20 ms·

Reform Government Surveillance

657 points by raldi 13y ago

nfoz 13y ago
I guess it's nice when companies are politically active on behalf of things that serve both my interests and theirs. But I wish the U.S. government was responsive to the demands of its actual citizens and not these private entities, whose views regarding privacy law are so often antagonistic to my own.
kevinalexbrown 13y ago
Regardless of your opinion on the leaks, this marks something really interesting in the course of history. Communications is one of the few services that governments co-opt indirectly. Lockheed Martin knows it's building war jets. But here, the signatories didn't set out to build government surveillance engines, it was required of them after it became clear how useful they could be. Their response could set the tone for future actions in years to come. It's interesting that other communications groups (e.g. cellphone co's) have not reacted in the same way, Qwest aside. You don't have to believe that each CEO is doing this on principle if you're cynically inclined, but it seems clear at least that many of their employees are in favor of it. I'm curious if it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else.
- adventured 13y ago
  It's pretty clear why companies like Verizon and AT&T will never stand up and put their names on a list like this. Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the protection racket that keeps competition out. They're one step away from being state enterprises. Those closest to being utilities are the last entities that will want to push back against the government (eg Level3). They're the most dependent on government mood swings. These types of companies often require government permission for every action they take in terms of expanding their business.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the protection racket that keeps competition out. Verizon and AT&T are government regulated, and they are a duopoly, but its not regulation that keeps competition out. The natural state of communications networks are to converge on a state of monopoly. There is infinite economics of scale in telecom, and a "winner takes all" return on capital investment. Government regulation is the only thing keeping the industry from consolidating to one carrier even faster than it's already doing.
- rmc 13y ago
  I'm curious if it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else. One theory: Most of the telecos are mostly USA based companies, where as Google/Facebook/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple/Yahoo have a large amount of customers/business outside the USA. So to some people outside the USA, it becomes "Don't use Google/Microsoft, the US Government can see what you do", which is different from US customers thinking "If you use this teleco, then your government can see what you do."
salient 13y ago
I knew making corporations hurt over their cooperation with NSA willingly or unwillingly (by not having proper security) is going to play a major part in turning this around, although it's still early days, so I'm cautiously optimistic right now, but also very skeptical at the same time, because I'm not going to believe the first time the government says "That's it everyone - we reformed the NSA. You can all relax now". It's going to take serious reforms and transparency to make me believe it's truly "over".
clubhi 13y ago
Which company doesn't belong?
- maaku 13y ago
  I don't know. What's your point?
bonjourmr 13y ago
Damage control
zenocon 13y ago
“Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook
BIackSwan 13y ago
Is this officially supported by the companies listed on the page? I dont see references to/from the page to the official blogs/announcement.
- jliechti1 13y ago
  That's what I'm confused about. The bottom of the page has "© 2013. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners". I guess this is just one person aggregating the information together?
- packetslave 13y ago
  Yes. The press release is here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-company-coalition-supports-global-surveillance-principles-calls-on-us-to-lead-reform-efforts-234997071.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-company-coaliti...
dmix 13y ago
This is a good start. Hopefully some telecom and ISP companies sign-up. They've been exceptionally quiet regarding recent leaks despite being a greater threat to privacy than most of these consumer web services.
rebel 13y ago
This has to be the first article I've seen where they actually excluded Apple from the title edit: Not sure why Apple is included at the bottom but seems to be the only company there that isn't listed in the top set of logos. Not sure if that has any significance or is an oversight or..
phaed 13y ago
Good god, they can't even get their open graph tags right. Tried to share this on facebook: http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png
- dewitt 13y ago
  The site just went live at 9:00 PM PST, so that's what FB had cached from the placeholder site beforehand. G+ had the same problem. Mostly this demonstrates a need to be able force a recrawl when generating the thumbnail.
  - phaed 13y ago
    They should have passed the url through Facebook's Open Graph Object Debugger to invalidate the cache before launching the site. FB 101...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sergiotapia 13y ago
I thought Facebook had CIA backing?
ekianjo 13y ago
Any idea why Mozilla is not in that list ? Is it because it's all from for-profit organizations this time ?
- ozten 13y ago
  My personal guess is that this is an initiative from companies that have provided significant streams of information to the NSA. It's my understanding that Mozilla doesn't have significant "skin in the game" compared to the services these companies are providing. Again my opinion, not speaking for Mozilla officially.
tkellogg 13y ago
I find it interesting how the concept of countries and nationalities seems to becoming less important. Now (as opposed to a hundred years ago) we communicate with people in foreign countries on a daily basis - even countries whose governments have hostile relationships with. This is definitely a CYA (cover your ass) maneuver designed to mitigate the political hit these companies are taking. At the same time, these companies are acting like countries. They've formed an alliance and they're attempting to make a treaty with the governments that they happen to fall into. It will be interesting to watch the societal change as the importance of countries and nationalities decreases over the next hundred years.
- Debugreality 13y ago
  I agree, virtual worlds, offshore workers, telepresence and many other new technologies are creating a new global culture that is already beginning to clash with the concepts of countries and governments. Perhaps a starting point may be the rise of global political parties that can work together across multiple countries?
pacala 13y ago
This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first? 1. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, corporations should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications. 2 Oversight and Accountability Corporations seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which corporations are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and corporations should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry. 3 Transparency About Corporations collecting practices Transparency is essential to a debate over corporations’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Corporations should publish the number and nature of collected user information. 4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Corporations should not collect user information in other countries with the intent of circumventing the local laws that limit user data collection.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ? Use Linux systems. And so on. The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot opt out.
