17 ms·

Groklaw legal site shuts over fears of NSA email snooping

706 points by tehmaco 13y ago

tehmaco 13y ago
PJ's (final) entry explaining why: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 EDIT: Turns out there's another thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569
clueless123 13y ago
I am very sad about Groklaw closing, but I understand perfectly how pj feels. This is a sad day.
itsallbs 13y ago
We are at an interesting juncture of history. It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. Initial fears after the NSA leaks seemed to be that the public would become outraged and then forget about it. Clearly, this is not happening. A more secure Internet is needed, and instances like this highlight that necessity.
- toyg 13y ago
  weirdly enough, I think the public would have forgotten about it, but establishment leaders seem bent on doing everything they can to keep the story alive (lying to Congress, grounding Morales' plane, forcing Snowden to defect to Russia, harassing journalists, now even attacking their families...).
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    The Streisand Effect is a concept that some people apparently do not understand until they have experienced the full force of the Effect first-hand. Edit: grammar
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    That's the most bizarre part. First, Snowden steals his information from a Microsoft Sharepoint server? What are classified documents doing on a Sharepoint server? What is a Sharepoint server doing inside the network boundary at NSA? Next, they blew the recovery. If they negotiated with Snowden when he was in Hong Kong, they could have had him stand trial in Hawaii and won easily. Or alternatively, they could have done nothing and waited for Snowden to settle down anonymously in some Hong Kong apartment and arranged for an extraordinary rendition, most likely with the tacit blessing of Hong Kong authorities. Instead we've had this wild goose chase across the world, including the surreal scene of Snowden stuck in the Moscow International Airport, with Vladimir Putin claiming that Moscow Airport isn't part of Russia. Now, they're going to harass a journalist? The US press, which normally handles national security issues in close consultation with US authorities, is clearly spooked, with front page stories in both WSJ and NYT. There's an old adage: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. The general public, which didn't care, is now bombarded by increasingly fantastical news stories with just enough entertainment juice to keep them interesting: super-spies reading your email, a lone hacker with a model for a girlfriend fleeing Hawaii to galavant around the world, and the invincible United States seemingly flummoxed at every turn. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but what the fuck guys? Have we really never considered how to exfil someone from a hostile nation? Is this really the best our intelligence community can do? If so, the real danger is less 1984 and more kindergarten cops. Maybe the story is more complex from the inside, but if not, this is being botched from end to end.
    - hyperventilator 13y ago
      Virtually everything run by the government is to some extent botched. I can't think of a single department that is run properly, yet so many people claim the NSA knows everything. Sure they do.
      - samstave 13y ago
        You're missing the point and actually reinforcing the issue against the NSA: The NSA is already botching the whole damn thing - but WHAT they are botching is the fact that they alreday setup the infra to slurp all data. They farked up setting up controls that would prevent something like Snowden (thankfully) and what we are seeing is that they took IMMENSE technical power and are using it against everyone - the fact that they botched up the human aspect is, as you imply, inevitable. But they still have succeeded in getting the infra in place.
- mhurron 13y ago
  The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it. This and Lavabit and basically preaching to the choir. The only difference between this and me saying I'm going to stop using email and drop off the internet would be that my statement won't generate several threads on HN. It would, however, have the same effect. Those that already know will ask why, and the rest of the world will go on oblivious.
  - dalek_cannes 13y ago
    Considering that Snowden's first revelation was just this June, I think a lot has happened in a few short months. Public opinion takes time to build. This is not a one-time event to be forgotten. This is a crack in the very foundation of our er... society, or whatever. The bill to reign in the NSA almost passed remember? That's just after a few months from the initial revelation. I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      > I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different. I'll take you up on that bet, assuming you believe it's going to get better. I believe the only way you'll win it is if you mean looking very different to include worse instead of the implied better you wrote. The majority don't care. Of the minority that even pay attention to it, most of them support it to catch the evil terrorists.
  - ekidd 13y ago
    The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it. Expecting the public to be instantly outraged by an injustice is like expecting customers to instantly understand your startup. Sure, your product is awesome, your ideas are great, and you know how to execute. But you still have a long uphill slog ahead of you before people will start giving you money. The vast majority of your market will only buy once they see lots of other people buying. Similarly, the average person will only get upset about the NSA when they see lots of other people getting upset. A successful political movement involves winning over one influencer at a time, as the evidence slowly builds up. The Watergate scandals took a good two years to play out. Successful anti-war movements have sometimes taken half a decade. Politics has a surprising amount of momentum. If you want to change something, you may need to spend years exerting a relatively tiny force on a huge object. And like a startup, you need to lay lots of groundwork so that you can take advantage of lucky opportunities.
- derefr 13y ago
  > It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. On a tangent--I have to say, this has been a weird era. It was started by a small group of people who decided to kick Americans into a state of fear and panic--Bin Laden et al--and they succeeded, wildly. And it might be ended by one man, who decided to kick Americans into a state of suspicion that their fear and panic has been used against them. It feels a bit mythical, individual heroes and villains swaying the fates of nations like this. Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy. And yet, here we are.
