5 ms·

Honestly, I don't really care. The NSA can read whatever they want of mine. I've heard the arguments about how you should care, even if you don't have anythin

Honestly, I don't really care. The NSA can read whatever they want of mine. I've heard the arguments about how you should care, even if you don't have anything to hide. And I find them persuasive on one level and simultaneously unengaging on another. By contrast, the parallels to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and living in a turnkey fascist state are most unpersuasive. The one argument against what I've written that has been made that I think is worthy of highlighting is that there are people around the world who are risking their lives under totalitarian regimes. People's smug responses and ad hominem detract from this important point, which could be helpful to others outside of HN in better understanding the issue. Your downvotes will not persuade me or anyone else with my views. They do demonstrate that some are committed partisans on this issue. I appreciate some of the clear, unemotional arguments that have been made, however.

blake8086 13y ago
Hey, can you post your email username/password here so we can all read your mail?
- allochthon 13y ago
  I worry about random people on the Internet having access to my information about 1000 times more than I do the NSA.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    a.) the way the NSA seems to foster security flaws to use them, instead of helping fix them, they are also helping "random people" get access to your data. A backdoor put there by the NSA can be used by anyone else, in theory. b.) what you personally do not worry about is not relevant, your arguments why nobody else should worry either are. You are not a journalist or activist, so you don't care. It's like saying it's okay that certain food contents are not labelled for the benefit of those having allergies against them, or that kids should be used as bio fuel, because you don't have an allergy or kids.
  - MWil 13y ago
    who are these NSA people that aren't also random people?
    - ewoodrich 13y ago
      They are a subset of random people, and one OP is less concerned about having his credentials than random people as a whole.
      - joelhaus 13y ago
        an interesting question GP raises... Who would you be more worried about having access to your email account and why? a. NSA b. a random criminal (unaffiliated with government) For me, the answer is not even close, but I'm more interested in understanding how others on HN process this.
        mden 13y ago
        In cases like these you have to evaluate the probability of something bad happening times the magnitude of the harm (essentially the expected value). The NSA can do much more damage (excluding the fact that they can do similar damage even without having this information) than a random lowly criminal, however the likelihood they'll target a boring person such as me is much lower. So for me I'd be more worried about b. Of course, ideally I would rather not have to worry about either.
        tomelders 13y ago
        I'm insured against criminality. I'm on my own should the government decide to shit on me.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        mathrawka 13y ago
        The sets of a and b are not exclusive, until _you_ explicitly declared them to be exclusive.
frou_dh 13y ago
Your apathy has been duly noted. Thanks for taking the time, and keep on keeping on.
girvo 13y ago
Fair enough. I do care. So, which of us matters more?
- alan_cx 13y ago
  The majority. Which, as it turns out, I don't think is you or me.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Unfortunately, I think you're spot on there. Now, the question becomes whether that can be changed, and how?
sneak 13y ago
The protection from snooping government for law abiders isn't for humdrum people like you. It's for people working to make the world better who come under fire through no illegal activity of their own. Did you know the FBI put MLK under surveillance at the orders of Bobby Kennedy (then-Attorney General)? They didn't find evidence of crimes, so they threatened to publicize his extramarital affair if he didn't give up his civil rights work. It's about preventing unchecked government power over those who aren't criminals who are working against the status quo. OF COURSE you don't care if the NSA reads your email. You don't change anything, and consequently don't matter. We as a society care if the NSA reads the private emails of the next important up-and-coming political party leader who will break us out of the corporate-owned two-party system. THAT'S the person we're trying to protect, not boring uninspired people who "have nothing to hide".
- spoiledtechie 13y ago
  Fuck Ya. Here Here. Sorry for the expletive, but you sure did nail it.
- deelowe 13y ago
  The MLK example is a great one. Also, it's still not 100% clear what happened with Hendrix, Marilyn Monroe or the Kennedys. I read recently that there was evidence of the NSA having dirt on a governor, which was used to blackmail him (can't recall the specific instance unfortunately). And of course, I'm sure everyone knows about what happened with the IRS and certain non profits last year, while not directly tied to the NSA gives an example of why this stuff matters. So yea, it's not to protect people like us. It's to protect the MLKs, the politicians, the accountants, the journalist, the news anchor, etc... Everyone either has a skeleton in their closet or cares about someone who does. If one is so inclined, having this information can be extremely valuable when trying to prevent a "free society" from becoming a little too free.
