7 ms·

More on the NSA Commandeering the Internet

222 points by qubitsam 13y ago

xradionut 13y ago
"That was before the Patriot Act and National Security Letters. Now, presumably, Nacchio would just comply. Protection rackets are easier when you have the law backing you up." Reminds me of this old chestnut: Q: Why does the government prosecute the Mafia? A: They don't want any competition.
outside1234 13y ago
I feel like we've identified this problem to death. I think now the real question is, as an internet community, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to build something that 'routes around' this? Are we going to protest? Or are we just going to keep identifying the problem and complaining about it on Twitter? I'm not saying that I'm not one of those people too - I'm just saying we need to start thinking about action and not identification. I'm hoping that's the next article Bruce writes.
- xhrpost 13y ago
  On that point, I think some of the best action right now would be raising general awareness to the population, particularly the extremely negative consequences this could have on the nation. Despite what some may believe, I feel the US is still a popular sovereignty. These government programs persist because there is a very large (if not majority) portion of the USA that believes these programs are good because they keep us safe from terrorism. Until you change that view point, no 'routing around' is going to solve anything.
- hga 13y ago
  Such implicit pessimism is a bit premature. We've already had one legislative wack at the problem and the results were close and extremely promising, e.g. they didn't break down in any conventional way (by party, region, etc.) We already know from history that the American system can draw back from this sort of thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee), it's way too early to assume that won't happen again. (One caveat, the Church Committee did its work after the death of J. Edgar Hoover.) We also won the Cold War/Clinton era "Crypto Wars"; this account is U.K. centric (I'm amazed at their success), I'll note we won earlier in the US: http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars (HT betterunix in this current discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6302520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6302520).
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  I think you make a good point. I think we must also assume that protesting (both to our peers and our so-called "representatives") won't achieve much, at least for the foreseeable future. There's too much money being poured into the right pockets, and too many of the wrong people in the wrong places in government to dislodge. And even if this particular group of authoritarians are removed, there are plenty of replacements waiting in the wings to take their place. For this reason, I think your first option ("build something that 'routes around' this") is the best. Granted, it's easy to hand-wave and say that this can be done -- but we cannot otherwise assume that the people and agencies which have lied to us in the past will quickly turn over a new leaf and respect our Constitutional rights. We must assume that they will continue to snoop on us, and respond appropriately: peacefully, and cleverly.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  I'm not a big fan of Bruce. He does have some valuable technical things to read though, you just have to take his personal opinions with a grain of salt.
  - hga 13y ago
    Agreed. I've found him to be startlingly ignorant in declaiming on real world stuff I'm a domain expert in; he just doesn't realize it when reciting generic talking points. In this article, he made a very clumsy attack on the current Internet ecosystem; there's a good case to be made for it (see other comments in the topic), but he didn't make it and sounds like a generic anti-business crank. Which might be the truth, the really startling omission in this article is the ultimate fate of Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of the very nebulous crime of insider trading. Even if you think government was or might have been right about him, you ought to accept that a lot of executives will assume in this Three Felonies a Day legal environment that the government will get them some way, some how if they resist like Nacchio indisputably did.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    I wouldn't read anybody that you would not have to take his personal opinions with a grain of salt. Middle of the road, all-too-careful opinions are totally off base with reality.
- legutierr 13y ago
  It seems to me that the only way to bring about real policy change in the US is to organize politically. If you can deliver votes in November, then you can get things done. Part of the problem is that other than the EFF and ACLU, there isn't really a "privacy lobby" in the US. And neither of these organizations are effective in shaping election outcomes. What is needed is something like the 2nd-ammendment lobby or the "Family Values" lobby--one that not only talks about policy, but one which also rewards allies and penalizes enemies at the ballot box. The way that the NRA and the Christian Coalition do it is through grass-roots organizing, and a massive donor base that they basically direct in a centralized manner, which puts them in an unassailable negotiating position on Capital Hill.
  - hga 13y ago