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    With Bin Laden some of the fear and panic did come from our not being used to such things, but a lot of it also came from our government's overreaction. Which seems to have been at least partly pre-planned and just waiting for an opportunity. With Snowden, things have been getting more and more absurd and someone was bound to point it out with credible evidence sooner or later. Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy. World War I was set off by one guy assassinating one other guy. But, it wouldn't have really mattered if everyone wasn't already this -->.<-- close to breaking out in war anyway. Politics isn't neat and tidy, and there will always be events that hit at the right time to have outsized effects. And a lot of times, those events will have some visible individual playing a key role.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. While I see some raised awareness, most of the change I'm seeing is that the raised awareness is making the government more successful in intimidating those who aren't actively supporting the status quo into hiding under a rock and not engaging in (or facilitating) mass communication. While this might be a momentary transition on the way to actual positive change, I think it is naively optimistic to assume that it must be a sign that positive change is in progress.
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  > A more secure Internet is needed By using the passive voice, who are you suggesting comes along to "Secure" the internet? Surely not the same government that brought us the NSA?
frank_boyd 13y ago
Something to keep in mind: Privacy International criticised the climate that had led to Jones's decision. "The closing of Groklaw demonstrates how central the right to privacy is to free expression. The mere threat of surveillance is enough to [make people] self-censor", it said in a statement.
toyg 13y ago
This is a tragedy. We need to reboot email. Encrypt everything, including metadata -- given current hardware, the client can easily bruteforce it from a list of known keys. Build some sort of easy key distribution tool (connecting via p2p, dns, whatever, just build a goddamn UI). Ask existing transports to relax their restrictions enough to let fully-encrypted mail through, and build some intelligent webmail interface for this (Mailpile, currently being kickstarted, is trying to do smt like that). We've been dicking around with PGP since the 90s without making any real progress, we've traded security for convenience (GMail, Facebook), it's time somebody reverts the trend.
- random42 13y ago
  I disagree. This is a political fight. Technical means can drag the resistance longer, which is helpful, but the political system needs to be put in checks and balances against becoming a police state. There is no substitute of "taking roads and doing peaceful protests" as out of comfort zone they might be. We sometimes fall in love with our methods because that is what _we_ are good at, not what is necessarily the best course of action. Again, I am not discounting the importance of improving technical measures, I am just cautioning against losing the sight of the forest for a tree. I repeat, This is a political fight! Edit - Added explanation.
  - devx 13y ago
    I agree it's primarily a political fight, but I think we should work on both. But it's true that with absolute government power where they can justify anything, and with so many partner countries willing to play along with them - encryption won't get you very far, no matter how good it is and where you are in the world. They'll find a way to put a backdoor into the systems somehow with or without the service provider's knowledge.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      One needs to organize to fight politically. if you cant speak, you cant organize. that's why they are going after e-mail...they are desperate to keep themselves in power...
bluecalm 13y ago
One of the Internet's very best :( At this point I hope more follow. If anything that's one way to make a stand. We just need one country/countries to make a stand and allow security friendly regulation and start-ups will flock. Unfortunately it seems no country at this point could guarantee it and be strong enough to not succumb to pressure.
danso 13y ago
Huh? I just don't follow. Groklaw is not a site that depends on anonymous tips. The last few stories posted on Groklaw were on Apple vs Samsung and did not appear to require privileged confidential information. How is it that other groups that do directly go against the government, such as the ACLU and the EFF, continue to do so without a paralyzingly fear that they can't keep their communications secret? The logical implication from Pamela's opinion is that these groups, by continuing to operate, are little more than a honeypot to be used against their clients. That seems a bit overboard in defeatism.
- cgshaw 13y ago
  It doesn't depend on anonymous tips, but encourages them. PJ is basically saying she wants to prevent folks from sending her honest questions about things they have done or are involved from admitting guilt to law enforcement who can read everything.
  - danso 13y ago
    Make sense, but I still think it's an overreaction. My original question still stands (is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox?), and I would also argue that PJ could mitigate this by simply removing any contact form or information from her site. Yes, people who know her email can still contact her anyway but obviously, that means they can already do that after the site is shut down. Groklaw could continue to operate as an outspoken advocate for legal freedom...perhaps Glenn Greenwald will find himself in a similar position, in which all communication to him is expected to be compromised, but I'd still think he'd continue to do his reporting and writing even if his sourcing was scarce.
    - toyg 13y ago
      >is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox? It's actually fairly dangerous, knowing what we know now. There is a reason the powers that be are so rattled by these revelations: the tactical advantage they're currently enjoying is huge.
- 13y ago
ascendantlogic 13y ago
Now more than ever is when we need sites like this. This all plays right into the government's hands. They may as well keep it up because people are self-censoring and that makes their jobs easier.
- adjwilli 13y ago
  If one person does it, it's self-censorship. If a group of people do it's a non-violent collective action protest.
  - powertower 13y ago
    These are in no way a "protest". Once a site shuts down, that's it, there is no message / discussion / fight, and it just blends into the background radiation a day later. Continuing the site would benefit the "protest" infinitely more. And the operators probably know this on some level. And that's the real story here - These sites are shutting down because 1) it was unprofitable, 2) it was a time-sink, and 3) now there is an excuse to get out and move on with their lives and businesses. *I'm not blaming them - and I'm not saying it's anything above the subconscious level. I'd probably do the same.
fsckin 13y ago
Why not use DeadDrop[0] for leads/sources? The New Yorker[1] seems to be the only notable publication using it. PJ has shutdown before, I'm sure she'll be back again. [0] https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop [1] http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/ http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/
lnanek2 13y ago
This is kind of silly. Just move the site offshore, and if you really have to get rid of email, have an SSL message form. Although I think there are good solutions for PGP and whatnot with email that encrypts it client side anyway. I think this person is just technically illiterate and doesn't understand. Pretty strange. I have a wife from China who hates tech, but she knows very well how to use an encrypted VPN to protect her communications and says it is common knowledge there. This person seems to be lacking even US level common knowledge about protecting your information.