- LionRoar 13y ago
  Yes, this! Exactly to the point. This is in my view THE argument against all-out snooping. It is about control, not about criminality.
parag_c_mehta 13y ago
Question is what if the data is misused ? At this rate, it's very easy to get who supports which politician etc. Democracy may become a sham. I don't know, everything mentioned in the movie "Enemy of the State" can come true.
neuralk 13y ago
> By contrast, the parallels to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and living in a turnkey fascist state are most unpersuasive. Why? The possibility of a turnkey fascist state is very real. You need only look to history to see how many leaders, once elected, completely ignored all laws and constitutions and legislating bodies to declare martial law and institute a tyranny. How can you say that you aren't worried about that, and the power of a surveillance apparatus in the hands of such a leader?
alan_cx 13y ago
I completely disagree, but I have voted you up. You represent normal people. Those of us who care are the weirdos. I've given up. Whats the point? Frankly, if I knew I needed actual privacy, I'd not use anything electronic, and go olde skool. That's all I need to know now. I've told everyone I know and / or care about. Its now up to them. Get used to it, Big Brother has been here for a while, is staying, and will get stronger. Just, I wont be listening in the future when it gets really out of hand. I dont expect anyone to come bleating to me if something goes wrong.
- interstitial 13y ago
  I wrote you a sticky note encrypted with a Caesar-cipher based on the one published in the 1964 Encyclopedia Britannica. I affixed it to the door of the first stall of the men's bathroom of the 3rd floor of the engineering building. Please reply by February 7th 2014, as the final meeting is scheduled for October 2014 and there is barely time to coordinate with Eagle, Moe, and Fixie. Given the custodial hazards of stall-based sticky note networking there will be a follow-up note soon. -- exxegoexsrgi
- f_salmon 13y ago
  Of course you have the right to say these extremely depressive things. But if this is really what you think, then you should not put any children on this planet - they don't deserve the mess you/we're about to accept/create for future generations. On a brighter note: think about people like Applebaum, Snowden, Assange, Manning, etc. They fight and keep fighting. Each of them accepts that we have to sacrifice something personal/important to get back a life that is worth living. If they can, why can't you? PS, if you feel depressed (many people do, especially with these horrible recent news), it might be a good idea to get a professional opinion on that, maybe there's more to it.
acchow 13y ago
> Honestly, I don't really care. Some non-empty subset of the population needs privacy. Maybe you're not in that subset, but you should still be fighting on their behalf. On a related note, do you believe in freedom of press? "a survey of American writers revealed that nearly one in four has self-censored" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effect/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effec...
jonnybgood 13y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you. It's a first world problem filled with hyperbole and misinformation by the individuals leading this fight. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone.
- flueedo 13y ago
  There's plenty of ocurrences of unlawful high tech surveillance and political persecution all over the third world too. More often than not even more problematic situations.
IvyMike 13y ago
Imagine the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon, except amplified with today's tech. "It always seemed like President Nixon's campaign was one step ahead of us, almost as if they were reading our email...but nobody ever broke into our hotel suite or anything so it's all just speculation." Edit: brainfart as pointed out by jeremyswank.
- jeremyswank 13y ago
  I guess you probably mean J. Edgar Hoover, a former head of the FBI.
ifix 13y ago
And "allochton" is your real name?
GrinningFool 13y ago
Disagree completely but upvoted because it's an opinion that I think should be seen. Your comments effectively represent the 99.999% of the population that doesn't pay attention to any of this, except to what small amount they're fed via "paranoid" tech friends (and they all wear tinfoil hats, so whatever), nightly news and 60 minutes.
- flueedo 13y ago
  I agree. And also it's been delightful to read the counterarguments to his comment.
captainmuon 13y ago
