11 ms·

(Trying To) Face Down The Evil At TechCrunch Disrupt

243 points by coloneltcb 13y ago

astral303 13y ago
It's one thing to ask (which is very welcomed), but it's another thing to put your literal money where your mouth is. Where's the influx of capital to EFF and other entities challenging the US govt legally? Where's the funds going to legislative lobbying that's on par with other large industries?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Exactly. If this is such a slam dunk 4th Amendment case (I don't think it is), then all you need is enough money to hire the lawyers to get it up through the courts. That's a figure in the millions, not the billions. Or to put it another way, a small fraction of the amount of money the tech community spent to elect the guy who could end any of these programs and/or fire those responsible with a phone call.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
The problem is that we all have so much to lose and it makes this so easy for the government. I have a wife, I own a home, I need my job to keep these things and many people will do anything to keep their job and these things. If you're a founder and your options are give the government what they want to no pushback from your userbasr, or to not give the data and face harassment, audits, suspicious legal problems and things like that. Even as a pretty moral guy I have a hard time imagining putting my livelihood on the line for the very little reward if the alternative is possibly losing my home. The government knows how 95% of us NEED to work and keep an income going so they know they can do whatever they want because the leverage is 100% on their side. The only way I see this changing is if people on the Internet/citizens of our country start caring that the NSA is spying on all of us and realize that this harm is way worse than a plane crashing into a building, as horrible as that was.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- GVIrish 13y ago
  That is exactly how criminal bullying succeeds whether it is organized crime moving into a neighborhood, or an authoritarian government rising to power. There are plenty of people along the way who can put their foot down and say "NO" but all they have to do is threaten them and many people say, "I'd rather not get involved," or, "It's not my problem." But every person who turns a blind eye, emboldens the despot, bully, or mob boss. Not saying every little 4-man start up should take the nuclear option when facing the NSA. But there are certainly many companies with clout who could easily turn the tide in public opinion against the rapidly expanding surveillance state. If Google or Yahoo or another big player stook a stand I think it could start to turn the tide. I just feeli like if Ladar Levison can take a stand, I'd like to think there are others who believe strongly enough in what America stands for to do the same. America is worth it.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Here's what really stood out about your post: you are writing it earnestly--as in expressing a genuine fear on your part. And many who read it (like myself), will likely find your concerns to be at least somewhat reasonable. So, what does it say about how far we've come that we are so afraid of speaking out when we believe that our government is wrong? And it's not just wrong, it's among the worst wrongs a government can commit: violating the rights of the citizenry it is sworn to protect.
- yafujifide 13y ago
  It sounds like you've gone all-in with the US government, and now you can't criticise it without risking everything. It is possible to internationalize yourself and your assets in such a way that no one government can threaten you with taking everything away. I suggest taking a look at these internationalization resources: http://www.internationalman.com/ http://www.internationalman.com/ http://www.sovereignman.com/ http://www.sovereignman.com/ http://nomadcapitalist.com/ http://nomadcapitalist.com/ Once you internationalize yourself, your fear of government will be substantially reduced and you can be free to take a stand.
deveac 13y ago
For all the moaning and complaining I've seen on HN over the persistence of this topic, the conversation still hasn't gotten loud enough, and hasn't gone on long enough. As much as MA rubs me the wrong way, I applaud him here. What an incredibly non-trivial and important use of his public platform with those guests.
- patcon 13y ago
  Amen. He has world's of respect from me on that front.
  - HNaTTY 13y ago
    I'll jump on the respect train. Michael Arrington is an ideal person to influence people here. We all may have similar convictions, but he isn't just influencing software development, he's influencing software that is at a seminal stage, making it more likely that version 1 of the next Facebook clone will take security into account. If PG and a few others joined with him, there would be momentum, just like that.
wavesounds 13y ago
Are these interviews or this conference being live streamed?
- jaredsohn 13y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/events/disrupt-sf-2013/live-video/ http://techcrunch.com/events/disrupt-sf-2013/live-video/
- Timothee 13y ago
  The questions to Ron Conway: http://on.aol.com/video/real-talk-with-the-minds-of-sv-angel-at-techcrunch-disrupt-sf-2013-517927038# http://on.aol.com/video/real-talk-with-the-minds-of-sv-angel... It starts at 12'34". Nothing much comes of it though.
vbl 13y ago
Tell me more about these "viscous cycles."
- the_rosentotter 13y ago
  I fail to see how fluid dynamics factor into the issue.
- robinson-wall 13y ago
  Play the twitter "Typo or not?" game https://twitter.com/search?q=viscous%20cycle&src=typd&mode=realtime https://twitter.com/search?q=viscous%20cycle&src=typd&mode=r...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Made even better by the fact that "viscous" is one of my favorite words.
peterjancelis 13y ago
Too bad MA isn't in full control at TC anymore. Making a huge stand on this issue and attacking the parts of SV who are selling out could really put them on the map again.
- greyman 13y ago
  My thoughts as well. I actually miss Mike as a tech reporter and editor. He wasn't perfect, had his quirks, but still overall I wish he would return to the scene.
aantix 13y ago
Curious, has Paul Graham funded any startups with the direct intent of fighting the NSA and/or enabling better privacy?