- vor_ 13y ago
  You seem to have missed the point. One shouldn't have to do those things to protect themselves from their own government.
alan_cx 13y ago
I hope those who treated me with scorn for suggesting the politicians and business people are effectively blackmailed by the mere existence of NSA type spying can now see it for real. No direct threat, not conversation, no deals. Just the fear of the knowledge that one is being comprehensively watched, and what "they" might have. This fear is enough to alter behavior, to conform. Again, at what stage can we describe the US and UK, and their co-conspirators as fascist, police state, oppressive, and so on? Or, do we have micro targeted oppression? Is that the modern way?
- talmand 13y ago
  This isn't new, this was why Hoover stayed in power for so long. He had files on everyone. Remember, information is power.
  - monsterix 13y ago
    Is there a way for people to initiate impeachment of Obama / get rid of scumbags from the Government given the number of lies and mess that's already out there? Like it or not but a lot of non-American users see these actions like a bid to take over the Internet. It is a sort of waging a war against the rest of the world. Treating ordinary citizens from outside America default as terrorists and subjecting 'em to round-the-clock surveillance is a gross violation of human rights. Why is the world silent on this? Why do I read 'only American citizens deserve privacy' in every piece of debate and discussion out there? IMO, a historic equivalent of this type of naked surveillance was when the Jews were stripped of their clothes under Nazi Germany (I know this sounds a bit over the top, but well it's not). The world needs to stop thinking that privacy is grant only to those who belong to certain nations. [Edit: Thank you for the negative votes. The statements hold true despite your lack of respect for opinions.]
    - hga 13y ago
      The remedies are the power of the purse, which won't necessarily be followed but which we are attempting and got very close in the first vote in the House, and/or impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, which is an inherently political act. In practice, as the political lay of the land is today, I'm not even sure Obama would be impeached and convicted if he were "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards). Touching on the Jews in Europe before and during WWII, first they were stripped of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (e.g. see this in two months: http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1...). As you may have heard, the US is going in the opposite direction outside of what we're taking to calling "slave states" like New York and Maryland, and probably California soon. We have options, please see here for previous discussion before you dismiss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6155921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6155921
dragonwriter 13y ago
I just want to say that everytime a site like Groklaw -- whose main work was revealing how broken the status quo is (mostly with regard to tech IP law, in Groklaw's case) and thereby creating pressure or exchange among interested parties to fix it -- shuts down, for whatever reason, the powers-that-be win.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. In the SCO vs. IBM case, I'd say that the system worked pretty well. Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. That was its founding purpose, to be sure, but its main work had moved on from the "how stupid one company was" thing for quite some time. > Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources. I'm not sure why this is in your response to my comment, since it is completely irrelevant to it.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      I haven't visited Groklaw in a long time, and I suspect that many other have the same habits. After SCO, I wonder what their readership numbers have been. They will always be associated with that trial. The reason why their lack of confidential sources is relevant is that closing up Groklaw because of the NSA doesn't make sense. Their sources were largely from law filings and (very good) analysis. Closing up shop because their email could be snooped just doesn't make sense. There could be other, valid, reasons, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps PJ wants to get off the Internet because of the NSA, and I'd buy that. But it just didn't seem like protecting the email of confidential sources was that central to their operation. Also, it doesn't seem like the NYT or other major newspapers are closing up shop. There are other ways to get confidential information other than email, if you are truly concerned by the NSA.
supercanuck 13y ago
We need a whistleblower law. A good one, like one that is embedded in the consitution that protects people from speaking out.
- lyndonh 13y ago
  It would never work. No whistleblower was ever thanked or benefitted from their actions. The only way to survive as a whistleblower is to be anonymous, cover your tracks, leave the organisation, leak credible information with evidence to the right people who will do the right thing with it. Protect your identity at all times.
- joering2 13y ago
  We already have one. It means nothing. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ Scroll down to: Protect Whistleblowers
- hga 13y ago
  Against a lawless executive, this would accomplish exactly what???
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > We need a whistleblower law [...] that is embedded in the consitution that protects people from speaking out. Already got one: Congress shall make no law [...] 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 What we lack, if anything, is a public willing to hold the government accountable to the existing rule "embedded in the Constitution". Adding more words to the Constitution won't fix that.
mrt0mat0 13y ago
well, if this keeps up, the NSA won't have much internet to snoop. I think that these politicians need to stop taking months off and get some shit done.
- ihsw 13y ago
  The masses will always use the internet, and they're the real targets. Google, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter won't be shutting down anytime soon.
crb 13y ago
Does that Groklaw logo on the Guardian have a CafePress watermark in the background?
thex86 13y ago
The chilling effects of the surveillance state.
mindstab 13y ago
So how we we achieve political change? As Charlie Stross points out, some very wrong has hijacked our political system: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
kghose 13y ago
I have a counter-current question (and I feel that this should be a legitimate site for asking such questions, because we are all hackers here). Were lavabit, groklaw profitable and/or widely popular? Is it possible that these are sites that are not profitable and would have been shutdown anyway but which are now using privacy as an excuse for shutting down? This does not excuse the misuse of governmental powers, but if it is true, it is a distraction (and a cynical manipulation of our views).
- swayvil 13y ago
  iirc the lavabit guy was making 100k a year.
- basseq 13y ago