I've lived in both the United States and Germany for long periods of time. In general, these are two modern, democratic countries, not typical oppressive regimes, an 99% of the people have nothing to worry about 99% of the time. The problem are the 1% who express the wrong ideas at the wrong time. I know people who have been put under surveillance or charged in court for things that are perfectly legal, or just minor infractions. Some examples from Germany: One guy I knew made a poster protesting against nuclear power, and put it up near his university. About a year later he got a letter saying that the "proceedings against him have been terminated". He found out that the police suspected him of planning a terrorist attack against a nuclear waste transport. They bugged his cell phone, his apartment, and followed him and his friends for about a year, until they realized they have the wrong guy. A friend of mine made a mistake of visiting a squatted house an being seen there. Later he went to a demonstration, got filmed by the police, and charged with something you could translate as "ring leadership" or "inciting a riot". There also was a famous case last year where a pacifist pastor who visited a anti-nazi demonstration was charged with something similar [1]. (And of course there are numerous examples from the US.) The thing is, the threshold invading people's privacy is getting lower and lower. Police or intelligence agencies will put you under surveilance if they just have a hunch. At the same time, persecutors are under really high pressure to "make a case". More and more they will rather convict an innocent on dubious grounds than admit a mistake. Actual quotes from judges (paraphrased): "we need to make an example", and "I don't know if the accusations are technically true, but if you were there [at the demonstration], you have to be guilty of something". A situation like this is unworthy of a democratic society. As I said, stuff like this doesn't happen to 99% of the people. But you never know when you are in the 1%. I have to be afraid to say anything controverisal - I have firecrackers and vinegar at home, what if some overeager investigator decides I want to make a bomb out of it? And this kind of fear is what they call a "chilling effect" - people will stop using their democratic rights, their right to free speach and freedom of assembly and so on. [1]: http://news.msn.com/world/german-pastor-faces-trial-over-anti-nazi-protest http://news.msn.com/world/german-pastor-faces-trial-over-ant...
Nursie 13y ago
So you're not concerned about the government themselves having a bad security record and leaking all the data they gather on you, either? (government leaks data all the time) Or someone in government deciding to stalk you? (this has happened, within the NSA I believe, but certainly in other places) Or someone deciding they dislike you and using your information to pursue frivolous legal action? (You never broke any law? Any law at all? How would you even know, there are so many and they're so vague!) Beyond that, well I guess you just don't care about privacy. Me, I do. It's not somehow the right of a bunch of other people I don't know, with minimal to zero democratic oversight, to poke into my life just because they feel like it.
- allochthon 13y ago
  You make a great point about data leaking out. My position isn't that I don't care about privacy. It's that in the modern age, with so much information kept about people in corporate and government databases, we're necessarily talking about mitigation rather than a pure ideal of full privacy. I assume the NSA can access my records with the IRS or my bank anytime they wish, even if they were prevented by law from tapping my iPhone. This has been the case for decades no doubt. At this point in time, beyond that, they can break into an advertising agency database if they wish and find out about all of my click behavior and location information. In the battles I choose to take on, rolling back an NSA iPhone compromise is an interesting idea, but it is less a priority than other battles, such as protecting dissidents in oppressive countries (which is also a relevant contrast to the point I first made, as has been mentioned elsewhere), and, yes, preventing terrorist attacks. I think anyone is allowed the prerogative to prioritize their battles. I also do not think the world would be a safer or better place without intelligence gathering. If I permit that much, now we're talking about degrees rather than absolutes, and we're arguing about where to draw the line.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> If I permit that much, now we're talking about degrees rather than absolutes, and we're arguing about where to draw the line. We're always talking about where to draw the line, in basically everything worth debating about, ever. There are very few absolutes in life and I think that opting out of the discussion by saying "Well, we're just deciding where to put the line" is a total cop-out. Where we put the line is important, and where we place our priorities. "Preventing terrorist attacks" sounds very noble, until you add up all the harm that's been done in pursuit of that goal. And remember - there's no compelling evidence that the NSA mass data-gathering activities have actually prevented any attacks. >> In the battles I choose to take on, rolling back an NSA iPhone compromise is an interesting idea, but it is less a priority than other battles, such as protecting dissidents in oppressive countries (which is also a relevant contrast to the point I first made, as has been mentioned elsewhere) I don't know how you can't see that these are the same thing. The iPhone compromise, if such exists, further endangers dissidents in oppressive countries, not to mention dissidents in countries we don't consider overtly oppressive, like our own.
a3n 13y ago
> Honestly, I don't really care. The NSA can read whatever they want of mine. Hmm. You know what? I care. I don't want the NSA reading your stuff, because they're doing it in my name. I believe they're violating our 4th and 1st Amendment rights, and I want it to stop, for me and for you. If the government is violating our rights, the damage goes beyond anything resulting from the actual violations. The real damage is that we have a government that does that.