    Don't look at the "Family Values" lobby, they get lip service but no serious favorable actions in return for their votes. One reason they're fading away (the main other one is that Carter's attacks on their schools are a distant memory). The concept of the applying the lessons of the 2nd Amendment lobby was extensively discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138 Here's the contents of my top comment, which I think frames the concept well: "Until we have specific, actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catching on fire. Gun grabbers have killed, maimed, or otherwise grossly abused thousands of people and that continues to this day. "What specific incidents, with victims most will empathize with, can the privacy effort point to?"
    - pkinsky 13y ago
      Martin Luther King was spied on and blackmailed by the FBI. It's a bit dated, but a good place to start. http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-letter-to-martin-luther-king-telling-him-to-commit-suicide/ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-lette...
dllthomas 13y ago
It's too bad the NSA didn't want to spy on Google Reader...
- jonknee 13y ago
  Maybe they did...
api 13y ago
"Once they do that, you no longer control that part of your business. You can't shut it down. You can't terminate part of your service. In a very real sense, it is not your business anymore." Totalitarianism.
anxiousest 13y ago
I agree that it's ultimately a policy issue that needs to be mended by congress, what I disagree with is the needless "dig" at companies that store and analyze large amounts of data, as if that somehow is invalid conduct. The problem is the government demanding access to that data, not that the data is there in the first place.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Wait, why is it better for part X rather than party Y? both are likely to abuse the data, absent non-naive controls or incentive structures. 'take my word' or 'trust me' etc are not such structures AFAIK.
  - anxiousest 13y ago
    These companies can't detain you in an airport or throw you in prison, there are massive benefits to be had from this data for the user, not to mention that you have a contract in place with these companies that don't have with the NSA.
    - Lagged2Death 13y ago
      These companies can't detain you in an airport or throw you in prison... Neither can the NSA. Remember this? (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-k...) Cops searched this family's house at a private corporation's behest, more or less. The fact that a large database is privately held isn't going to protect you from the government.
      - anxiousest 13y ago
        Other branches of government can, relying on NSA intelligence. Just to be clear that example you offer is a case of an employer monitoring employee activity on company equipment, which is another can of worms: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ Also it's not an account of action taken against consumers or users, nor is it any example of a "large database".
ericd 13y ago
Wow, I didn't realize that the lavabit guy had been threatened with prosecution for opting out of continuing his business. That makes me incredibly angry. The sheer audacity of it is baffling.
- lisper 13y ago
  Many people do not realize how bad things have gotten. (They have gotten very, very bad.) That is a big part of the problem.
losethos 13y ago
God says... Virtual-Notary.Org hereby notes that on Date: Friday August 30, 2013 10:08.25 EDT (UTC-0400) a random drawing in the range [1, 100000], inclusive, based on a hardware source of true randomness, yielded the following decision. Random Value: 6200 him, then shall he eat thereof. 12:45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. 12:50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. 12:51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies. 13:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I still cannot see any solution, other than total loss of privacy for all. If the NSA records were made publically accessible, then its a new Nash Equilibrium, but one where no-one has power by dint of secrecy. But other than that, regulation? Even if it worked in the US would the Chinese or Russians agree? I think perhaps its all or nothing.
goatforce5 13y ago
I know nothing of Lavabit, but let's say he did comply with the order and then months or years later the company simply isn't profitable and he needs to shut it down. Could he shut it down then? Or would he suddenly find himself hosting lots of paid government accounts - enough to make it financially viable? (But define viable... Does "I'm not pocketing $1m/year from this business, so I don't care any more. Turn it off!" count?) Could he sell the business? If so, at what point does the new owner get to find out they have extra non-negotiable obligations to the government?
- hga 13y ago
  Best example I know of something like this is Carpathia's conundrum in the Megaupload case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Data_retention
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  An NSL simply cannot be included in any due diligence. That's absolutely brilliant and insightful - there are 192,499 (1) NSL's issued - which either will represent a huge and uncountable liability during due diligence or a massive impact on M&A work in the future. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
- devx 13y ago
  That's why the government is paying the companies to access the data. So it's much easier for companies to just comply with the order. The carrot and the stick.
  - hga 13y ago