  Or, put another way, there were likely a confluence of factors that led to security/surveillance (ostensibly) being the "straw that broke the camel's back"—the latest development that took the risk/reward level over the owner's threshold. How close they were to that threshold anyway, what other factors were in play, whether the perceived threat was evaluated realistically, and other questions are reasonable to ask. I hadn't heard of Lavabit before they shuttered themselves. I had visited Grokalaw on several occasions (often via HN), but have no idea of its profitability or alignment with its authors goals.
- makomk 13y ago
  Groklaw was widely popular a few years ago; this is the most attention they've got in years. Since they've basically never covered anything secret in their entire existence, and PJ has apparently done ethically questionable things in the past to keep attention on herself, pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious about this. (For example, she supposedly shadowbanned not just commenters who disagreed with her, but supporters who were becoming popular and effective enough to compete with her, along with anyone who mentioned this.)
  - thoughtsimple 13y ago
    While I'm not a fan of the recent direction of Groklaw (probably irrelevant now), I think it is a stretch to claim that PJ has done ethically questionable things without some citations. What things?
superuser2 13y ago
Why can't Groklaw use GPG? I understand that it's too complicated for my grandparents, but this is exactly the community that'd be willing to put up with a slight inconvenience to gain security.
bishop_mandible 13y ago
Just out of curiosity: What interest could the NSA possibly have in Groklaw mails?
- smsm42 13y ago
  http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316445-doj-memo-argues-all-phone-calls-are-relevant-to-terrorism http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316445-d... The Justice Department on Friday released its legal rationale for why all U.S. phone calls are "relevant" to terrorism investigations. Same applies to emails. You may not know it, but USDOJ thinks your emails - all of them, including github commit notifications - are relevant for terrorism investigations. Because they can. Remember - "yes, we can!"? You've been warned. Did you listen?
pinaceae 13y ago
will this also lead to a mass exodus in HN users? given the ferocious posting in these threads will all those now also go offline? will yc now only finance startups that deal with encryption and freedom rather than the next social/local/sticker thing? will elon musk create the hyperloop for freedom?
jpswade 13y ago
It makes you wonder what people like Qmail's D. J. Bernstein, make of all this, a self confessed cryptography expert with a hand in a widely used mail transfer agent.
throw7 13y ago
This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity. Two things the surveillance state doesn't want you to have.
- mcv 13y ago
  > This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity. "Her". Pamela is a woman.
  - bricestacey 13y ago
    On wikipedia there is a quote, "I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular." Pointing out her sex, you're just being a jackass and for what?
noenzyme 13y ago
Here is a simple idea. Make it known that our top election issue is removing the NSA's (and others) tentacles from our daily lives. In addition we, the tech elite, will freely help candidates who share point of view and refuse to work with those that don't. The last election showed how important IT systems are. And while it may take a few election cycles we can certainly use that to our advantage. Thoughts?
djpressplay 13y ago
I think this might be part of a long term legal strategy to gain standing in order to sue. I'm sure a bright lawyer will be able to raise 1st and 4th Amendment issues and maybe even some takings claims. Lavabit and Groklaw would make great plaintiffs in a federal court case. Here's hoping.
hosh 13y ago
Fear. Shame. Doubt. These are the means by which the few control the many.
- hosh 13y ago
  To be truly free, one first shed fear and shame. To free yourself from the powers of the few, you first have to step away from the social control of the many. This social control comes from peers ratting each other out. It's conditioning designed into modern, industrial education. Since the many are busy watching each other, the few can step back, secure in knowing that the web of social fear and shame will keep people in line. (This web of fear and shame is what we're building our "social networks" out of). So the first step is free yourself from your own fears and shame. You free yourself from fear by accepting the possibility of what you fear. Then you tune into the experience of fear itself, and let it go. People stay afraid because they don't want to tune into the specific emotion of fear. Where are you experiencing fear in your body? Is it tension in your chest? Is something sharp in your gut? Is it a tremor on your back? If it feels uncomfortable, then you're on the right track. Truth is hidden within the things we don't want to see. You free yourself from shame by letting go of pride. When you have no pride, you have no shame. When you have no shame, then you can act impeccably. This is also called acting with integrity. It's only when you let go of fear and shame that compassion can open up. Most people's notion of compassion are really driven by fear, shame, and guilt. That's not compassion, merely co-dependency. I appease your fear, and you don't mention my shame, and we'll get along just fine. We'll even call it being "nice." If you want to change the world, first change yourself. Instead of fighting for power, own the power over yourself. Do you own your fears, or do your fears own you?
aneth4 13y ago
I call bullshit. It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed. Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down, people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's counterproductive. If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the grandstanding defeatism.
jodrellblank 13y ago
Hmm. A lot of people supposedly operated under the belief that an omnipotent, judgmental entity was watching their every move, in its own interests, to decide their eternal fate. Turns out, a nearly omnipotent judgmental entity is watching a big handful of things, working in your interest, only looking for terrorism and national threats. Suddenly faced with this kind of thing as a reality instead of just paying lip service to the idea, a lot of people... don't like it.
carl_banks 13y ago
Given the current furore I think it not unlikely that pj is under a national security letter and dare not talk about it for fear of arrest. She is probably gambling that they will not threaten to arrest her for closing her site if she makes no statement. She always seemed pretty ballsy and I think she still is. Or maybe she just doesn't want to be a journalist in America any more. What do whistleblowers seek ? A journalist to leak to. Imagine receiving a leak in America right now. It would certainly be a BIG commitment and having received it, it might be too late to undo that action. At the very least this is pre-emptive censorship - a chilling effect, but important in the Manufacturing of Consent. What do you think would happern to Glen Greenwald if he were to step into a transit lounge right now ? Nice of the White House to deny it. Consent for what ? Well one might wonder...

