or are you referring to the particular issue of privacy here?
    - n3rdy 13y ago
      We exist for only a moment compared to how long the universe has existed, and how long it will exist. I don't intend to spend this short time worrying if someone else would approve of my choices. I am more than capable of making my own decisions without harming myself and others, to hell with anyone who believes I don't deserve to do so.
      - alecrn 13y ago
        In one dimension I find existence, in two I find life, but in three, I find freedom.
troels 13y ago
> He's obviously not advocating treason, but one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. I certainly didn't elect them.

by smoyer 13y ago

temphn 13y ago

one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. And how powerless are they? The unelected Clapper did anything, while the elected Wyden could do nothing. The technologist Snowden did everything. Democracy didn't bell the cat of the government bureaucracy. Technology did. Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation.

steveklabnik 13y ago
> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy, as it is not subject to dilution and co-optation. How many web sites do you visit with ads compared to the ones you don't, again? I mean, the whole "eternal September" concept is predicated on certain technologies being diluted/coopted.
raintrees 13y ago
Aren't you comparing/confusing the tool with behavior? It seems to me I could restate that as "The pencil is more powerful than the mathematical equation E=MC^2 it writes"...
rayiner 13y ago
> Technology is more powerful than both democracy and bureaucracy That's an interesting statement, and I think one I represents a a troubling undercurrent of thought in the tech community. "We refuse to submit to the democratic process and will override the democratic consensus through technology."
- rohamg 13y ago
  no. the correct phrasing for the current of thought you reference would be "we refuse to submit to undemocratic/unconstitutional restrictions on the democratic process and will attempt to overturn the administrative consensus through technology". The majority of the time this comes through democratizing access to information, thus raising awareness and allowing the democratic process to work as designed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You can't claim to be fighting for the democratic process when public opinion is not on your side.
    - rohamg 13y ago
      this is a silly comment. democratic process != majority rule. My point was precisely that by democratizing access to information, technology helps the public form an informed opinion.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Sure you can. Our democratic process involves people choosing a credible representative, who then hires a staff and meets with other representatives in order to make decisions. An activist working within the system can, as I feel like you've pointed out before, ignore public opinion and lobby representatives directly; "lobby" is a curse word around here, but obviously it's not always a bad thing.
- eloisius 13y ago
  And I think it invokes the rarely considered idea that maybe democracy isn't the pinnacle of human social organization. Corrupt power structures may have finally optimized for dominating a democratically organized society and we should be at least philosophizing about a favorable post-democracy world. I.e., what's more "democratic" than democracy?

rainsford 13y ago

The interesting thing to consider is that, from a 4th amendment perspective, the technology the author is discussing in theory goes way, way beyond protecting any rights found in the 4th amendment. I think this may have been the point of the article's title (aside from being attention grabbing). The 4th amendment gives Americans the right against unreasonable searches without a warrant, and some similar legal protections exist in many other countries. But the technology the author is discussing generally has a design goal of preventing all searches, under any circumstances. In other words, to technologically ensure a right you never possessed in the legal sense. It provides protection for people and in situations not even the most rights respecting government would be likely to legally protect. This doesn't make the technology bad, but it's a very interesting thing to think about, which is what I suspect was one of the points of the article. For better or worse, technological protection has the potential to go well beyond legal protections.

PeterisP 13y ago
The whole point is that in technology, there is no such thing as privacy/secrecy that's conditional on having a legally proper warrant. Either the data or system is secure, or it isn't. Technologically, if there is a way for a judge to authorize reading a single X; then it is a hole that eventually will allow to read all X without the warrant by others as well. As an example, if a cellphone network software allows for FBI wiretaps, then that can be used also by illegal wiretapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%80%932005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%... - the criminals weren't even identified). And if a system is secure (for any reasonable definition of the word secure), then noone can break that security, no matter what warrants they have. There is no middle way. If I'm allowed to protect my communications from random illegal snoopers (say, corporate espionage); then that protection will be just as effective against legal snoopers.
- rohamg 13y ago
  If digital locks are treated as physical locks, a warrant would compel you to decrypt your files. If you refuse, that is obstruction of justice. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are few forms of commercially available encryption the government could not crack given time + resources, which a warrant would provide.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>but one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. I saw this too and thought how insanely naive it was. Also how nonsensical a response it is. The very point is that people feel betrayed by their government. By definition, then, those "duly elected people" are not representing the will of the people. That is, there is something broken about the system that must be fixed, but cannot be fixed by merely participating more in that broken system. This dysfunction is also evidenced by the fact that much of this was done in secret by these elected officials and there is much effort to maintain that secrecy. A democracy cannot flourish in secret, as it relies upon an informed populace. But, if not for someone breaking laws created by "duly elected officials", we would not even know of these programs and hence the need to consider holding these officials accountable democratically. In fact, that was the very point of the article: we have lost the reins and must now protect ourselves. And, the article itself was very thought provoking. Not so much for the technological solutions it suggested, but for the justification and context for their neccessity.

lurchpop 13y ago
It's very much a "blame the victim" argument government apologists & partisans always run to. It's the same as the redneck's "love it or leave it" choice. If the government is violating my rights I can either elect a different Democrat or I can live as an illegal alien in another country.
rayiner 13y ago
> The very point is that people feel betrayed by their government. Here is the problem: the people don't feel betrayed. Just look at the turnout of the recent "Restore the 4th" in San Francisco--a pathetic ~400 people turned out. You claim that our elected representatives are not representing the "will of the people," but what you mean is that they are not representing the viewpoints of you and your friends. It's disingenuous. And it's not because people are entirely apathetic. Just look at how many people Tea Party rallies attract. Tea Party rallies regularly get tens of thousands of people to turn out at events all over the country. Maybe, just maybe, the people know and just don't think the slope is so slippery as you and your friends think it is?

panarky 13y ago

To be truly secure from government intrusion, we must accept the inevitable and horrific consequences. The freedom to own lethal weapons leads directly and inevitably to the massacre of innocent first graders. Likewise, the freedom to be truly "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" leads directly and inevitably to monstrous and evil acts. Freedom is dangerous. Both the second amendment and the fourth cause us to "arm our enemies". Freedom is also analog, not digital. We can accept some limits on our freedom to reduce the risk.

rmc 13y ago
Yes freedom is analog and has rewards and consequences. There are countries which have decided that giving the common person guns is not worth it.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
>We can accept some limits on our freedom to reduce the risk. Speak for yourself. I don't wish to limit my freedom for any reason.
- srin 13y ago
  any freedom? isnt that a bit drastic? or are you referring to the particular issue of privacy here?
  - n3rdy 13y ago
    We exist for only a moment compared to how long the universe has existed, and how long it will exist. I don't intend to spend this short time worrying if someone else would approve of my choices. I am more than capable of making my own decisions without harming myself and others, to hell with anyone who believes I don't deserve to do so.
    - alecrn 13y ago
      In one dimension I find existence, in two I find life, but in three, I find freedom.

troels 13y ago

> He's obviously not advocating treason, but one of the comments goes to great lengths explaining that those controlling the data collection are duly elected. I certainly didn't elect them.