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Well, I have said that the big guys at Google, MS, etc should be funding and championing internet and general freedom. So, perhaps include PG in this group. However, the problem is that as soon as such a campaign becomes strong, and that is assuming all parties agree on a policy or two, the government, especially a US one, will hit the media with fear mongering attack ads that slander such people as terrorist sympathizing, non patriotic, traitors. Witness Snowden's treatment. So, it would take only the strongest and bravest rich people, who are happy to risk all to get involved with such a venture. And such people are in it because the love start-ups and tech, they never signed up for politics. Perhaps circumstances will drag them in? The other way of course is for such business leaders to fund and lobby existing parties to, well frankly, bribe them in to policies that promote freedom over fear and risk. That for me is playing the existing game. Now, I don't know about others here, but then the likes of the media, oil or industrial military complex do that, I call it corruption. Frankly, while I sit here aghast at how government now treats people in general, I cannot see a reasonable clam way to solve this satisfactorily. I think, sadly, that it will carry on until there is a snapping point in the population, and some sort of revolution happens. I don't see that happening any time soon, Im not sure it ever will. As others have said, they have their job, mortgage, kids at colleges, and so on. Much easier to just accept it and let government continue to persecute the minority (not necessarily in a racial sense) it chooses to. In the end, the vast majority of us a comfortable cowards. Who cares if a few people get screwed over. "We" have too much to lose. Yes, me included.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Startups are not the answer here. Privacy is not something you can buy as a service; Hushmail should have proved this beyond any doubt. Privacy protecting technologies hamper typical startup revenue models based on targeted advertising, and would necessarily have to do so in order to provide the privacy we actually need in the face of the NSA. There is also the matter of the NSA maliciously sabotaging privacy protecting technologies. Really what we need is something like GnuPG, but easier to audit, easier to use, and with a standard that is not constrained by a need for backward compatibility (and which clearly follows constructions given by researchers, rather than using ad-hoc techniques).
scrabble 13y ago
"Who knew in 1984…that this would be big brother [picture of Steve Jobs with iPhone}...and the zombies would be paying customers [pictures of people with phones, tablets]?" It might just be me, but it seems as though this comment could easily be taken out of context. It's a metaphor. And the speaker wasn't saying that the government was Big Brother either.
- mcphilip 13y ago
  If you read the Spiegel article [1] where this quote comes from do you still think it's just a metaphor? I take the comment as snark, but also a troubling indicator of a depraved culture in some circles of the NSA. [1]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-on-smartphones-including-the-blackberry-a-921161.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-...
  - scrabble 13y ago
    I do still think there's the possibility that it's a metaphor. As much as I don't like the recent news that's come out about the NSA, I also don't like to falsely manipulate people's words to give them a negative connotation. I don't like when it's done to me, so I try not to do it to others. As an organization the NSA seems to have some issues, but I still hold that individuals are mostly good. I don't believe the person who wrote that had a mindset that most people are zombies.
asveikau 13y ago
The quote from the alleged NSA document is in fact interesting (ellipsized here): > Who knew in 1984 ... the zombies would be paying customers I feel that this misses an important point in the book. I am reminded of this dialog with the prole who rents Winston an apartment (no spoilers about what happens): > ‘There’s no telescreen!’ he could not help murmuring. > ‘Ah,’ said the old man, ‘I never had one of those things. Too expensive. And I never seemed to feel the need of it, somehow. ...’ Any time there is some technology facing broad adoption, you can imagine some holdouts saying this. Televisions. Cell phones. Smart phones. "Too expensive. I don't see a need for it." The implication is there was one point in time where the people willingly adopted the means of surveillance. One would expect that it offered them something in return.
devx 13y ago
A while ago (before we found out what the FISA Court is up to), I thought if nothing else at least the Justice system is pretty good in US. But now they're systematically replacing the judges with pro-surveillance state judges [1], too. If this isn't stopped and reversed, I worry for the future of US, and then the world. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surveillance-judge-valerie-caproni http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surv...
api 13y ago
I suspect Silicon Valley -- the place -- has already lost. The cost of living there is so high -- a million dollars for a starter house -- that operating there is unthinkable without big money and big success. And guess who has the biggest money of all? The government. They don't even have to earn it. They can tax it (or print it) to their hearts' content. With a cost of living so high, only big money talks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_handcuffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_handcuffs Last time I was in SV, I was driving around and thinking "wow, this place might well be the world's only six-figure slum." It's a place where earning what would be a fantastic wage in most places will get you something that people in other places would call a "crack shack." With a set-up like that, the golden handcuffs look mighty shiny and appealing. If SV gets too "uppity," they just have to come in and spread some more money around. The price of real estate hyperinflates a little more, and the handcuffs get tightened a couple clicks. Real estate hyperinflation and debt indenture are such effective traps for controlling a population, it's hard for me to believe they weren't explicitly designed. The real genius of golden handcuffs is that they look like wealth and they make you feel rich. Wow! I'm making so much money! My house is worth so much! But in reality you're an absolute slave to whomever is writing you those big checks. You don't dare deviate even a little, or even say anything out of line, for fear of losing it all. The truly rich and powerful have the freedom to act. If you don't have that, you are poor. But Silicon Valley is also an idea. You can go there even if you're in Podunkistan, Arkansas. The only way Silicon Valley -- the idea -- can win is if it "goes airborne."