706 points by tehmaco 13y ago

PJ's (final) entry explaining why: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 EDIT: Turns out there's another thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569

clueless123 13y ago

I am very sad about Groklaw closing, but I understand perfectly how pj feels. This is a sad day.

itsallbs 13y ago

We are at an interesting juncture of history. It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. Initial fears after the NSA leaks seemed to be that the public would become outraged and then forget about it. Clearly, this is not happening. A more secure Internet is needed, and instances like this highlight that necessity.

toyg 13y ago
weirdly enough, I think the public would have forgotten about it, but establishment leaders seem bent on doing everything they can to keep the story alive (lying to Congress, grounding Morales' plane, forcing Snowden to defect to Russia, harassing journalists, now even attacking their families...).
- pdkl95 13y ago
  The Streisand Effect is a concept that some people apparently do not understand until they have experienced the full force of the Effect first-hand. Edit: grammar
- s_q_b 13y ago
  That's the most bizarre part. First, Snowden steals his information from a Microsoft Sharepoint server? What are classified documents doing on a Sharepoint server? What is a Sharepoint server doing inside the network boundary at NSA? Next, they blew the recovery. If they negotiated with Snowden when he was in Hong Kong, they could have had him stand trial in Hawaii and won easily. Or alternatively, they could have done nothing and waited for Snowden to settle down anonymously in some Hong Kong apartment and arranged for an extraordinary rendition, most likely with the tacit blessing of Hong Kong authorities. Instead we've had this wild goose chase across the world, including the surreal scene of Snowden stuck in the Moscow International Airport, with Vladimir Putin claiming that Moscow Airport isn't part of Russia. Now, they're going to harass a journalist? The US press, which normally handles national security issues in close consultation with US authorities, is clearly spooked, with front page stories in both WSJ and NYT. There's an old adage: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. The general public, which didn't care, is now bombarded by increasingly fantastical news stories with just enough entertainment juice to keep them interesting: super-spies reading your email, a lone hacker with a model for a girlfriend fleeing Hawaii to galavant around the world, and the invincible United States seemingly flummoxed at every turn. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but what the fuck guys? Have we really never considered how to exfil someone from a hostile nation? Is this really the best our intelligence community can do? If so, the real danger is less 1984 and more kindergarten cops. Maybe the story is more complex from the inside, but if not, this is being botched from end to end.
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    Virtually everything run by the government is to some extent botched. I can't think of a single department that is run properly, yet so many people claim the NSA knows everything. Sure they do.
    - samstave 13y ago
      You're missing the point and actually reinforcing the issue against the NSA: The NSA is already botching the whole damn thing - but WHAT they are botching is the fact that they alreday setup the infra to slurp all data. They farked up setting up controls that would prevent something like Snowden (thankfully) and what we are seeing is that they took IMMENSE technical power and are using it against everyone - the fact that they botched up the human aspect is, as you imply, inevitable. But they still have succeeded in getting the infra in place.
mhurron 13y ago
The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it. This and Lavabit and basically preaching to the choir. The only difference between this and me saying I'm going to stop using email and drop off the internet would be that my statement won't generate several threads on HN. It would, however, have the same effect. Those that already know will ask why, and the rest of the world will go on oblivious.
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  Considering that Snowden's first revelation was just this June, I think a lot has happened in a few short months. Public opinion takes time to build. This is not a one-time event to be forgotten. This is a crack in the very foundation of our er... society, or whatever. The bill to reign in the NSA almost passed remember? That's just after a few months from the initial revelation. I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    > I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different. I'll take you up on that bet, assuming you believe it's going to get better. I believe the only way you'll win it is if you mean looking very different to include worse instead of the implied better you wrote. The majority don't care. Of the minority that even pay attention to it, most of them support it to catch the evil terrorists.
- ekidd 13y ago
  The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it. Expecting the public to be instantly outraged by an injustice is like expecting customers to instantly understand your startup. Sure, your product is awesome, your ideas are great, and you know how to execute. But you still have a long uphill slog ahead of you before people will start giving you money. The vast majority of your market will only buy once they see lots of other people buying. Similarly, the average person will only get upset about the NSA when they see lots of other people getting upset. A successful political movement involves winning over one influencer at a time, as the evidence slowly builds up. The Watergate scandals took a good two years to play out. Successful anti-war movements have sometimes taken half a decade. Politics has a surprising amount of momentum. If you want to change something, you may need to spend years exerting a relatively tiny force on a huge object. And like a startup, you need to lay lots of groundwork so that you can take advantage of lucky opportunities.
derefr 13y ago
> It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. On a tangent--I have to say, this has been a weird era. It was started by a small group of people who decided to kick Americans into a state of fear and panic--Bin Laden et al--and they succeeded, wildly. And it might be ended by one man, who decided to kick Americans into a state of suspicion that their fear and panic has been used against them. It feels a bit mythical, individual heroes and villains swaying the fates of nations like this. Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy. And yet, here we are.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  With Bin Laden some of the fear and panic did come from our not being used to such things, but a lot of it also came from our government's overreaction. Which seems to have been at least partly pre-planned and just waiting for an opportunity. With Snowden, things have been getting more and more absurd and someone was bound to point it out with credible evidence sooner or later. Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy. World War I was set off by one guy assassinating one other guy. But, it wouldn't have really mattered if everyone wasn't already this -->.<-- close to breaking out in war anyway. Politics isn't neat and tidy, and there will always be events that hit at the right time to have outsized effects. And a lot of times, those events will have some visible individual playing a key role.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. While I see some raised awareness, most of the change I'm seeing is that the raised awareness is making the government more successful in intimidating those who aren't actively supporting the status quo into hiding under a rock and not engaging in (or facilitating) mass communication. While this might be a momentary transition on the way to actual positive change, I think it is naively optimistic to assume that it must be a sign that positive change is in progress.
bmmayer1 13y ago
> A more secure Internet is needed By using the passive voice, who are you suggesting comes along to "Secure" the internet? Surely not the same government that brought us the NSA?