  - tomphoolery 13y ago
    This. We can make as many comparisons as we want but at the end of the day, if I don't like the way Facebook is doing their business I can just delete my account. I can't just delete my Social Security Number if I'm opposed to the US's continued investment into the war on drugs as well as its military strikes overseas. Nor can I really retaliate to a country on earth where I don't have to be afraid of the government tracking me. You really can't opt out.
Zigurd 13y ago
How about instead of asking the government to make this problem go away, as if it could, you offer products that thwart surveillance? I'll write you a check to cover the value of those "One weird trick to lose belly fat" ads.
- grey-area 13y ago
  What makes you think government couldn't make this problem go away?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Several reasons: Although the US government sets the pace, it isn't the only government that is snooping. Secondly, many governments will always consider some level of spying legitimate. Therefore it is up to technology and service providers to secure their customers against any and all snooping. The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic. I disagree and feel this is a dangerous abdication of responsibility. I wouldn't believe politicians' reassurances about any reform, but clearly budgets could be cut, and strict safeguards put in place. We should expect nothing less from our governments, while working to protect ourselves as well.
molecule 13y ago
It seems peculiar that Apple is a signatory: > Sincerely, > AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo and their logo appears in the listing @ the end of the page, but their logo isn't in the beginning of the page, and they don't provide a quote from their CEO nor legal counsel, per the other signing companies. Last-minute change of heart, lukewarm support...?
- seldo 13y ago
  I wondered about that as well. Last-minute inclusion seems most likely explanation, but very odd. If you have ever worked on something like this, you will know that merely getting these companies to agree to have their logos on the same page is a feat. They are listed in alphabetical order, and I imagine there was MUCH discussion about their relative sizes. But it can't be that Apple is disputing their logo size, since it's included at the bottom.
  - tiles 13y ago
    They can't be that particular, they're even using the old Twitter logo at the top.
- adventured 13y ago
  I was hoping to see Amazon.com signed on to this as well, given their substantial position in cloud computing, and their likely future influence being even greater.
  - olalonde 13y ago
    The fact that the CIA is one of their largest AWS customer might be playing a role. http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitulates-amazon-gains-cia-contract/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitula...
    - adventured 13y ago
      Yeah that's a suspicion on my part as well. Same reason we'll never see Oracle on a list like this. In the recent interview with Charlie Rose, Ellison wouldn't even remotely come close to challenging what the NSA was doing (he also pulled a cheap dodge by saying the great thing about living in a democracy is the people can do something about it if they want to).
pg 13y ago
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confinement in some secret prison, these companies would have been at least slightly more reluctant to issue such a statement, because it would have seemed to be espousing the cause of someone people were hearing described on the news as a criminal. Snowden made his disclosures much more effective by escaping.
- teamgb 13y ago
  Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.
  - Smerity 13y ago
    Edward Snowden isn't mentioned, no, but it's largely due to him that the debate and recent revelations have been so heavily discussed by so many. We'd known about strange telecommunication interception by governments for years[1] but Snowden's disclosures and the following saga brought it to the attention of the world by providing a theatrical backdrop for the media to start using. Now it's something that normal people know about, not just techies. Regulating government surveillance is the issue these companies are best positioned to support. If they'd explicitly mentioned Snowden, the discussion could quickly be derailed. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and many more
  - pg 13y ago
    They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relations with various bits of the federal government, which they risk offending with this statement.
wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
Anyone with definite proof it's real?
- packetslave 13y ago
  http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08companycoalitionpr.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08co...
  - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
    Thanks.
- nrmilstein 13y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-iss...
pwang 13y ago
> we are focused on keeping user’s data secure ARGH! Close to a trillion dollars of net corporate value, and they can't afford a decent grammarian when they write an open letter to the President?! (Hint: It should be "users'".)
- raldi 13y ago
  Good catch! I passed your comment on to Google's liaison to R.G.S., and she's working to get it fixed. Let's see how long it takes from here. :)
  - pwang 13y ago
    Great! While we're at it, though: - The clause "deploying the latest encryption technology" should actually be prefaced by "by", to balance the "by pushing back..." - "We urge the US" could be made stronger by actually spelling out the full name: "We urge the United States..." Nice site, otherwise.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sinak 13y ago
A bit surprised by some of the errors on the site. - Tweet button doesn't have a link - G+ share button isn't working - Opengraph tags point to a missing image-url, so Facebook shares don't have an image associated. I think maybe this hit HN before they were quite ready for launch - I'm guessing these'll be fixed pretty quickly. Excellent move by the companies involved though. A lot of advocacy organizations have been pushing these companies to come out publicly meaningful surveillance law reform, and this is a great start.
- vertr07 13y ago
  Maybe this wasn't meant to be launched yet?
- wrs 13y ago
  The og: tags point to a misspelled hostname (reformgovernmentsurviellance.com) -- but it now seems to redirect to the correct one.
tareqak 13y ago
A website is a good start, but a live press conference attended by all the CEOs and members of mainstream media would be far, far better. For most people, if it doesn't happen on TV, it doesn't happen at all.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wyclif 13y ago
They really need to look again at how they implemented sharing to Twitter, G+ or LinkedIn; it's a mess.
yc-kjh 13y ago
Laws don't need to be reformed. The Constitution needs to be enforced.
rcsorensen 13y ago
Statement from Microsoft: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/12/08/reforming-government-surveillance.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
salient 13y ago
I don't know if these things make a difference or not, but there are 1/3 votes needed for ECPA reform, with 3 days to go: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-government-get-warrant/nq258dxk https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-g...
downandout 13y ago
Site is down.
shank8 13y ago
The website was taken down!!??
apu 13y ago
Hmm, only seeing a "default parallels" page: http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png (midnight PST)
- scythe 13y ago