blake8086 13y ago

Hey, can you post your email username/password here so we can all read your mail?

allochthon 13y ago
I worry about random people on the Internet having access to my information about 1000 times more than I do the NSA.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  a.) the way the NSA seems to foster security flaws to use them, instead of helping fix them, they are also helping "random people" get access to your data. A backdoor put there by the NSA can be used by anyone else, in theory. b.) what you personally do not worry about is not relevant, your arguments why nobody else should worry either are. You are not a journalist or activist, so you don't care. It's like saying it's okay that certain food contents are not labelled for the benefit of those having allergies against them, or that kids should be used as bio fuel, because you don't have an allergy or kids.
- MWil 13y ago
  who are these NSA people that aren't also random people?
  - ewoodrich 13y ago
    They are a subset of random people, and one OP is less concerned about having his credentials than random people as a whole.
    - joelhaus 13y ago
      an interesting question GP raises... Who would you be more worried about having access to your email account and why? a. NSA b. a random criminal (unaffiliated with government) For me, the answer is not even close, but I'm more interested in understanding how others on HN process this.
      - mden 13y ago
        In cases like these you have to evaluate the probability of something bad happening times the magnitude of the harm (essentially the expected value). The NSA can do much more damage (excluding the fact that they can do similar damage even without having this information) than a random lowly criminal, however the likelihood they'll target a boring person such as me is much lower. So for me I'd be more worried about b. Of course, ideally I would rather not have to worry about either.
        tomelders 13y ago
        I'm insured against criminality. I'm on my own should the government decide to shit on me.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - mathrawka 13y ago
        The sets of a and b are not exclusive, until _you_ explicitly declared them to be exclusive.

frou_dh 13y ago

Your apathy has been duly noted. Thanks for taking the time, and keep on keeping on.

girvo 13y ago

Fair enough. I do care. So, which of us matters more?

alan_cx 13y ago
The majority. Which, as it turns out, I don't think is you or me.
- girvo 13y ago
  Unfortunately, I think you're spot on there. Now, the question becomes whether that can be changed, and how?

sneak 13y ago

The protection from snooping government for law abiders isn't for humdrum people like you. It's for people working to make the world better who come under fire through no illegal activity of their own. Did you know the FBI put MLK under surveillance at the orders of Bobby Kennedy (then-Attorney General)? They didn't find evidence of crimes, so they threatened to publicize his extramarital affair if he didn't give up his civil rights work. It's about preventing unchecked government power over those who aren't criminals who are working against the status quo. OF COURSE you don't care if the NSA reads your email. You don't change anything, and consequently don't matter. We as a society care if the NSA reads the private emails of the next important up-and-coming political party leader who will break us out of the corporate-owned two-party system. THAT'S the person we're trying to protect, not boring uninspired people who "have nothing to hide".

spoiledtechie 13y ago
Fuck Ya. Here Here. Sorry for the expletive, but you sure did nail it.
deelowe 13y ago
The MLK example is a great one. Also, it's still not 100% clear what happened with Hendrix, Marilyn Monroe or the Kennedys. I read recently that there was evidence of the NSA having dirt on a governor, which was used to blackmail him (can't recall the specific instance unfortunately). And of course, I'm sure everyone knows about what happened with the IRS and certain non profits last year, while not directly tied to the NSA gives an example of why this stuff matters. So yea, it's not to protect people like us. It's to protect the MLKs, the politicians, the accountants, the journalist, the news anchor, etc... Everyone either has a skeleton in their closet or cares about someone who does. If one is so inclined, having this information can be extremely valuable when trying to prevent a "free society" from becoming a little too free.
LionRoar 13y ago
Yes, this! Exactly to the point. This is in my view THE argument against all-out snooping. It is about control, not about criminality.