frank_boyd 13y ago

Something to keep in mind: Privacy International criticised the climate that had led to Jones's decision. "The closing of Groklaw demonstrates how central the right to privacy is to free expression. The mere threat of surveillance is enough to [make people] self-censor", it said in a statement.

toyg 13y ago

This is a tragedy. We need to reboot email. Encrypt everything, including metadata -- given current hardware, the client can easily bruteforce it from a list of known keys. Build some sort of easy key distribution tool (connecting via p2p, dns, whatever, just build a goddamn UI). Ask existing transports to relax their restrictions enough to let fully-encrypted mail through, and build some intelligent webmail interface for this (Mailpile, currently being kickstarted, is trying to do smt like that). We've been dicking around with PGP since the 90s without making any real progress, we've traded security for convenience (GMail, Facebook), it's time somebody reverts the trend.

random42 13y ago
I disagree. This is a political fight. Technical means can drag the resistance longer, which is helpful, but the political system needs to be put in checks and balances against becoming a police state. There is no substitute of "taking roads and doing peaceful protests" as out of comfort zone they might be. We sometimes fall in love with our methods because that is what _we_ are good at, not what is necessarily the best course of action. Again, I am not discounting the importance of improving technical measures, I am just cautioning against losing the sight of the forest for a tree. I repeat, This is a political fight! Edit - Added explanation.
- devx 13y ago
  I agree it's primarily a political fight, but I think we should work on both. But it's true that with absolute government power where they can justify anything, and with so many partner countries willing to play along with them - encryption won't get you very far, no matter how good it is and where you are in the world. They'll find a way to put a backdoor into the systems somehow with or without the service provider's knowledge.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    One needs to organize to fight politically. if you cant speak, you cant organize. that's why they are going after e-mail...they are desperate to keep themselves in power...

bluecalm 13y ago

One of the Internet's very best :( At this point I hope more follow. If anything that's one way to make a stand. We just need one country/countries to make a stand and allow security friendly regulation and start-ups will flock. Unfortunately it seems no country at this point could guarantee it and be strong enough to not succumb to pressure.

danso 13y ago

Huh? I just don't follow. Groklaw is not a site that depends on anonymous tips. The last few stories posted on Groklaw were on Apple vs Samsung and did not appear to require privileged confidential information. How is it that other groups that do directly go against the government, such as the ACLU and the EFF, continue to do so without a paralyzingly fear that they can't keep their communications secret? The logical implication from Pamela's opinion is that these groups, by continuing to operate, are little more than a honeypot to be used against their clients. That seems a bit overboard in defeatism.

cgshaw 13y ago
It doesn't depend on anonymous tips, but encourages them. PJ is basically saying she wants to prevent folks from sending her honest questions about things they have done or are involved from admitting guilt to law enforcement who can read everything.
- danso 13y ago
  Make sense, but I still think it's an overreaction. My original question still stands (is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox?), and I would also argue that PJ could mitigate this by simply removing any contact form or information from her site. Yes, people who know her email can still contact her anyway but obviously, that means they can already do that after the site is shut down. Groklaw could continue to operate as an outspoken advocate for legal freedom...perhaps Glenn Greenwald will find himself in a similar position, in which all communication to him is expected to be compromised, but I'd still think he'd continue to do his reporting and writing even if his sourcing was scarce.
  - toyg 13y ago
    >is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an online mailbox? It's actually fairly dangerous, knowing what we know now. There is a reason the powers that be are so rattled by these revelations: the tactical advantage they're currently enjoying is huge.
13y ago

ascendantlogic 13y ago

Now more than ever is when we need sites like this. This all plays right into the government's hands. They may as well keep it up because people are self-censoring and that makes their jobs easier.

adjwilli 13y ago
If one person does it, it's self-censorship. If a group of people do it's a non-violent collective action protest.
- powertower 13y ago
  These are in no way a "protest". Once a site shuts down, that's it, there is no message / discussion / fight, and it just blends into the background radiation a day later. Continuing the site would benefit the "protest" infinitely more. And the operators probably know this on some level. And that's the real story here - These sites are shutting down because 1) it was unprofitable, 2) it was a time-sink, and 3) now there is an excuse to get out and move on with their lives and businesses. *I'm not blaming them - and I'm not saying it's anything above the subconscious level. I'd probably do the same.

fsckin 13y ago

Why not use DeadDrop[0] for leads/sources? The New Yorker[1] seems to be the only notable publication using it. PJ has shutdown before, I'm sure she'll be back again. [0] https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop [1] http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/ http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/

lnanek2 13y ago

This is kind of silly. Just move the site offshore, and if you really have to get rid of email, have an SSL message form. Although I think there are good solutions for PGP and whatnot with email that encrypts it client side anyway. I think this person is just technically illiterate and doesn't understand. Pretty strange. I have a wife from China who hates tech, but she knows very well how to use an encrypted VPN to protect her communications and says it is common knowledge there. This person seems to be lacking even US level common knowledge about protecting your information.