  Indeed. The website previously contained this: :Reform Government Surveillance :Global Government Surveillance Reform The undersigned companies believe that it is time for the world’s governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their information. While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety and security, we strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be reformed. Consistent with established global norms of free expression and privacy and with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight, we hereby call on governments to endorse the following principles and enact reforms that would put these principles into action. :The Principles :1 Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications. :2 Oversight and Accountability Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry. :3 Transparency About Government Demands Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also promptly disclose this data publicly. :4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally. :5 Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict. :Voices For Reform “AOL is committed to preserving the privacy of our customers’ information, while respecting the right of governments to request information on specific users for lawful purposes. AOL is proud to unite with other leading Internet companies to advocate on behalf of our consumers.” —Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO, AOL “Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook “The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information. This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” —Larry Page, CEO, Google “These principles embody LinkedIn’s fundamental commitment to transparency and ensuring appropriate government practices that are respectful of our members’ expectations.” —Erika Rottenberg, General Counsel, LinkedIn [when LinkedIn criticizes your privacy policy you know something's wrong] “People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft “Twitter is committed to defending and protecting the voice of our users. Unchecked, undisclosed government surveillance inhibits the free flow of information and restricts their voice. The principles we advance today would reform the current system to appropriately balance the needs of security and privacy while safeguarding the essential human right of free expression.” —Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter “Protecting the privacy of our users is incredibly important to Yahoo. Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world. Today we join our colleagues in the tech industry calling on the United States Congress to change surveillance laws in order to ensure transparency and accountability for government actions.” —Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo :An open letter to Washington Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress, We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change. For our part, we are focused on keeping user’s data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope. We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com Sincerely, AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo
ed_blackburn 13y ago
Eventually the penny drops. If there's no trust in the internet, then these companies business model will be affected. Over time I can see this lobbying working to an extent in the US. What I can't see happening is the other Five Eyes partners or their governments changing. The UK political classes in the main appear bullishly, unrepentant, aggressive towards descent and hawkishly pursuing dissidents including newspaper editors.
laurencerowe 13y ago
Anyone else seeing the "Default Parallels Plesk Panel Page" instead of the content? Google cache still works: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Areformgovernmentsurveillance.com http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Arefor...
antocv 13y ago
Its a good thing they define "government surveillence" because corporate surveillence is what they do best.
joshfraser 13y ago
> whois reformgovernmentsurveillance.com Really, they bought the domain 5 days ago from GoDaddy?!
- joshfraser 13y ago
  Whatever, I'm just glad they're doing it.
mindslight 13y ago
And what would the net effect of these reforms be for individual users, even if governments actually kept their word? A five year reprieve until emailing the wrong person causes your mandatory insurance premiums to double? Centralized data silos are the root cause of broken privacy, and the goal of this lobbying is to make you ignore this glaring truth and perpetuate the extremely profitable mining-your-data industry.
anoncowherd 13y ago
Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!".. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? What about politicians in a democracy? Will/can they watch their peers, or is it more likely they'll just collude in corruption?
- zymhan 13y ago
  > Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't work all that well either. Neither does voting.
    - zymhan 13y ago
      > So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince you.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.
Cakez0r 13y ago
This seems a bit toothless to me. I can't help but feel this is more about PR. There aren't any calls to action! Just a page of opinions.
A1kmm 13y ago
Point 4 (in particular, the part about allowing data transfer overseas) could be construed to mean letting big companies work around the privacy laws of one country by copying private data to another country with weaker privacy laws. I think that sneaking points like this in weakens the effect of the whole thing.
codeulike 13y ago
I like how they put AOL first on the list. Like, if there's flak coming, they'll take it first or something.
sklivvz1971 13y ago
Honestly this makes me a little upset. While I am happy that these corporations are taking a stand against surveillance, I am not convinced of their intentions: * This summer's hailstorm was about NSA but also about them. This site obviously ignores this and shows these corps as innocent victims, which they are not. * It's clearly too little! "Governments should reform themselves". How should they do that? There are absolutely no proposals on how to fix this on this site. * It's clearly too late. This should have happened before Snoweden, not six months after. This is just "let's go back to normal" propaganda, "damage control" PR. Nothing will change because of this.
- scrrr 13y ago
  They quote Zuckerberg on that site: "Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information." So what about limits on how businesses collect information?
  - crazypyro 13y ago
    There is a huge difference between companies collecting data on their customers and a govt collecting on their entire population...
    - Joeboy 13y ago
      There is a smaller difference when it's a business collecting data on the entire population.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        Businesses cannot lock people in prison or send teams of soldiers in to arrest people. Businesses cannot (legally) send people or robots to assassinate others. I think there is a very big difference between businesses collecting information and governments collecting information -- because governments can do substantially more damage. (Full disclosure: I currently work for one of the companies on the list.)
jspc 13y ago
I do wish they had sorted SSL properly for this. Its a bit bad when talking about security and surveillance they miss the fundamentals.
aragot 13y ago