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I think this is an important start to some serious soul-searching, both for the tech community and the rest of society. However, I don't think it is enough - and the revelation I suspect that might kick it off, if Snowden has proof, is an attack on the Visa network. I saw earlier the NSA had got into SWIFT, which really stunned me. But NSA watching VISA traffic would be front page across the world. And may well be a good explanation for why they are really trying to find out what snowden has. Just a thought. But please carry on asking questions Mr Arrington.
api 13y ago
Tangent: I was using a Microsoft surface the other day and thinking "wow, this really doesn't suck once you get used to it." I'm starting to come off my initial hatred of Metro. What does this have to do with the OP? If MS wanted to pull an outrageous coup d'etat vs. Apple and Google, especially in the Mobile space, they could pivot the company thusly: "Here at Microsoft, we empower you. We are the company that gives you control over your platform and your privacy." Yeah, that's totally not what they do now. Just saying. If they were really genuine about it, they'd gain a shitload of mindshare real fast.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Maybe I'm cynical and I hope I'm wrong, but I think that you overestimate how important these issues are to typical consumers as well as overestimate how forgiving people are of Microsoft's past sins.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  > Yeah, that's totally not what they do now. Actually, it is: see http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-microsoft-privacy-campaign-promotes-consumer-control-148781 http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-microsof... and http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-breached-your-privacy-use-bing-7000004571/ http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-breached-your-privacy-..., for instance.
f055 13y ago
Government isn't some abstract being - it's people. Some of whom were elected by the majority of other people. So as usual, people did this to people. We are all accountable. The question is, do we really want to change things? Or just keep on arguing on the Internet?
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  Um the US government employees 10's of millions. Few of them were elected.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    No it doesn't. It employes about 4.5m people, including the entire military: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-docu...
Aloisius 13y ago
I'm not sure mass surveillance is necessarily evil, but it certainly is something we should fight against. It seems to me that there are essentially four routes we can take: a) The legal route - donate to EFF and friend https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ - and hope that in 8-10 years it takes this thing to get through the courts, all this will be found illegal. b) The legislative route - stage protests, pour money into congressional and presidential candidates who believe privacy is a right, fund lobbyists, find candidates that believe in privacy and push them to run, punish officials with expensive reelection campaigns for those who don't. c) The encryption route - make encryption easier to use, push forward stronger minimum encryption standards, push for IPv6 (mandatory IPsec support), push for an end-to-end encryption standard for HTML with encryption/decryption done by the browser for elements on a page/posted content (for things like webmail), constant vigilance against vendor-introduced security weaknesses, etc. d) The disinformation route - flood the internet with enough noise that it becomes cost prohibitive and technically unfeasible to have any confidence in the results coming out of any big data analytics system monitoring internet communications. . Now, the encryption route seems to be what people around here generally focus on since it is a technical solution to the problem and most of us are technical people. It unfortunately is also the most difficult since it requires end-user participation and trust in everyone from your OS vendor to your CPU vendor. The disinformation route is also a technical solution, but it can be carried out by a much smaller group of people though some of us might have issue with effectively spamming the internet and in order to create the right kind of disinformation, you have to know what they're looking for in the first place and the resources to fake interactions that looks similar. The legal route is something we can all do. It is slow, but donating money to lawyers is relatively painless for most of us. The legislative route requires organization and mass participation. So far, people aren't angry really enough about it to do anything. There is no charismatic leader leading the charge. As far as I know, there isn't even a PAC we could donate to that would fight the good fight.
anonymous 13y ago
"... considers us meaningless sheep to be herded at will." For a minute I thought Arrington was referring to his previous employer, one of the players in the domain name racket, specifically the people who run Pool.com. If ever there was a "service" who viewed users as "zombies", they are it. Then there's all the herding that TC does, funnelling its readers toward "preferred" money raisers. TC has taken the conflicts of interest inherent in the typical tech media "puff piece" to a new level altogether. If anything needs to be disrupted, it is TC's manipulation of "news". It's really difficult to take this guy seriously if you know anything about his background. But I guess that excludes most of us "zombies". TC is a pillar of herdlike "thinking". Operations like TC/UC and the ones Arrington criticizes in the "article" share more in common than he may want to admit. Both rely on brainless, herdlike behavior in order to carry out their business plan. If anyone is going to effect a change upon the status quo, it must be users. But the SV that Arrington feeds on has no incentive to educate users to become independent thinkers. Herds are easier to manipulate and, you guessed it, easier to monitor. And Arrington himself is the furthest from an independent thinker I can imagine. He is a parrot.