    Well, the government is paying for some degree of predigestion of the data. The alternative for the company is having a government black box installed in their machine room doing who knows what....
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I would think he could quit saying it was not profitable. The argument is that because he mentioned an order he violated the gag order. It is stupid. It is blatantly Unconstitutional. I would hope he'd be suing for declaratory judgement that his conduct did not violate the law (now that he has been threatened with arrest he has standing to sue, I think).
avoutthere 13y ago
The idea of a National Security Letter, a device which strips the recipient of several basic human rights, is so blatantly unconstitutional that it should have never been allowed to exist at all, let alone persist as long as it has. It's a device straight out of the Cold War east bloc.
leokun 13y ago
Several months ago that tone would have sounded conspiracy crazed nutty. But post-Snowden and given that it's schneier, it's sad to realize we've come to realize how bad the situation is. I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. However, I would like it if the spying were reduced to remove the bulk tapping of the internet.
- gbrindisi 13y ago
  > I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
  - xhrpost 13y ago
    Link not working, looks like the last period was not included in the URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_....
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I have changed my behavior a bit. There is something about feeling a big brother presence looking over your shoulder when you type. This is particularly present in private conversations. With comments to HN or public comments on blog posts, etc. I think that the government could have gotten it anyway. If the government wants to snoop on things I say publically there isn't much I can do about it. But with private emails, it's a different matter. The question is, "what will someone think if they read this?" And so those emails end up self-censored, not discussing big controversies, and I put the political thoughts out there front and center for all to see. So it means that for HN, no difference. I will say what i would say before. Same for any other public comment area. But there are things now that I would say in public that I am not sure I would say in private.
- ned 13y ago
  I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. That's probably the feeling of most people. Martin Fowler wrote an insightful post about this subject: Privacy Protects Bothersome People …and isn't about me (or probably you) http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html He argues that privacy on the internet is important, not because normal people have something to hide, but because journalists and activists (or other counterpowers in a well-balanced democracy) need a certain level of privacy in order to work.
jbuzbee 13y ago
You read where companies cannot divulge that fact that they have received a NSL? What if they all started reporting that they did NOT receive a NSL? Then when the reporting stopped, you could draw your own conclusions. Wouldn't work for large companies that might get them frequently, but would be an option for the smaller ones like Lavabit.
- kabdib 13y ago
  Never seen one, but I imagine the NLS reads along the lines of "not giving any indication" -- so if you stopped telling the world, you'd be going against it. The people who do this for a living aren't stupid, and most of them probably don't even think they're being evil.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  That's called a warrant canary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Rsync.net does this: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt It's not clear whether the secret courts that enforce NSLs could consider this a legitimate loophole or too cute to get away with, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
- epistasis 13y ago
  By stopping reporting that, they have divulged that they received a letter. So once you receive one, in order to avoid prosecution, you need to keep your notification up as a continuous lie.
  - yebyen 13y ago
    No way. You can be compelled by the courts to actively perpetuate a lie? I don't think so. The deal with the warrant canary is the guy signs a new message every (day?), actively affirming that he hasn't been served with any such secret warrants. What if he gets tired of it? Same with running the business? You can't be compelled to work forever, neither for free or otherwise.
    - 13y ago
drcube 13y ago
> To be fair, we don't know if the government can actually convict someone of closing a business. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it pretty clear you can't force a person to work, unless they've been convicted of a crime. There may be an argument that he violated the NSL, but that's not the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
- hga 13y ago
  I really wonder if that would directly apply. The most relevant case law I'm familiar with didn't use it, although that was complicated by the Feds requiring state government agents to do things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
genecavanaugh 13y ago
I think everyone is missing the most important point, the one that history teaches. The enormous power surveillance brings (not the least being the fact that a little "creative editing", ala the Nazis, will allow <anyone> to become both interesting and guilty of <something>). With that much power, even if <bad stuff> is not happening now, it will happen sooner or later; and then it will be too late!