This is an extremely talented commercial suggestion: On one side, as a European, I would NOT support it; and on the other, it looks like a very, very legitimate bill ("why would anyone oppose!?"). Good job for the PR people behind that move! Here's why: * It says "Governments" (plural). That means because US security agencies have thoroughly breached the borders of acceptable privacy, now all governments should diminish their control. I'm aware Eu agencies do the same, but they don't build as big datacenters as the NSA does. By not having the same budgets, Eu agencies don't overreach as much as the NSA does. * As a European, the best protection I see against all-spying programs is to have competitive European web services. For example I would support a Eu decision to require a European email address for communication with governments, or similar rules designed to make sure Europeans communicate through safe channels with their governments. It is also EU's role to make sure we have enough competitors so that citizens can use local providers (competitors to Fb, etc) to store their data in Europe, if those consumers trust European spying agencies. As a desired side effect, it is a way to grow our economy. The Reform Government Surveillance would prevent us from passing reforms to locate European citizen data in Europe. Therefore, it's a very talented move from those 7 companies, and comes right at the right time.
phryk 13y ago
So, the US' biggest data collectors are coming together to fight government surveillance? I'm not the only one thinking this is a tad hypocritical, am I? It just makes me think that somewhere, some powerful dude went "They are trying to cut in on our action?!?" and decided not to accept projected financial losses by something as petty as a government. But obviously, this might be the first voice governments actually listen to. Not because what they propose is the right thing to do, but because money. Apparently this is the best the system currently allows. Capitalism depresses me.
skyshine 13y ago
This is all well and good, but it only really matters if they start lobbying heavily for this change. Words are cheap, it is actions that matter.
veidr 13y ago
Mildly interesting (from a branding/style perspective) how Apple, and only Apple, chose not to feature their logo at the top, but to add it to the bottom where only people who read (or at least scrolled) the whole thing could see it.
ronaldx 13y ago
In order to reform government surveillance, we also need to reform commercial surveillance.
1337biz 13y ago
They need to NRA that thing up! Get people to sign up and pledge their support, organize local chapters, organize, organize, organize. Am I the only one missing here the call to action?
jimmytucson 13y ago
These companies want to limit the amount of data the government can collect on me. That's wonderful. While we're at it, can the government limit the amount of data these companies can collect on me?
znowi 13y ago
I feel a bit uneasy that the undersigned are all PRISM companies. All 8 of them. They seem to stick together and not mix with outsiders. Note that there's already a similar initiative launched by Mozilla called Stop Watching Us [1]. None of the PRISM companies signed it. Instead, they filed a petition (of little value, but with a big pomp) to allow for full FISA order statistics be published. Which was denied, incidentally. [1] https://stopwatching.us/ https://stopwatching.us/
- kogarou 13y ago
  Not Twitter. Unless you have a source?
f3llowtraveler 13y ago
Why doesn't this web page mention Snowden at all? For example, the fact that he was right, and is a hero, and deserves to have all charges dropped? Weren't all these people collaborating with authorities at the expense of our liberties -- and aren't they still?
bippi 13y ago
I like the idea, but these were the principles they were supposed to be following in the first place but weren't. What makes anyone think that any amount of laws passed will be respected?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
robomartin 13y ago
As the repercussions of what Snowden helped uncover become more public I hope people gain a better understanding of the man himself and his motivations. Try as I might, I can't find any word other than "hero" to describe him. I imagine him at work and subject to a constant stream of information showing what our own government is doing to us. I imagine him repeatedly thinking this is wrong. And I imagine him looking deep inside his sole to decide whether his convictions and belief system required him to act or not. Of course, that decision had to come with the full understanding that he would be at the receiving end of the full wrath of the US intelligence, law enforcement and military machinery. At best he'd have to live on the run his entire life. At worst he'd end-up dead or in a dark cell, completely disconnected from humanity. With that reality in front of him this man decided he needed to stand up for those of us who could not. He decided to, effectively, sacrifice his life in order to attempt to right a massive wrong being perpetrated on the people of the US and the world. That's right up there with a fireman running into a burning building or a soldier taking a bullet to protect your way of life. This man is a hero. I hope this administration or the next comes to realize how much of a patriot a man has to be in order to risk it all to protect others. With that realization the only thing that remains is to bring the man home with open arms and have him be a big part of making things right for all of us. That's what needs to happen next.
billirvine 13y ago
It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an official Silicon Valley Alliance.
- sp332 13y ago
  The DNS has been changed to point to another server on the same network. The original is still running at http://97.74.205.113/ http://97.74.205.113/ but the domain now points to http://97.74.205.82/ http://97.74.205.82/ Strange https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.com https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.c...
superpatosainz 13y ago
"Dear Government. You've pissed off $1.4 trillion of the market. You might want to review your recent behavior."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
arca_vorago 13y ago
Let's cut to the chase: surveillance is a symptom of a larger root issue. These major companies aren't attacking the government surveillance problem out of concern of their users, my guess is that they are getting ready to make a data power-play against the government. So essentially, the privacy concerns of people are being used as a ball between players, but the people are still going to get kicked around. Until we address the almost complete corruption of the institutional structures that we consider to be foundational of this country... well, I don't know what's going to happen, but I'm pretty sure it won't be pretty for the serfs ahem I mean citizens. The checks and balances system is almost non-existent. The executive has power over the other two branches, and the supra-national corporations have power over all three. The justice system is a farce, the SCOTUS are likely compromised, and oversight of intelligence agencies is almost non-existent. Resource wars loom on the horizon, what I call the shadow players like Zbigniew Brzezinski are encouraging a return to the tripolar world, and all this as wealth disparity increases amazingly fast. Surveillance is not about security, it's about control. The question no one is asking is, "Why?".
d0ugie 13y ago
You'd think Google, or any of the companies, would host such a thing themselves, rather than sub it out to Godaddy, using a PTR of the domain name relevant to the site -- and, especially in the spirit of things, a properly-configured SSL certificate that doesn't set off warnings, pointing where it ought to (like the IP's PTR), with HSTS and PFS in place and so forth. What indication is there that this is not a hoax?
atmosx 13y ago
Hm, I wonder why I see no Cisco and Amazon on logos, there. After all the money Cisco is loosing are they still reluctant to go against the USA gov, who knows what kind of contracts were made...
known 13y ago
power corrupts people and absolute power corrupts absolutely. powerful people should volunteer themselves to 24x7 surveillance.
nroose 13y ago
Why is Apple at the bottom but not at the top?
vjvj 13y ago
What a feeble attempt at reform. In particular, the sentence copied below makes it sound like just another summer new story that will soon fade into insignificance: "But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide"