parag_c_mehta 13y ago

Question is what if the data is misused ? At this rate, it's very easy to get who supports which politician etc. Democracy may become a sham. I don't know, everything mentioned in the movie "Enemy of the State" can come true.

neuralk 13y ago

> By contrast, the parallels to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and living in a turnkey fascist state are most unpersuasive. Why? The possibility of a turnkey fascist state is very real. You need only look to history to see how many leaders, once elected, completely ignored all laws and constitutions and legislating bodies to declare martial law and institute a tyranny. How can you say that you aren't worried about that, and the power of a surveillance apparatus in the hands of such a leader?

alan_cx 13y ago

I completely disagree, but I have voted you up. You represent normal people. Those of us who care are the weirdos. I've given up. Whats the point? Frankly, if I knew I needed actual privacy, I'd not use anything electronic, and go olde skool. That's all I need to know now. I've told everyone I know and / or care about. Its now up to them. Get used to it, Big Brother has been here for a while, is staying, and will get stronger. Just, I wont be listening in the future when it gets really out of hand. I dont expect anyone to come bleating to me if something goes wrong.

interstitial 13y ago
I wrote you a sticky note encrypted with a Caesar-cipher based on the one published in the 1964 Encyclopedia Britannica. I affixed it to the door of the first stall of the men's bathroom of the 3rd floor of the engineering building. Please reply by February 7th 2014, as the final meeting is scheduled for October 2014 and there is barely time to coordinate with Eagle, Moe, and Fixie. Given the custodial hazards of stall-based sticky note networking there will be a follow-up note soon. -- exxegoexsrgi
f_salmon 13y ago
Of course you have the right to say these extremely depressive things. But if this is really what you think, then you should not put any children on this planet - they don't deserve the mess you/we're about to accept/create for future generations. On a brighter note: think about people like Applebaum, Snowden, Assange, Manning, etc. They fight and keep fighting. Each of them accepts that we have to sacrifice something personal/important to get back a life that is worth living. If they can, why can't you? PS, if you feel depressed (many people do, especially with these horrible recent news), it might be a good idea to get a professional opinion on that, maybe there's more to it.

acchow 13y ago

> Honestly, I don't really care. Some non-empty subset of the population needs privacy. Maybe you're not in that subset, but you should still be fighting on their behalf. On a related note, do you believe in freedom of press? "a survey of American writers revealed that nearly one in four has self-censored" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effect/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effec...

jonnybgood 13y ago

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's a first world problem filled with hyperbole and misinformation by the individuals leading this fight. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone.

flueedo 13y ago
There's plenty of ocurrences of unlawful high tech surveillance and political persecution all over the third world too. More often than not even more problematic situations.

IvyMike 13y ago

Imagine the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon, except amplified with today's tech. "It always seemed like President Nixon's campaign was one step ahead of us, almost as if they were reading our email...but nobody ever broke into our hotel suite or anything so it's all just speculation." Edit: brainfart as pointed out by jeremyswank.

jeremyswank 13y ago
I guess you probably mean J. Edgar Hoover, a former head of the FBI.

ifix 13y ago

And "allochton" is your real name?

GrinningFool 13y ago

Disagree completely but upvoted because it's an opinion that I think should be seen. Your comments effectively represent the 99.999% of the population that doesn't pay attention to any of this, except to what small amount they're fed via "paranoid" tech friends (and they all wear tinfoil hats, so whatever), nightly news and 60 minutes.

flueedo 13y ago
I agree. And also it's been delightful to read the counterarguments to his comment.