vor_ 13y ago
You seem to have missed the point. One shouldn't have to do those things to protect themselves from their own government.

alan_cx 13y ago

I hope those who treated me with scorn for suggesting the politicians and business people are effectively blackmailed by the mere existence of NSA type spying can now see it for real. No direct threat, not conversation, no deals. Just the fear of the knowledge that one is being comprehensively watched, and what "they" might have. This fear is enough to alter behavior, to conform. Again, at what stage can we describe the US and UK, and their co-conspirators as fascist, police state, oppressive, and so on? Or, do we have micro targeted oppression? Is that the modern way?

talmand 13y ago
This isn't new, this was why Hoover stayed in power for so long. He had files on everyone. Remember, information is power.
- monsterix 13y ago
  Is there a way for people to initiate impeachment of Obama / get rid of scumbags from the Government given the number of lies and mess that's already out there? Like it or not but a lot of non-American users see these actions like a bid to take over the Internet. It is a sort of waging a war against the rest of the world. Treating ordinary citizens from outside America default as terrorists and subjecting 'em to round-the-clock surveillance is a gross violation of human rights. Why is the world silent on this? Why do I read 'only American citizens deserve privacy' in every piece of debate and discussion out there? IMO, a historic equivalent of this type of naked surveillance was when the Jews were stripped of their clothes under Nazi Germany (I know this sounds a bit over the top, but well it's not). The world needs to stop thinking that privacy is grant only to those who belong to certain nations. [Edit: Thank you for the negative votes. The statements hold true despite your lack of respect for opinions.]
  - hga 13y ago
    The remedies are the power of the purse, which won't necessarily be followed but which we are attempting and got very close in the first vote in the House, and/or impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, which is an inherently political act. In practice, as the political lay of the land is today, I'm not even sure Obama would be impeached and convicted if he were "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards). Touching on the Jews in Europe before and during WWII, first they were stripped of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (e.g. see this in two months: http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1...). As you may have heard, the US is going in the opposite direction outside of what we're taking to calling "slave states" like New York and Maryland, and probably California soon. We have options, please see here for previous discussion before you dismiss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6155921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6155921

dragonwriter 13y ago

I just want to say that everytime a site like Groklaw -- whose main work was revealing how broken the status quo is (mostly with regard to tech IP law, in Groklaw's case) and thereby creating pressure or exchange among interested parties to fix it -- shuts down, for whatever reason, the powers-that-be win.

mbreese 13y ago
Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. In the SCO vs. IBM case, I'd say that the system worked pretty well. Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. That was its founding purpose, to be sure, but its main work had moved on from the "how stupid one company was" thing for quite some time. > Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources. I'm not sure why this is in your response to my comment, since it is completely irrelevant to it.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    I haven't visited Groklaw in a long time, and I suspect that many other have the same habits. After SCO, I wonder what their readership numbers have been. They will always be associated with that trial. The reason why their lack of confidential sources is relevant is that closing up Groklaw because of the NSA doesn't make sense. Their sources were largely from law filings and (very good) analysis. Closing up shop because their email could be snooped just doesn't make sense. There could be other, valid, reasons, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps PJ wants to get off the Internet because of the NSA, and I'd buy that. But it just didn't seem like protecting the email of confidential sources was that central to their operation. Also, it doesn't seem like the NYT or other major newspapers are closing up shop. There are other ways to get confidential information other than email, if you are truly concerned by the NSA.

supercanuck 13y ago

We need a whistleblower law. A good one, like one that is embedded in the consitution that protects people from speaking out.

lyndonh 13y ago
It would never work. No whistleblower was ever thanked or benefitted from their actions. The only way to survive as a whistleblower is to be anonymous, cover your tracks, leave the organisation, leak credible information with evidence to the right people who will do the right thing with it. Protect your identity at all times.
joering2 13y ago
We already have one. It means nothing. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ Scroll down to: Protect Whistleblowers
hga 13y ago
Against a lawless executive, this would accomplish exactly what???
dragonwriter 13y ago
> We need a whistleblower law [...] that is embedded in the consitution that protects people from speaking out. Already got one: Congress shall make no law [...] 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 What we lack, if anything, is a public willing to hold the government accountable to the existing rule "embedded in the Constitution". Adding more words to the Constitution won't fix that.

mrt0mat0 13y ago

well, if this keeps up, the NSA won't have much internet to snoop. I think that these politicians need to stop taking months off and get some shit done.

ihsw 13y ago
The masses will always use the internet, and they're the real targets. Google, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter won't be shutting down anytime soon.

crb 13y ago

Does that Groklaw logo on the Guardian have a CafePress watermark in the background?

thex86 13y ago

The chilling effects of the surveillance state.

mindstab 13y ago

So how we we achieve political change? As Charlie Stross points out, some very wrong has hijacked our political system: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...

kghose 13y ago

I have a counter-current question (and I feel that this should be a legitimate site for asking such questions, because we are all hackers here). Were lavabit, groklaw profitable and/or widely popular? Is it possible that these are sites that are not profitable and would have been shutdown anyway but which are now using privacy as an excuse for shutting down? This does not excuse the misuse of governmental powers, but if it is true, it is a distraction (and a cynical manipulation of our views).