657 points by raldi 13y ago

nfoz 13y ago

I guess it's nice when companies are politically active on behalf of things that serve both my interests and theirs. But I wish the U.S. government was responsive to the demands of its actual citizens and not these private entities, whose views regarding privacy law are so often antagonistic to my own.

kevinalexbrown 13y ago

Regardless of your opinion on the leaks, this marks something really interesting in the course of history. Communications is one of the few services that governments co-opt indirectly. Lockheed Martin knows it's building war jets. But here, the signatories didn't set out to build government surveillance engines, it was required of them after it became clear how useful they could be. Their response could set the tone for future actions in years to come. It's interesting that other communications groups (e.g. cellphone co's) have not reacted in the same way, Qwest aside. You don't have to believe that each CEO is doing this on principle if you're cynically inclined, but it seems clear at least that many of their employees are in favor of it. I'm curious if it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else.

adventured 13y ago
It's pretty clear why companies like Verizon and AT&T will never stand up and put their names on a list like this. Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the protection racket that keeps competition out. They're one step away from being state enterprises. Those closest to being utilities are the last entities that will want to push back against the government (eg Level3). They're the most dependent on government mood swings. These types of companies often require government permission for every action they take in terms of expanding their business.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the protection racket that keeps competition out. Verizon and AT&T are government regulated, and they are a duopoly, but its not regulation that keeps competition out. The natural state of communications networks are to converge on a state of monopoly. There is infinite economics of scale in telecom, and a "winner takes all" return on capital investment. Government regulation is the only thing keeping the industry from consolidating to one carrier even faster than it's already doing.
rmc 13y ago
I'm curious if it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else. One theory: Most of the telecos are mostly USA based companies, where as Google/Facebook/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple/Yahoo have a large amount of customers/business outside the USA. So to some people outside the USA, it becomes "Don't use Google/Microsoft, the US Government can see what you do", which is different from US customers thinking "If you use this teleco, then your government can see what you do."

salient 13y ago

I knew making corporations hurt over their cooperation with NSA willingly or unwillingly (by not having proper security) is going to play a major part in turning this around, although it's still early days, so I'm cautiously optimistic right now, but also very skeptical at the same time, because I'm not going to believe the first time the government says "That's it everyone - we reformed the NSA. You can all relax now". It's going to take serious reforms and transparency to make me believe it's truly "over".

clubhi 13y ago

Which company doesn't belong?

maaku 13y ago
I don't know. What's your point?

bonjourmr 13y ago

Damage control

zenocon 13y ago

“Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

BIackSwan 13y ago

Is this officially supported by the companies listed on the page? I dont see references to/from the page to the official blogs/announcement.

jliechti1 13y ago
That's what I'm confused about. The bottom of the page has "© 2013. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners". I guess this is just one person aggregating the information together?
packetslave 13y ago
Yes. The press release is here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-company-coalition-supports-global-surveillance-principles-calls-on-us-to-lead-reform-efforts-234997071.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-company-coaliti...

dmix 13y ago

This is a good start. Hopefully some telecom and ISP companies sign-up. They've been exceptionally quiet regarding recent leaks despite being a greater threat to privacy than most of these consumer web services.

rebel 13y ago

This has to be the first article I've seen where they actually excluded Apple from the title edit: Not sure why Apple is included at the bottom but seems to be the only company there that isn't listed in the top set of logos. Not sure if that has any significance or is an oversight or..

phaed 13y ago

Good god, they can't even get their open graph tags right. Tried to share this on facebook: http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png

dewitt 13y ago
The site just went live at 9:00 PM PST, so that's what FB had cached from the placeholder site beforehand. G+ had the same problem. Mostly this demonstrates a need to be able force a recrawl when generating the thumbnail.
- phaed 13y ago
  They should have passed the url through Facebook's Open Graph Object Debugger to invalidate the cache before launching the site. FB 101...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sergiotapia 13y ago

I thought Facebook had CIA backing?

ekianjo 13y ago

Any idea why Mozilla is not in that list ? Is it because it's all from for-profit organizations this time ?

ozten 13y ago
My personal guess is that this is an initiative from companies that have provided significant streams of information to the NSA. It's my understanding that Mozilla doesn't have significant "skin in the game" compared to the services these companies are providing. Again my opinion, not speaking for Mozilla officially.

tkellogg 13y ago

I find it interesting how the concept of countries and nationalities seems to becoming less important. Now (as opposed to a hundred years ago) we communicate with people in foreign countries on a daily basis - even countries whose governments have hostile relationships with. This is definitely a CYA (cover your ass) maneuver designed to mitigate the political hit these companies are taking. At the same time, these companies are acting like countries. They've formed an alliance and they're attempting to make a treaty with the governments that they happen to fall into. It will be interesting to watch the societal change as the importance of countries and nationalities decreases over the next hundred years.

Debugreality 13y ago
I agree, virtual worlds, offshore workers, telepresence and many other new technologies are creating a new global culture that is already beginning to clash with the concepts of countries and governments. Perhaps a starting point may be the rise of global political parties that can work together across multiple countries?

pacala 13y ago

This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first? 1. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, corporations should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications. 2 Oversight and Accountability Corporations seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which corporations are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and corporations should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry. 3 Transparency About Corporations collecting practices Transparency is essential to a debate over corporations’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Corporations should publish the number and nature of collected user information. 4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Corporations should not collect user information in other countries with the intent of circumventing the local laws that limit user data collection.

ekianjo 13y ago
On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ? Use Linux systems. And so on. The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot opt out.
- tomphoolery 13y ago
  This. We can make as many comparisons as we want but at the end of the day, if I don't like the way Facebook is doing their business I can just delete my account. I can't just delete my Social Security Number if I'm opposed to the US's continued investment into the war on drugs as well as its military strikes overseas. Nor can I really retaliate to a country on earth where I don't have to be afraid of the government tracking me. You really can't opt out.