222 points by qubitsam 13y ago

"That was before the Patriot Act and National Security Letters. Now, presumably, Nacchio would just comply. Protection rackets are easier when you have the law backing you up." Reminds me of this old chestnut: Q: Why does the government prosecute the Mafia? A: They don't want any competition.

outside1234 13y ago

I feel like we've identified this problem to death. I think now the real question is, as an internet community, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to build something that 'routes around' this? Are we going to protest? Or are we just going to keep identifying the problem and complaining about it on Twitter? I'm not saying that I'm not one of those people too - I'm just saying we need to start thinking about action and not identification. I'm hoping that's the next article Bruce writes.

xhrpost 13y ago
On that point, I think some of the best action right now would be raising general awareness to the population, particularly the extremely negative consequences this could have on the nation. Despite what some may believe, I feel the US is still a popular sovereignty. These government programs persist because there is a very large (if not majority) portion of the USA that believes these programs are good because they keep us safe from terrorism. Until you change that view point, no 'routing around' is going to solve anything.
hga 13y ago
Such implicit pessimism is a bit premature. We've already had one legislative wack at the problem and the results were close and extremely promising, e.g. they didn't break down in any conventional way (by party, region, etc.) We already know from history that the American system can draw back from this sort of thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee), it's way too early to assume that won't happen again. (One caveat, the Church Committee did its work after the death of J. Edgar Hoover.) We also won the Cold War/Clinton era "Crypto Wars"; this account is U.K. centric (I'm amazed at their success), I'll note we won earlier in the US: http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars (HT betterunix in this current discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6302520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6302520).
MrZongle2 13y ago
I think you make a good point. I think we must also assume that protesting (both to our peers and our so-called "representatives") won't achieve much, at least for the foreseeable future. There's too much money being poured into the right pockets, and too many of the wrong people in the wrong places in government to dislodge. And even if this particular group of authoritarians are removed, there are plenty of replacements waiting in the wings to take their place. For this reason, I think your first option ("build something that 'routes around' this") is the best. Granted, it's easy to hand-wave and say that this can be done -- but we cannot otherwise assume that the people and agencies which have lied to us in the past will quickly turn over a new leaf and respect our Constitutional rights. We must assume that they will continue to snoop on us, and respond appropriately: peacefully, and cleverly.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
I'm not a big fan of Bruce. He does have some valuable technical things to read though, you just have to take his personal opinions with a grain of salt.
- hga 13y ago
  Agreed. I've found him to be startlingly ignorant in declaiming on real world stuff I'm a domain expert in; he just doesn't realize it when reciting generic talking points. In this article, he made a very clumsy attack on the current Internet ecosystem; there's a good case to be made for it (see other comments in the topic), but he didn't make it and sounds like a generic anti-business crank. Which might be the truth, the really startling omission in this article is the ultimate fate of Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of the very nebulous crime of insider trading. Even if you think government was or might have been right about him, you ought to accept that a lot of executives will assume in this Three Felonies a Day legal environment that the government will get them some way, some how if they resist like Nacchio indisputably did.
- coldtea 13y ago
  I wouldn't read anybody that you would not have to take his personal opinions with a grain of salt. Middle of the road, all-too-careful opinions are totally off base with reality.
legutierr 13y ago
It seems to me that the only way to bring about real policy change in the US is to organize politically. If you can deliver votes in November, then you can get things done. Part of the problem is that other than the EFF and ACLU, there isn't really a "privacy lobby" in the US. And neither of these organizations are effective in shaping election outcomes. What is needed is something like the 2nd-ammendment lobby or the "Family Values" lobby--one that not only talks about policy, but one which also rewards allies and penalizes enemies at the ballot box. The way that the NRA and the Christian Coalition do it is through grass-roots organizing, and a massive donor base that they basically direct in a centralized manner, which puts them in an unassailable negotiating position on Capital Hill.
- hga 13y ago
  Don't look at the "Family Values" lobby, they get lip service but no serious favorable actions in return for their votes. One reason they're fading away (the main other one is that Carter's attacks on their schools are a distant memory). The concept of the applying the lessons of the 2nd Amendment lobby was extensively discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138 Here's the contents of my top comment, which I think frames the concept well: "Until we have specific, actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catching on fire. Gun grabbers have killed, maimed, or otherwise grossly abused thousands of people and that continues to this day. "What specific incidents, with victims most will empathize with, can the privacy effort point to?"
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    Martin Luther King was spied on and blackmailed by the FBI. It's a bit dated, but a good place to start. http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-letter-to-martin-luther-king-telling-him-to-commit-suicide/ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-lette...