- larrys 13y ago
  "Pool.com. If ever there was a "service" who viewed users as "zombies", they are it." What is your specific complaint against Pool.com ?
  - anonymous 13y ago
    How do you know there is only one specific complaint?
wuliwong 13y ago
Wonderful write up. I was literally thinking about this very topic when I clicked on hacker news today. I had been reading that article where Google claims to be beefing up encryption to fight the NSA. It could just be a PR move on Google's part and they are totally compliant behind the scenes or they could be openly battling against the U.S. govt. like they are a hacker group. Either way, it is unsettling. Kudos to this author, I believe he is seeing things clearly.
cromwellian 13y ago
I think this continues in the tradition of the Silicon Valley Dunning-Kruger effect, in which the wealthy elite pundits of SV have illusory ideas about their competence or ability to solve deep social or political problems. There is no quick tech-fix for this issue, nor do SV companies really have any power to pressure the government with threats of civil disobedience. The real work of changing the laws will require traditional politics, getting new representatives elected who have a commitment to stop NSA abuses. Recognize that most of the existing legislators have already bought into the system save a few, so any moves they make are really just to placate the news cycle. SV companies could use their tremendous financial reserves to fund candidates who promise to fix the laws, they could pull on the purse strings of the existing legislators, but really, with the 2014 elections, and politicians fixed over Syria, Obamacare, and other issues, I doubt any of the campaigns see this as a winning wedge issue. I guess what I'm saying is, change will be slow, the NSA didn't evolve this capability overnight, it's been building it secretly since WW2, and they are not likely to relinquish it just because some protests from techies in the valley. Some people in the SV 'bubble' like to imagine our SV entrepreneurs as some kind of Atlas Shrugged super-men, and you know, if Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and everyone else just went all "John Galt", the government and everyone else would have to cave.
batemanesque 13y ago
this isn't the evil at Disrupt I thought he was going to address.
- larrys 13y ago
  ApponStageGate? Perhaps that's being handled as "nothing to stare at here, move along".
pron 13y ago
I’m scared of our government and I’m disgusted by what little Silicon Valley has done to fight it. No! This is so, so wrong. I totally get the sentiment, but the reaction is misdirected and might do more harm than good. A (centralized) government is a major power base in society, but it is not the only one. What democracy has done is try and take power away from disparate parties, and concentrate much of it in the hands of an elected body. This doesn't always work well, but this main idea is a good one. Government, like any large human undertaking, is an ongoing endeavor that has to be constantly maintained and reformed. But fighting it rather than fixing it is a terrible notion. I know Americans are inherently distrustful of government – this has to do with America's peculiar history – and in itself, a healthy skepticism towards government is healthy for a democracy. But a general "anti-government" stand will take us back to a much less free, less just, form of organization: feudalism. In feudalism, power is held by private individuals (lords) or organizations (noble families, the church, and I guess in modern times - corporations) that accrue it by amassing money and/or other forms of influence. These power bases form alliances that suit them, with the implicit goal of maintaining their power and withholding it from others. And one thing is certain: these powers are hardly accountable to the public; not even like the most sinister of democratic governments. The author's particular grievance is mass aggregation of personal information; (almost) everyone agrees that's really bad. But is government the only guilty party? Is it even the biggest offender? I'm pretty sure Google collects and analyzes more personal information than the US government, and it's far less accountable. It doesn't even have secret courts. It's also far more dangerous as a power because of something I've mentioned before: Power is far more dangerous when it manipulates people into surrendering it voluntarily; a truly dangerous power inspires love, not suspicion (as is the case of Big Brother: he is loved, not feared and hated). To fight things like personal data gathering we should work with the government to fix it rather than fight it, because the universe hates a vacuum, and by trying to fight the government and take away its monopoly on some forms of power, we may find that we've simply put it in far worse hands.
- sseveran 13y ago
  Google can't collect my information if I don't give it to them. They can't install splitters at major NAPs, demand that Microsoft give them their data on my or use it to prosecute me. If they engaged in a campaign against their users by leaking embarrassing data they would be prosecuted since doing that is illegal. If the government does it there is basically no recourse.
PaulHoule 13y ago
I'll say personally of all the problems in the world, getting spied on by the N.S.A. is one of the last ones I worry about.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  I don't get why this post was downvoted. This is the exact attitude that almost all people effectively have. It is important to bring up this point and demonstrate it. They'll go as far as signing a petition, but the effort/reward ratio isn't there for your average person to do anything about it. Unless it pays off for each person to get involved, no one will get involved.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
The author is a bit confused if he thinks he's going to receive assistance to uphold the constitution from a gun-control lobbyist; why should someone so willing to trample over the second amendment lift a finger to help protect the fourth?