Zigurd 13y ago

How about instead of asking the government to make this problem go away, as if it could, you offer products that thwart surveillance? I'll write you a check to cover the value of those "One weird trick to lose belly fat" ads.

grey-area 13y ago
What makes you think government couldn't make this problem go away?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Several reasons: Although the US government sets the pace, it isn't the only government that is snooping. Secondly, many governments will always consider some level of spying legitimate. Therefore it is up to technology and service providers to secure their customers against any and all snooping. The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic. I disagree and feel this is a dangerous abdication of responsibility. I wouldn't believe politicians' reassurances about any reform, but clearly budgets could be cut, and strict safeguards put in place. We should expect nothing less from our governments, while working to protect ourselves as well.

molecule 13y ago

It seems peculiar that Apple is a signatory: > Sincerely, > AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo and their logo appears in the listing @ the end of the page, but their logo isn't in the beginning of the page, and they don't provide a quote from their CEO nor legal counsel, per the other signing companies. Last-minute change of heart, lukewarm support...?

seldo 13y ago
I wondered about that as well. Last-minute inclusion seems most likely explanation, but very odd. If you have ever worked on something like this, you will know that merely getting these companies to agree to have their logos on the same page is a feat. They are listed in alphabetical order, and I imagine there was MUCH discussion about their relative sizes. But it can't be that Apple is disputing their logo size, since it's included at the bottom.
- tiles 13y ago
  They can't be that particular, they're even using the old Twitter logo at the top.
adventured 13y ago
I was hoping to see Amazon.com signed on to this as well, given their substantial position in cloud computing, and their likely future influence being even greater.
- olalonde 13y ago
  The fact that the CIA is one of their largest AWS customer might be playing a role. http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitulates-amazon-gains-cia-contract/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitula...
  - adventured 13y ago
    Yeah that's a suspicion on my part as well. Same reason we'll never see Oracle on a list like this. In the recent interview with Charlie Rose, Ellison wouldn't even remotely come close to challenging what the NSA was doing (he also pulled a cheap dodge by saying the great thing about living in a democracy is the people can do something about it if they want to).

pg 13y ago

Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confinement in some secret prison, these companies would have been at least slightly more reluctant to issue such a statement, because it would have seemed to be espousing the cause of someone people were hearing described on the news as a criminal. Snowden made his disclosures much more effective by escaping.

teamgb 13y ago
Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.
- Smerity 13y ago
  Edward Snowden isn't mentioned, no, but it's largely due to him that the debate and recent revelations have been so heavily discussed by so many. We'd known about strange telecommunication interception by governments for years[1] but Snowden's disclosures and the following saga brought it to the attention of the world by providing a theatrical backdrop for the media to start using. Now it's something that normal people know about, not just techies. Regulating government surveillance is the issue these companies are best positioned to support. If they'd explicitly mentioned Snowden, the discussion could quickly be derailed. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and many more
- pg 13y ago
  They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relations with various bits of the federal government, which they risk offending with this statement.

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago

Anyone with definite proof it's real?

packetslave 13y ago
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08companycoalitionpr.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08co...
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  Thanks.
nrmilstein 13y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-iss...

pwang 13y ago

> we are focused on keeping user’s data secure ARGH! Close to a trillion dollars of net corporate value, and they can't afford a decent grammarian when they write an open letter to the President?! (Hint: It should be "users'".)

raldi 13y ago
Good catch! I passed your comment on to Google's liaison to R.G.S., and she's working to get it fixed. Let's see how long it takes from here. :)
- pwang 13y ago
  Great! While we're at it, though: - The clause "deploying the latest encryption technology" should actually be prefaced by "by", to balance the "by pushing back..." - "We urge the US" could be made stronger by actually spelling out the full name: "We urge the United States..." Nice site, otherwise.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sinak 13y ago

A bit surprised by some of the errors on the site. - Tweet button doesn't have a link - G+ share button isn't working - Opengraph tags point to a missing image-url, so Facebook shares don't have an image associated. I think maybe this hit HN before they were quite ready for launch - I'm guessing these'll be fixed pretty quickly. Excellent move by the companies involved though. A lot of advocacy organizations have been pushing these companies to come out publicly meaningful surveillance law reform, and this is a great start.

vertr07 13y ago
Maybe this wasn't meant to be launched yet?
wrs 13y ago
The og: tags point to a misspelled hostname (reformgovernmentsurviellance.com) -- but it now seems to redirect to the correct one.

tareqak 13y ago

A website is a good start, but a live press conference attended by all the CEOs and members of mainstream media would be far, far better. For most people, if it doesn't happen on TV, it doesn't happen at all.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wyclif 13y ago

They really need to look again at how they implemented sharing to Twitter, G+ or LinkedIn; it's a mess.

yc-kjh 13y ago

Laws don't need to be reformed. The Constitution needs to be enforced.

rcsorensen 13y ago

Statement from Microsoft: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/12/08/reforming-government-surveillance.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...

salient 13y ago

I don't know if these things make a difference or not, but there are 1/3 votes needed for ECPA reform, with 3 days to go: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-government-get-warrant/nq258dxk https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-g...

downandout 13y ago

Site is down.

shank8 13y ago

The website was taken down!!??