dllthomas 13y ago

It's too bad the NSA didn't want to spy on Google Reader...

jonknee 13y ago
Maybe they did...

api 13y ago

"Once they do that, you no longer control that part of your business. You can't shut it down. You can't terminate part of your service. In a very real sense, it is not your business anymore." Totalitarianism.

anxiousest 13y ago

I agree that it's ultimately a policy issue that needs to be mended by congress, what I disagree with is the needless "dig" at companies that store and analyze large amounts of data, as if that somehow is invalid conduct. The problem is the government demanding access to that data, not that the data is there in the first place.

001sky 13y ago
Wait, why is it better for part X rather than party Y? both are likely to abuse the data, absent non-naive controls or incentive structures. 'take my word' or 'trust me' etc are not such structures AFAIK.
- anxiousest 13y ago
  These companies can't detain you in an airport or throw you in prison, there are massive benefits to be had from this data for the user, not to mention that you have a contract in place with these companies that don't have with the NSA.
  - Lagged2Death 13y ago
    These companies can't detain you in an airport or throw you in prison... Neither can the NSA. Remember this? (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-k...) Cops searched this family's house at a private corporation's behest, more or less. The fact that a large database is privately held isn't going to protect you from the government.
    - anxiousest 13y ago
      Other branches of government can, relying on NSA intelligence. Just to be clear that example you offer is a case of an employer monitoring employee activity on company equipment, which is another can of worms: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ Also it's not an account of action taken against consumers or users, nor is it any example of a "large database".

ericd 13y ago

Wow, I didn't realize that the lavabit guy had been threatened with prosecution for opting out of continuing his business. That makes me incredibly angry. The sheer audacity of it is baffling.

lisper 13y ago
Many people do not realize how bad things have gotten. (They have gotten very, very bad.) That is a big part of the problem.

losethos 13y ago

God says... Virtual-Notary.Org hereby notes that on Date: Friday August 30, 2013 10:08.25 EDT (UTC-0400) a random drawing in the range [1, 100000], inclusive, based on a hardware source of true randomness, yielded the following decision. Random Value: 6200 him, then shall he eat thereof. 12:45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. 12:50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. 12:51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies. 13:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I still cannot see any solution, other than total loss of privacy for all. If the NSA records were made publically accessible, then its a new Nash Equilibrium, but one where no-one has power by dint of secrecy. But other than that, regulation? Even if it worked in the US would the Chinese or Russians agree? I think perhaps its all or nothing.

goatforce5 13y ago

I know nothing of Lavabit, but let's say he did comply with the order and then months or years later the company simply isn't profitable and he needs to shut it down. Could he shut it down then? Or would he suddenly find himself hosting lots of paid government accounts - enough to make it financially viable? (But define viable... Does "I'm not pocketing $1m/year from this business, so I don't care any more. Turn it off!" count?) Could he sell the business? If so, at what point does the new owner get to find out they have extra non-negotiable obligations to the government?

hga 13y ago
Best example I know of something like this is Carpathia's conundrum in the Megaupload case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Data_retention
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
An NSL simply cannot be included in any due diligence. That's absolutely brilliant and insightful - there are 192,499 (1) NSL's issued - which either will represent a huge and uncountable liability during due diligence or a massive impact on M&A work in the future. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
devx 13y ago
That's why the government is paying the companies to access the data. So it's much easier for companies to just comply with the order. The carrot and the stick.
- hga 13y ago
  Well, the government is paying for some degree of predigestion of the data. The alternative for the company is having a government black box installed in their machine room doing who knows what....
einhverfr 13y ago
I would think he could quit saying it was not profitable. The argument is that because he mentioned an order he violated the gag order. It is stupid. It is blatantly Unconstitutional. I would hope he'd be suing for declaratory judgement that his conduct did not violate the law (now that he has been threatened with arrest he has standing to sue, I think).

avoutthere 13y ago

The idea of a National Security Letter, a device which strips the recipient of several basic human rights, is so blatantly unconstitutional that it should have never been allowed to exist at all, let alone persist as long as it has. It's a device straight out of the Cold War east bloc.

leokun 13y ago

Several months ago that tone would have sounded conspiracy crazed nutty. But post-Snowden and given that it's schneier, it's sad to realize we've come to realize how bad the situation is. I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. However, I would like it if the spying were reduced to remove the bulk tapping of the internet.

gbrindisi 13y ago
> I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- xhrpost 13y ago
  Link not working, looks like the last period was not included in the URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_....
einhverfr 13y ago
I have changed my behavior a bit. There is something about feeling a big brother presence looking over your shoulder when you type. This is particularly present in private conversations. With comments to HN or public comments on blog posts, etc. I think that the government could have gotten it anyway. If the government wants to snoop on things I say publically there isn't much I can do about it. But with private emails, it's a different matter. The question is, "what will someone think if they read this?" And so those emails end up self-censored, not discussing big controversies, and I put the political thoughts out there front and center for all to see. So it means that for HN, no difference. I will say what i would say before. Same for any other public comment area. But there are things now that I would say in public that I am not sure I would say in private.
ned 13y ago
I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. That's probably the feeling of most people. Martin Fowler wrote an insightful post about this subject: Privacy Protects Bothersome People …and isn't about me (or probably you) http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html He argues that privacy on the internet is important, not because normal people have something to hide, but because journalists and activists (or other counterpowers in a well-balanced democracy) need a certain level of privacy in order to work.

jbuzbee 13y ago

You read where companies cannot divulge that fact that they have received a NSL? What if they all started reporting that they did NOT receive a NSL? Then when the reporting stopped, you could draw your own conclusions. Wouldn't work for large companies that might get them frequently, but would be an option for the smaller ones like Lavabit.

kabdib 13y ago
Never seen one, but I imagine the NLS reads along the lines of "not giving any indication" -- so if you stopped telling the world, you'd be going against it. The people who do this for a living aren't stupid, and most of them probably don't even think they're being evil.
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
That's called a warrant canary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Rsync.net does this: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt It's not clear whether the secret courts that enforce NSLs could consider this a legitimate loophole or too cute to get away with, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
epistasis 13y ago
By stopping reporting that, they have divulged that they received a letter. So once you receive one, in order to avoid prosecution, you need to keep your notification up as a continuous lie.
- yebyen 13y ago
  No way. You can be compelled by the courts to actively perpetuate a lie? I don't think so. The deal with the warrant canary is the guy signs a new message every (day?), actively affirming that he hasn't been served with any such secret warrants. What if he gets tired of it? Same with running the business? You can't be compelled to work forever, neither for free or otherwise.
  - 13y ago

drcube 13y ago

> To be fair, we don't know if the government can actually convict someone of closing a business. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it pretty clear you can't force a person to work, unless they've been convicted of a crime. There may be an argument that he violated the NSL, but that's not the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

hga 13y ago
I really wonder if that would directly apply. The most relevant case law I'm familiar with didn't use it, although that was complicated by the Feds requiring state government agents to do things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

genecavanaugh 13y ago

I think everyone is missing the most important point, the one that history teaches. The enormous power surveillance brings (not the least being the fact that a little "creative editing", ala the Nazis, will allow <anyone> to become both interesting and guilty of <something>). With that much power, even if <bad stuff> is not happening now, it will happen sooner or later; and then it will be too late!