243 points by coloneltcb 13y ago

It's one thing to ask (which is very welcomed), but it's another thing to put your literal money where your mouth is. Where's the influx of capital to EFF and other entities challenging the US govt legally? Where's the funds going to legislative lobbying that's on par with other large industries?

twoodfin 13y ago
Exactly. If this is such a slam dunk 4th Amendment case (I don't think it is), then all you need is enough money to hire the lawyers to get it up through the courts. That's a figure in the millions, not the billions. Or to put it another way, a small fraction of the amount of money the tech community spent to elect the guy who could end any of these programs and/or fire those responsible with a phone call.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

The problem is that we all have so much to lose and it makes this so easy for the government. I have a wife, I own a home, I need my job to keep these things and many people will do anything to keep their job and these things. If you're a founder and your options are give the government what they want to no pushback from your userbasr, or to not give the data and face harassment, audits, suspicious legal problems and things like that. Even as a pretty moral guy I have a hard time imagining putting my livelihood on the line for the very little reward if the alternative is possibly losing my home. The government knows how 95% of us NEED to work and keep an income going so they know they can do whatever they want because the leverage is 100% on their side. The only way I see this changing is if people on the Internet/citizens of our country start caring that the NSA is spying on all of us and realize that this harm is way worse than a plane crashing into a building, as horrible as that was.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
GVIrish 13y ago
That is exactly how criminal bullying succeeds whether it is organized crime moving into a neighborhood, or an authoritarian government rising to power. There are plenty of people along the way who can put their foot down and say "NO" but all they have to do is threaten them and many people say, "I'd rather not get involved," or, "It's not my problem." But every person who turns a blind eye, emboldens the despot, bully, or mob boss. Not saying every little 4-man start up should take the nuclear option when facing the NSA. But there are certainly many companies with clout who could easily turn the tide in public opinion against the rapidly expanding surveillance state. If Google or Yahoo or another big player stook a stand I think it could start to turn the tide. I just feeli like if Ladar Levison can take a stand, I'd like to think there are others who believe strongly enough in what America stands for to do the same. America is worth it.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Here's what really stood out about your post: you are writing it earnestly--as in expressing a genuine fear on your part. And many who read it (like myself), will likely find your concerns to be at least somewhat reasonable. So, what does it say about how far we've come that we are so afraid of speaking out when we believe that our government is wrong? And it's not just wrong, it's among the worst wrongs a government can commit: violating the rights of the citizenry it is sworn to protect.
yafujifide 13y ago
It sounds like you've gone all-in with the US government, and now you can't criticise it without risking everything. It is possible to internationalize yourself and your assets in such a way that no one government can threaten you with taking everything away. I suggest taking a look at these internationalization resources: http://www.internationalman.com/ http://www.internationalman.com/ http://www.sovereignman.com/ http://www.sovereignman.com/ http://nomadcapitalist.com/ http://nomadcapitalist.com/ Once you internationalize yourself, your fear of government will be substantially reduced and you can be free to take a stand.

deveac 13y ago

For all the moaning and complaining I've seen on HN over the persistence of this topic, the conversation still hasn't gotten loud enough, and hasn't gone on long enough. As much as MA rubs me the wrong way, I applaud him here. What an incredibly non-trivial and important use of his public platform with those guests.

patcon 13y ago
Amen. He has world's of respect from me on that front.
- HNaTTY 13y ago
  I'll jump on the respect train. Michael Arrington is an ideal person to influence people here. We all may have similar convictions, but he isn't just influencing software development, he's influencing software that is at a seminal stage, making it more likely that version 1 of the next Facebook clone will take security into account. If PG and a few others joined with him, there would be momentum, just like that.

wavesounds 13y ago

Are these interviews or this conference being live streamed?

jaredsohn 13y ago
http://techcrunch.com/events/disrupt-sf-2013/live-video/ http://techcrunch.com/events/disrupt-sf-2013/live-video/
Timothee 13y ago
The questions to Ron Conway: http://on.aol.com/video/real-talk-with-the-minds-of-sv-angel-at-techcrunch-disrupt-sf-2013-517927038# http://on.aol.com/video/real-talk-with-the-minds-of-sv-angel... It starts at 12'34". Nothing much comes of it though.

vbl 13y ago

Tell me more about these "viscous cycles."

the_rosentotter 13y ago
I fail to see how fluid dynamics factor into the issue.
robinson-wall 13y ago
Play the twitter "Typo or not?" game https://twitter.com/search?q=viscous%20cycle&src=typd&mode=realtime https://twitter.com/search?q=viscous%20cycle&src=typd&mode=r...
sliverstorm 13y ago
Made even better by the fact that "viscous" is one of my favorite words.

peterjancelis 13y ago

Too bad MA isn't in full control at TC anymore. Making a huge stand on this issue and attacking the parts of SV who are selling out could really put them on the map again.

greyman 13y ago
My thoughts as well. I actually miss Mike as a tech reporter and editor. He wasn't perfect, had his quirks, but still overall I wish he would return to the scene.

aantix 13y ago

Curious, has Paul Graham funded any startups with the direct intent of fighting the NSA and/or enabling better privacy?

alan_cx 13y ago
Well, I have said that the big guys at Google, MS, etc should be funding and championing internet and general freedom. So, perhaps include PG in this group. However, the problem is that as soon as such a campaign becomes strong, and that is assuming all parties agree on a policy or two, the government, especially a US one, will hit the media with fear mongering attack ads that slander such people as terrorist sympathizing, non patriotic, traitors. Witness Snowden's treatment. So, it would take only the strongest and bravest rich people, who are happy to risk all to get involved with such a venture. And such people are in it because the love start-ups and tech, they never signed up for politics. Perhaps circumstances will drag them in? The other way of course is for such business leaders to fund and lobby existing parties to, well frankly, bribe them in to policies that promote freedom over fear and risk. That for me is playing the existing game. Now, I don't know about others here, but then the likes of the media, oil or industrial military complex do that, I call it corruption. Frankly, while I sit here aghast at how government now treats people in general, I cannot see a reasonable clam way to solve this satisfactorily. I think, sadly, that it will carry on until there is a snapping point in the population, and some sort of revolution happens. I don't see that happening any time soon, Im not sure it ever will. As others have said, they have their job, mortgage, kids at colleges, and so on. Much easier to just accept it and let government continue to persecute the minority (not necessarily in a racial sense) it chooses to. In the end, the vast majority of us a comfortable cowards. Who cares if a few people get screwed over. "We" have too much to lose. Yes, me included.
betterunix 13y ago
Startups are not the answer here. Privacy is not something you can buy as a service; Hushmail should have proved this beyond any doubt. Privacy protecting technologies hamper typical startup revenue models based on targeted advertising, and would necessarily have to do so in order to provide the privacy we actually need in the face of the NSA. There is also the matter of the NSA maliciously sabotaging privacy protecting technologies. Really what we need is something like GnuPG, but easier to audit, easier to use, and with a standard that is not constrained by a need for backward compatibility (and which clearly follows constructions given by researchers, rather than using ad-hoc techniques).

scrabble 13y ago

"Who knew in 1984…that this would be big brother [picture of Steve Jobs with iPhone}...and the zombies would be paying customers [pictures of people with phones, tablets]?" It might just be me, but it seems as though this comment could easily be taken out of context. It's a metaphor. And the speaker wasn't saying that the government was Big Brother either.

mcphilip 13y ago
If you read the Spiegel article [1] where this quote comes from do you still think it's just a metaphor? I take the comment as snark, but also a troubling indicator of a depraved culture in some circles of the NSA. [1]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-on-smartphones-including-the-blackberry-a-921161.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-...
- scrabble 13y ago
  I do still think there's the possibility that it's a metaphor. As much as I don't like the recent news that's come out about the NSA, I also don't like to falsely manipulate people's words to give them a negative connotation. I don't like when it's done to me, so I try not to do it to others. As an organization the NSA seems to have some issues, but I still hold that individuals are mostly good. I don't believe the person who wrote that had a mindset that most people are zombies.

asveikau 13y ago

The quote from the alleged NSA document is in fact interesting (ellipsized here): > Who knew in 1984 ... the zombies would be paying customers I feel that this misses an important point in the book. I am reminded of this dialog with the prole who rents Winston an apartment (no spoilers about what happens): > ‘There’s no telescreen!’ he could not help murmuring. > ‘Ah,’ said the old man, ‘I never had one of those things. Too expensive. And I never seemed to feel the need of it, somehow. ...’ Any time there is some technology facing broad adoption, you can imagine some holdouts saying this. Televisions. Cell phones. Smart phones. "Too expensive. I don't see a need for it." The implication is there was one point in time where the people willingly adopted the means of surveillance. One would expect that it offered them something in return.

devx 13y ago

A while ago (before we found out what the FISA Court is up to), I thought if nothing else at least the Justice system is pretty good in US. But now they're systematically replacing the judges with pro-surveillance state judges [1], too. If this isn't stopped and reversed, I worry for the future of US, and then the world. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surveillance-judge-valerie-caproni http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surv...

api 13y ago

I suspect Silicon Valley -- the place -- has already lost. The cost of living there is so high -- a million dollars for a starter house -- that operating there is unthinkable without big money and big success. And guess who has the biggest money of all? The government. They don't even have to earn it. They can tax it (or print it) to their hearts' content. With a cost of living so high, only big money talks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_handcuffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_handcuffs Last time I was in SV, I was driving around and thinking "wow, this place might well be the world's only six-figure slum." It's a place where earning what would be a fantastic wage in most places will get you something that people in other places would call a "crack shack." With a set-up like that, the golden handcuffs look mighty shiny and appealing. If SV gets too "uppity," they just have to come in and spread some more money around. The price of real estate hyperinflates a little more, and the handcuffs get tightened a couple clicks. Real estate hyperinflation and debt indenture are such effective traps for controlling a population, it's hard for me to believe they weren't explicitly designed. The real genius of golden handcuffs is that they look like wealth and they make you feel rich. Wow! I'm making so much money! My house is worth so much! But in reality you're an absolute slave to whomever is writing you those big checks. You don't dare deviate even a little, or even say anything out of line, for fear of losing it all. The truly rich and powerful have the freedom to act. If you don't have that, you are poor. But Silicon Valley is also an idea. You can go there even if you're in Podunkistan, Arkansas. The only way Silicon Valley -- the idea -- can win is if it "goes airborne."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I think this is an important start to some serious soul-searching, both for the tech community and the rest of society. However, I don't think it is enough - and the revelation I suspect that might kick it off, if Snowden has proof, is an attack on the Visa network. I saw earlier the NSA had got into SWIFT, which really stunned me. But NSA watching VISA traffic would be front page across the world. And may well be a good explanation for why they are really trying to find out what snowden has. Just a thought. But please carry on asking questions Mr Arrington.

api 13y ago

Tangent: I was using a Microsoft surface the other day and thinking "wow, this really doesn't suck once you get used to it." I'm starting to come off my initial hatred of Metro. What does this have to do with the OP? If MS wanted to pull an outrageous coup d'etat vs. Apple and Google, especially in the Mobile space, they could pivot the company thusly: "Here at Microsoft, we empower you. We are the company that gives you control over your platform and your privacy." Yeah, that's totally not what they do now. Just saying. If they were really genuine about it, they'd gain a shitload of mindshare real fast.

MartinCron 13y ago
Maybe I'm cynical and I hope I'm wrong, but I think that you overestimate how important these issues are to typical consumers as well as overestimate how forgiving people are of Microsoft's past sins.
smacktoward 13y ago
> Yeah, that's totally not what they do now. Actually, it is: see http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-microsoft-privacy-campaign-promotes-consumer-control-148781 http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-microsof... and http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-breached-your-privacy-use-bing-7000004571/ http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-breached-your-privacy-..., for instance.

f055 13y ago

Government isn't some abstract being - it's people. Some of whom were elected by the majority of other people. So as usual, people did this to people. We are all accountable. The question is, do we really want to change things? Or just keep on arguing on the Internet?

DamnYuppie 13y ago
Um the US government employees 10's of millions. Few of them were elected.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  No it doesn't. It employes about 4.5m people, including the entire military: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-docu...

Aloisius 13y ago

I'm not sure mass surveillance is necessarily evil, but it certainly is something we should fight against. It seems to me that there are essentially four routes we can take: a) The legal route - donate to EFF and friend https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ - and hope that in 8-10 years it takes this thing to get through the courts, all this will be found illegal. b) The legislative route - stage protests, pour money into congressional and presidential candidates who believe privacy is a right, fund lobbyists, find candidates that believe in privacy and push them to run, punish officials with expensive reelection campaigns for those who don't. c) The encryption route - make encryption easier to use, push forward stronger minimum encryption standards, push for IPv6 (mandatory IPsec support), push for an end-to-end encryption standard for HTML with encryption/decryption done by the browser for elements on a page/posted content (for things like webmail), constant vigilance against vendor-introduced security weaknesses, etc. d) The disinformation route - flood the internet with enough noise that it becomes cost prohibitive and technically unfeasible to have any confidence in the results coming out of any big data analytics system monitoring internet communications. . Now, the encryption route seems to be what people around here generally focus on since it is a technical solution to the problem and most of us are technical people. It unfortunately is also the most difficult since it requires end-user participation and trust in everyone from your OS vendor to your CPU vendor. The disinformation route is also a technical solution, but it can be carried out by a much smaller group of people though some of us might have issue with effectively spamming the internet and in order to create the right kind of disinformation, you have to know what they're looking for in the first place and the resources to fake interactions that looks similar. The legal route is something we can all do. It is slow, but donating money to lawyers is relatively painless for most of us. The legislative route requires organization and mass participation. So far, people aren't angry really enough about it to do anything. There is no charismatic leader leading the charge. As far as I know, there isn't even a PAC we could donate to that would fight the good fight.

anonymous 13y ago

"... considers us meaningless sheep to be herded at will." For a minute I thought Arrington was referring to his previous employer, one of the players in the domain name racket, specifically the people who run Pool.com. If ever there was a "service" who viewed users as "zombies", they are it. Then there's all the herding that TC does, funnelling its readers toward "preferred" money raisers. TC has taken the conflicts of interest inherent in the typical tech media "puff piece" to a new level altogether. If anything needs to be disrupted, it is TC's manipulation of "news". It's really difficult to take this guy seriously if you know anything about his background. But I guess that excludes most of us "zombies". TC is a pillar of herdlike "thinking". Operations like TC/UC and the ones Arrington criticizes in the "article" share more in common than he may want to admit. Both rely on brainless, herdlike behavior in order to carry out their business plan. If anyone is going to effect a change upon the status quo, it must be users. But the SV that Arrington feeds on has no incentive to educate users to become independent thinkers. Herds are easier to manipulate and, you guessed it, easier to monitor. And Arrington himself is the furthest from an independent thinker I can imagine. He is a parrot.

larrys 13y ago
"Pool.com. If ever there was a "service" who viewed users as "zombies", they are it." What is your specific complaint against Pool.com ?
- anonymous 13y ago
  How do you know there is only one specific complaint?

wuliwong 13y ago

Wonderful write up. I was literally thinking about this very topic when I clicked on hacker news today. I had been reading that article where Google claims to be beefing up encryption to fight the NSA. It could just be a PR move on Google's part and they are totally compliant behind the scenes or they could be openly battling against the U.S. govt. like they are a hacker group. Either way, it is unsettling. Kudos to this author, I believe he is seeing things clearly.

cromwellian 13y ago

I think this continues in the tradition of the Silicon Valley Dunning-Kruger effect, in which the wealthy elite pundits of SV have illusory ideas about their competence or ability to solve deep social or political problems. There is no quick tech-fix for this issue, nor do SV companies really have any power to pressure the government with threats of civil disobedience. The real work of changing the laws will require traditional politics, getting new representatives elected who have a commitment to stop NSA abuses. Recognize that most of the existing legislators have already bought into the system save a few, so any moves they make are really just to placate the news cycle. SV companies could use their tremendous financial reserves to fund candidates who promise to fix the laws, they could pull on the purse strings of the existing legislators, but really, with the 2014 elections, and politicians fixed over Syria, Obamacare, and other issues, I doubt any of the campaigns see this as a winning wedge issue. I guess what I'm saying is, change will be slow, the NSA didn't evolve this capability overnight, it's been building it secretly since WW2, and they are not likely to relinquish it just because some protests from techies in the valley. Some people in the SV 'bubble' like to imagine our SV entrepreneurs as some kind of Atlas Shrugged super-men, and you know, if Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and everyone else just went all "John Galt", the government and everyone else would have to cave.

batemanesque 13y ago

this isn't the evil at Disrupt I thought he was going to address.

larrys 13y ago
ApponStageGate? Perhaps that's being handled as "nothing to stare at here, move along".

pron 13y ago

I’m scared of our government and I’m disgusted by what little Silicon Valley has done to fight it. No! This is so, so wrong. I totally get the sentiment, but the reaction is misdirected and might do more harm than good. A (centralized) government is a major power base in society, but it is not the only one. What democracy has done is try and take power away from disparate parties, and concentrate much of it in the hands of an elected body. This doesn't always work well, but this main idea is a good one. Government, like any large human undertaking, is an ongoing endeavor that has to be constantly maintained and reformed. But fighting it rather than fixing it is a terrible notion. I know Americans are inherently distrustful of government – this has to do with America's peculiar history – and in itself, a healthy skepticism towards government is healthy for a democracy. But a general "anti-government" stand will take us back to a much less free, less just, form of organization: feudalism. In feudalism, power is held by private individuals (lords) or organizations (noble families, the church, and I guess in modern times - corporations) that accrue it by amassing money and/or other forms of influence. These power bases form alliances that suit them, with the implicit goal of maintaining their power and withholding it from others. And one thing is certain: these powers are hardly accountable to the public; not even like the most sinister of democratic governments. The author's particular grievance is mass aggregation of personal information; (almost) everyone agrees that's really bad. But is government the only guilty party? Is it even the biggest offender? I'm pretty sure Google collects and analyzes more personal information than the US government, and it's far less accountable. It doesn't even have secret courts. It's also far more dangerous as a power because of something I've mentioned before: Power is far more dangerous when it manipulates people into surrendering it voluntarily; a truly dangerous power inspires love, not suspicion (as is the case of Big Brother: he is loved, not feared and hated). To fight things like personal data gathering we should work with the government to fix it rather than fight it, because the universe hates a vacuum, and by trying to fight the government and take away its monopoly on some forms of power, we may find that we've simply put it in far worse hands.

sseveran 13y ago
Google can't collect my information if I don't give it to them. They can't install splitters at major NAPs, demand that Microsoft give them their data on my or use it to prosecute me. If they engaged in a campaign against their users by leaking embarrassing data they would be prosecuted since doing that is illegal. If the government does it there is basically no recourse.

PaulHoule 13y ago

I'll say personally of all the problems in the world, getting spied on by the N.S.A. is one of the last ones I worry about.

skylan_q 13y ago
I don't get why this post was downvoted. This is the exact attitude that almost all people effectively have. It is important to bring up this point and demonstrate it. They'll go as far as signing a petition, but the effort/reward ratio isn't there for your average person to do anything about it. Unless it pays off for each person to get involved, no one will get involved.

duncan_bayne 13y ago

The author is a bit confused if he thinks he's going to receive assistance to uphold the constitution from a gun-control lobbyist; why should someone so willing to trample over the second amendment lift a finger to help protect the fourth?