apu 13y ago

Hmm, only seeing a "default parallels" page: http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png (midnight PST)

scythe 13y ago
Indeed. The website previously contained this: :Reform Government Surveillance :Global Government Surveillance Reform The undersigned companies believe that it is time for the world’s governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their information. While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety and security, we strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be reformed. Consistent with established global norms of free expression and privacy and with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight, we hereby call on governments to endorse the following principles and enact reforms that would put these principles into action. :The Principles :1 Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications. :2 Oversight and Accountability Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry. :3 Transparency About Government Demands Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also promptly disclose this data publicly. :4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally. :5 Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict. :Voices For Reform “AOL is committed to preserving the privacy of our customers’ information, while respecting the right of governments to request information on specific users for lawful purposes. AOL is proud to unite with other leading Internet companies to advocate on behalf of our consumers.” —Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO, AOL “Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook “The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information. This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” —Larry Page, CEO, Google “These principles embody LinkedIn’s fundamental commitment to transparency and ensuring appropriate government practices that are respectful of our members’ expectations.” —Erika Rottenberg, General Counsel, LinkedIn [when LinkedIn criticizes your privacy policy you know something's wrong] “People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft “Twitter is committed to defending and protecting the voice of our users. Unchecked, undisclosed government surveillance inhibits the free flow of information and restricts their voice. The principles we advance today would reform the current system to appropriately balance the needs of security and privacy while safeguarding the essential human right of free expression.” —Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter “Protecting the privacy of our users is incredibly important to Yahoo. Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world. Today we join our colleagues in the tech industry calling on the United States Congress to change surveillance laws in order to ensure transparency and accountability for government actions.” —Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo :An open letter to Washington Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress, We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change. For our part, we are focused on keeping user’s data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope. We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com Sincerely, AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo

ed_blackburn 13y ago

Eventually the penny drops. If there's no trust in the internet, then these companies business model will be affected. Over time I can see this lobbying working to an extent in the US. What I can't see happening is the other Five Eyes partners or their governments changing. The UK political classes in the main appear bullishly, unrepentant, aggressive towards descent and hawkishly pursuing dissidents including newspaper editors.

laurencerowe 13y ago

Anyone else seeing the "Default Parallels Plesk Panel Page" instead of the content? Google cache still works: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Areformgovernmentsurveillance.com http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Arefor...

antocv 13y ago

Its a good thing they define "government surveillence" because corporate surveillence is what they do best.

joshfraser 13y ago

> whois reformgovernmentsurveillance.com Really, they bought the domain 5 days ago from GoDaddy?!

joshfraser 13y ago
Whatever, I'm just glad they're doing it.

mindslight 13y ago

And what would the net effect of these reforms be for individual users, even if governments actually kept their word? A five year reprieve until emailing the wrong person causes your mandatory insurance premiums to double? Centralized data silos are the root cause of broken privacy, and the goal of this lobbying is to make you ignore this glaring truth and perpetuate the extremely profitable mining-your-data industry.

anoncowherd 13y ago

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!".. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? What about politicians in a democracy? Will/can they watch their peers, or is it more likely they'll just collude in corruption?

zymhan 13y ago
> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't work all that well either. Neither does voting.
  - zymhan 13y ago
    > So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince you.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.

Cakez0r 13y ago

This seems a bit toothless to me. I can't help but feel this is more about PR. There aren't any calls to action! Just a page of opinions.

A1kmm 13y ago

Point 4 (in particular, the part about allowing data transfer overseas) could be construed to mean letting big companies work around the privacy laws of one country by copying private data to another country with weaker privacy laws. I think that sneaking points like this in weakens the effect of the whole thing.

codeulike 13y ago

I like how they put AOL first on the list. Like, if there's flak coming, they'll take it first or something.

sklivvz1971 13y ago

Honestly this makes me a little upset. While I am happy that these corporations are taking a stand against surveillance, I am not convinced of their intentions: * This summer's hailstorm was about NSA but also about them. This site obviously ignores this and shows these corps as innocent victims, which they are not. * It's clearly too little! "Governments should reform themselves". How should they do that? There are absolutely no proposals on how to fix this on this site. * It's clearly too late. This should have happened before Snoweden, not six months after. This is just "let's go back to normal" propaganda, "damage control" PR. Nothing will change because of this.

scrrr 13y ago
They quote Zuckerberg on that site: "Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information." So what about limits on how businesses collect information?
- crazypyro 13y ago
  There is a huge difference between companies collecting data on their customers and a govt collecting on their entire population...
  - Joeboy 13y ago
    There is a smaller difference when it's a business collecting data on the entire population.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Businesses cannot lock people in prison or send teams of soldiers in to arrest people. Businesses cannot (legally) send people or robots to assassinate others. I think there is a very big difference between businesses collecting information and governments collecting information -- because governments can do substantially more damage. (Full disclosure: I currently work for one of the companies on the list.)

jspc 13y ago

I do wish they had sorted SSL properly for this. Its a bit bad when talking about security and surveillance they miss the fundamentals.

aragot 13y ago

This is an extremely talented commercial suggestion: On one side, as a European, I would NOT support it; and on the other, it looks like a very, very legitimate bill ("why would anyone oppose!?"). Good job for the PR people behind that move! Here's why: * It says "Governments" (plural). That means because US security agencies have thoroughly breached the borders of acceptable privacy, now all governments should diminish their control. I'm aware Eu agencies do the same, but they don't build as big datacenters as the NSA does. By not having the same budgets, Eu agencies don't overreach as much as the NSA does. * As a European, the best protection I see against all-spying programs is to have competitive European web services. For example I would support a Eu decision to require a European email address for communication with governments, or similar rules designed to make sure Europeans communicate through safe channels with their governments. It is also EU's role to make sure we have enough competitors so that citizens can use local providers (competitors to Fb, etc) to store their data in Europe, if those consumers trust European spying agencies. As a desired side effect, it is a way to grow our economy. The Reform Government Surveillance would prevent us from passing reforms to locate European citizen data in Europe. Therefore, it's a very talented move from those 7 companies, and comes right at the right time.