captainmuon 13y ago

I've lived in both the United States and Germany for long periods of time. In general, these are two modern, democratic countries, not typical oppressive regimes, an 99% of the people have nothing to worry about 99% of the time. The problem are the 1% who express the wrong ideas at the wrong time. I know people who have been put under surveillance or charged in court for things that are perfectly legal, or just minor infractions. Some examples from Germany: One guy I knew made a poster protesting against nuclear power, and put it up near his university. About a year later he got a letter saying that the "proceedings against him have been terminated". He found out that the police suspected him of planning a terrorist attack against a nuclear waste transport. They bugged his cell phone, his apartment, and followed him and his friends for about a year, until they realized they have the wrong guy. A friend of mine made a mistake of visiting a squatted house an being seen there. Later he went to a demonstration, got filmed by the police, and charged with something you could translate as "ring leadership" or "inciting a riot". There also was a famous case last year where a pacifist pastor who visited a anti-nazi demonstration was charged with something similar [1]. (And of course there are numerous examples from the US.) The thing is, the threshold invading people's privacy is getting lower and lower. Police or intelligence agencies will put you under surveilance if they just have a hunch. At the same time, persecutors are under really high pressure to "make a case". More and more they will rather convict an innocent on dubious grounds than admit a mistake. Actual quotes from judges (paraphrased): "we need to make an example", and "I don't know if the accusations are technically true, but if you were there [at the demonstration], you have to be guilty of something". A situation like this is unworthy of a democratic society. As I said, stuff like this doesn't happen to 99% of the people. But you never know when you are in the 1%. I have to be afraid to say anything controverisal - I have firecrackers and vinegar at home, what if some overeager investigator decides I want to make a bomb out of it? And this kind of fear is what they call a "chilling effect" - people will stop using their democratic rights, their right to free speach and freedom of assembly and so on. [1]: http://news.msn.com/world/german-pastor-faces-trial-over-anti-nazi-protest http://news.msn.com/world/german-pastor-faces-trial-over-ant...

Nursie 13y ago

So you're not concerned about the government themselves having a bad security record and leaking all the data they gather on you, either? (government leaks data all the time) Or someone in government deciding to stalk you? (this has happened, within the NSA I believe, but certainly in other places) Or someone deciding they dislike you and using your information to pursue frivolous legal action? (You never broke any law? Any law at all? How would you even know, there are so many and they're so vague!) Beyond that, well I guess you just don't care about privacy. Me, I do. It's not somehow the right of a bunch of other people I don't know, with minimal to zero democratic oversight, to poke into my life just because they feel like it.

allochthon 13y ago
You make a great point about data leaking out. My position isn't that I don't care about privacy. It's that in the modern age, with so much information kept about people in corporate and government databases, we're necessarily talking about mitigation rather than a pure ideal of full privacy. I assume the NSA can access my records with the IRS or my bank anytime they wish, even if they were prevented by law from tapping my iPhone. This has been the case for decades no doubt. At this point in time, beyond that, they can break into an advertising agency database if they wish and find out about all of my click behavior and location information. In the battles I choose to take on, rolling back an NSA iPhone compromise is an interesting idea, but it is less a priority than other battles, such as protecting dissidents in oppressive countries (which is also a relevant contrast to the point I first made, as has been mentioned elsewhere), and, yes, preventing terrorist attacks. I think anyone is allowed the prerogative to prioritize their battles. I also do not think the world would be a safer or better place without intelligence gathering. If I permit that much, now we're talking about degrees rather than absolutes, and we're arguing about where to draw the line.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> If I permit that much, now we're talking about degrees rather than absolutes, and we're arguing about where to draw the line. We're always talking about where to draw the line, in basically everything worth debating about, ever. There are very few absolutes in life and I think that opting out of the discussion by saying "Well, we're just deciding where to put the line" is a total cop-out. Where we put the line is important, and where we place our priorities. "Preventing terrorist attacks" sounds very noble, until you add up all the harm that's been done in pursuit of that goal. And remember - there's no compelling evidence that the NSA mass data-gathering activities have actually prevented any attacks. >> In the battles I choose to take on, rolling back an NSA iPhone compromise is an interesting idea, but it is less a priority than other battles, such as protecting dissidents in oppressive countries (which is also a relevant contrast to the point I first made, as has been mentioned elsewhere) I don't know how you can't see that these are the same thing. The iPhone compromise, if such exists, further endangers dissidents in oppressive countries, not to mention dissidents in countries we don't consider overtly oppressive, like our own.

a3n 13y ago

> Honestly, I don't really care. The NSA can read whatever they want of mine. Hmm. You know what? I care. I don't want the NSA reading your stuff, because they're doing it in my name. I believe they're violating our 4th and 1st Amendment rights, and I want it to stop, for me and for you. If the government is violating our rights, the damage goes beyond anything resulting from the actual violations. The real damage is that we have a government that does that.