swayvil 13y ago
iirc the lavabit guy was making 100k a year.
basseq 13y ago
Or, put another way, there were likely a confluence of factors that led to security/surveillance (ostensibly) being the "straw that broke the camel's back"—the latest development that took the risk/reward level over the owner's threshold. How close they were to that threshold anyway, what other factors were in play, whether the perceived threat was evaluated realistically, and other questions are reasonable to ask. I hadn't heard of Lavabit before they shuttered themselves. I had visited Grokalaw on several occasions (often via HN), but have no idea of its profitability or alignment with its authors goals.
makomk 13y ago
Groklaw was widely popular a few years ago; this is the most attention they've got in years. Since they've basically never covered anything secret in their entire existence, and PJ has apparently done ethically questionable things in the past to keep attention on herself, pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious about this. (For example, she supposedly shadowbanned not just commenters who disagreed with her, but supporters who were becoming popular and effective enough to compete with her, along with anyone who mentioned this.)
- thoughtsimple 13y ago
  While I'm not a fan of the recent direction of Groklaw (probably irrelevant now), I think it is a stretch to claim that PJ has done ethically questionable things without some citations. What things?

superuser2 13y ago

Why can't Groklaw use GPG? I understand that it's too complicated for my grandparents, but this is exactly the community that'd be willing to put up with a slight inconvenience to gain security.

bishop_mandible 13y ago

Just out of curiosity: What interest could the NSA possibly have in Groklaw mails?

smsm42 13y ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316445-doj-memo-argues-all-phone-calls-are-relevant-to-terrorism http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/316445-d... The Justice Department on Friday released its legal rationale for why all U.S. phone calls are "relevant" to terrorism investigations. Same applies to emails. You may not know it, but USDOJ thinks your emails - all of them, including github commit notifications - are relevant for terrorism investigations. Because they can. Remember - "yes, we can!"? You've been warned. Did you listen?

pinaceae 13y ago

will this also lead to a mass exodus in HN users? given the ferocious posting in these threads will all those now also go offline? will yc now only finance startups that deal with encryption and freedom rather than the next social/local/sticker thing? will elon musk create the hyperloop for freedom?

jpswade 13y ago

It makes you wonder what people like Qmail's D. J. Bernstein, make of all this, a self confessed cryptography expert with a hand in a widely used mail transfer agent.

throw7 13y ago

This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity. Two things the surveillance state doesn't want you to have.

mcv 13y ago
> This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity. "Her". Pamela is a woman.
- bricestacey 13y ago
  On wikipedia there is a quote, "I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular." Pointing out her sex, you're just being a jackass and for what?

noenzyme 13y ago

Here is a simple idea. Make it known that our top election issue is removing the NSA's (and others) tentacles from our daily lives. In addition we, the tech elite, will freely help candidates who share point of view and refuse to work with those that don't. The last election showed how important IT systems are. And while it may take a few election cycles we can certainly use that to our advantage. Thoughts?

djpressplay 13y ago

I think this might be part of a long term legal strategy to gain standing in order to sue. I'm sure a bright lawyer will be able to raise 1st and 4th Amendment issues and maybe even some takings claims. Lavabit and Groklaw would make great plaintiffs in a federal court case. Here's hoping.

hosh 13y ago

Fear. Shame. Doubt. These are the means by which the few control the many.

hosh 13y ago
To be truly free, one first shed fear and shame. To free yourself from the powers of the few, you first have to step away from the social control of the many. This social control comes from peers ratting each other out. It's conditioning designed into modern, industrial education. Since the many are busy watching each other, the few can step back, secure in knowing that the web of social fear and shame will keep people in line. (This web of fear and shame is what we're building our "social networks" out of). So the first step is free yourself from your own fears and shame. You free yourself from fear by accepting the possibility of what you fear. Then you tune into the experience of fear itself, and let it go. People stay afraid because they don't want to tune into the specific emotion of fear. Where are you experiencing fear in your body? Is it tension in your chest? Is something sharp in your gut? Is it a tremor on your back? If it feels uncomfortable, then you're on the right track. Truth is hidden within the things we don't want to see. You free yourself from shame by letting go of pride. When you have no pride, you have no shame. When you have no shame, then you can act impeccably. This is also called acting with integrity. It's only when you let go of fear and shame that compassion can open up. Most people's notion of compassion are really driven by fear, shame, and guilt. That's not compassion, merely co-dependency. I appease your fear, and you don't mention my shame, and we'll get along just fine. We'll even call it being "nice." If you want to change the world, first change yourself. Instead of fighting for power, own the power over yourself. Do you own your fears, or do your fears own you?

aneth4 13y ago

I call bullshit. It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed. Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down, people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's counterproductive. If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the grandstanding defeatism.

jodrellblank 13y ago

Hmm. A lot of people supposedly operated under the belief that an omnipotent, judgmental entity was watching their every move, in its own interests, to decide their eternal fate. Turns out, a nearly omnipotent judgmental entity is watching a big handful of things, working in your interest, only looking for terrorism and national threats. Suddenly faced with this kind of thing as a reality instead of just paying lip service to the idea, a lot of people... don't like it.

carl_banks 13y ago

Given the current furore I think it not unlikely that pj is under a national security letter and dare not talk about it for fear of arrest. She is probably gambling that they will not threaten to arrest her for closing her site if she makes no statement. She always seemed pretty ballsy and I think she still is. Or maybe she just doesn't want to be a journalist in America any more. What do whistleblowers seek ? A journalist to leak to. Imagine receiving a leak in America right now. It would certainly be a BIG commitment and having received it, it might be too late to undo that action. At the very least this is pre-emptive censorship - a chilling effect, but important in the Manufacturing of Consent. What do you think would happern to Glen Greenwald if he were to step into a transit lounge right now ? Nice of the White House to deny it. Consent for what ? Well one might wonder...