phryk 13y ago

So, the US' biggest data collectors are coming together to fight government surveillance? I'm not the only one thinking this is a tad hypocritical, am I? It just makes me think that somewhere, some powerful dude went "They are trying to cut in on our action?!?" and decided not to accept projected financial losses by something as petty as a government. But obviously, this might be the first voice governments actually listen to. Not because what they propose is the right thing to do, but because money. Apparently this is the best the system currently allows. Capitalism depresses me.

skyshine 13y ago

This is all well and good, but it only really matters if they start lobbying heavily for this change. Words are cheap, it is actions that matter.

veidr 13y ago

Mildly interesting (from a branding/style perspective) how Apple, and only Apple, chose not to feature their logo at the top, but to add it to the bottom where only people who read (or at least scrolled) the whole thing could see it.

ronaldx 13y ago

In order to reform government surveillance, we also need to reform commercial surveillance.

1337biz 13y ago

They need to NRA that thing up! Get people to sign up and pledge their support, organize local chapters, organize, organize, organize. Am I the only one missing here the call to action?

jimmytucson 13y ago

These companies want to limit the amount of data the government can collect on me. That's wonderful. While we're at it, can the government limit the amount of data these companies can collect on me?

znowi 13y ago

I feel a bit uneasy that the undersigned are all PRISM companies. All 8 of them. They seem to stick together and not mix with outsiders. Note that there's already a similar initiative launched by Mozilla called Stop Watching Us [1]. None of the PRISM companies signed it. Instead, they filed a petition (of little value, but with a big pomp) to allow for full FISA order statistics be published. Which was denied, incidentally. [1] https://stopwatching.us/ https://stopwatching.us/

kogarou 13y ago
Not Twitter. Unless you have a source?

f3llowtraveler 13y ago

Why doesn't this web page mention Snowden at all? For example, the fact that he was right, and is a hero, and deserves to have all charges dropped? Weren't all these people collaborating with authorities at the expense of our liberties -- and aren't they still?

bippi 13y ago

I like the idea, but these were the principles they were supposed to be following in the first place but weren't. What makes anyone think that any amount of laws passed will be respected?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

robomartin 13y ago

As the repercussions of what Snowden helped uncover become more public I hope people gain a better understanding of the man himself and his motivations. Try as I might, I can't find any word other than "hero" to describe him. I imagine him at work and subject to a constant stream of information showing what our own government is doing to us. I imagine him repeatedly thinking this is wrong. And I imagine him looking deep inside his sole to decide whether his convictions and belief system required him to act or not. Of course, that decision had to come with the full understanding that he would be at the receiving end of the full wrath of the US intelligence, law enforcement and military machinery. At best he'd have to live on the run his entire life. At worst he'd end-up dead or in a dark cell, completely disconnected from humanity. With that reality in front of him this man decided he needed to stand up for those of us who could not. He decided to, effectively, sacrifice his life in order to attempt to right a massive wrong being perpetrated on the people of the US and the world. That's right up there with a fireman running into a burning building or a soldier taking a bullet to protect your way of life. This man is a hero. I hope this administration or the next comes to realize how much of a patriot a man has to be in order to risk it all to protect others. With that realization the only thing that remains is to bring the man home with open arms and have him be a big part of making things right for all of us. That's what needs to happen next.

billirvine 13y ago

It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an official Silicon Valley Alliance.

sp332 13y ago
The DNS has been changed to point to another server on the same network. The original is still running at http://97.74.205.113/ http://97.74.205.113/ but the domain now points to http://97.74.205.82/ http://97.74.205.82/ Strange https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.com https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.c...

superpatosainz 13y ago

"Dear Government. You've pissed off $1.4 trillion of the market. You might want to review your recent behavior."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

arca_vorago 13y ago

Let's cut to the chase: surveillance is a symptom of a larger root issue. These major companies aren't attacking the government surveillance problem out of concern of their users, my guess is that they are getting ready to make a data power-play against the government. So essentially, the privacy concerns of people are being used as a ball between players, but the people are still going to get kicked around. Until we address the almost complete corruption of the institutional structures that we consider to be foundational of this country... well, I don't know what's going to happen, but I'm pretty sure it won't be pretty for the serfs ahem I mean citizens. The checks and balances system is almost non-existent. The executive has power over the other two branches, and the supra-national corporations have power over all three. The justice system is a farce, the SCOTUS are likely compromised, and oversight of intelligence agencies is almost non-existent. Resource wars loom on the horizon, what I call the shadow players like Zbigniew Brzezinski are encouraging a return to the tripolar world, and all this as wealth disparity increases amazingly fast. Surveillance is not about security, it's about control. The question no one is asking is, "Why?".

d0ugie 13y ago

You'd think Google, or any of the companies, would host such a thing themselves, rather than sub it out to Godaddy, using a PTR of the domain name relevant to the site -- and, especially in the spirit of things, a properly-configured SSL certificate that doesn't set off warnings, pointing where it ought to (like the IP's PTR), with HSTS and PFS in place and so forth. What indication is there that this is not a hoax?

atmosx 13y ago

Hm, I wonder why I see no Cisco and Amazon on logos, there. After all the money Cisco is loosing are they still reluctant to go against the USA gov, who knows what kind of contracts were made...

known 13y ago

power corrupts people and absolute power corrupts absolutely. powerful people should volunteer themselves to 24x7 surveillance.

nroose 13y ago

Why is Apple at the bottom but not at the top?

vjvj 13y ago

What a feeble attempt at reform. In particular, the sentence copied below makes it sound like just another summer new story that will soon fade into insignificance: "But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide"