4 ms·

We fight at the only ground it ever mattered: Politics!!! We put privacy on the forefront of the agendas of our MPs. We become more active in the democratic pr

by atmosx 13y ago

We fight at the only ground it ever mattered: Politics!!! We put privacy on the forefront of the agendas of our MPs. We become more active in the democratic process than before. Fighting organizations with larger amount of money that we will ever have, was always a dead end. You can't fight fire with fire. If you create a new powerful encryption tool, you're starting an decryption race from Americans, Chinese, Russians and who-ever-has the power to pursuit it. If they can't break it, they will try to bend it, etc. So the only thing that was ever going to work, is to held them accountable. Make Keith Alexander and the others who made unwarranted mass surveillance possible, accountable. Press towards that direction. Snowden gave a huge leap towards that direction to the masses. He managed to stir discussion to topics that were never discussed before. All we need to do is let our MPs know that privacy matters, for our own good. And by "we" I mean the entire technology community. Fighting for privacy on the front of politics is the only meaningful way. And once again, only through education people can reach enlightenment.

diminoten 13y ago
Politics is the answer I expected and the answer I fully, completely, and entirely reject. The EFF, IDL, and other technology advocacy groups are terrible at getting legislation passed in the US. Just plain awful. The only thing they can do effectively is say no. This is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about when I say, "unring the bell". Our lives are out there, already. You, me, anyone with a Facebook account, an email address, a cell phone - we're exposed, and the options before us are to either eschew all technology entirely, or to figure out how to live without privacy. The ability to track the movements and activities of everyone in the world is the kind of tool that sits on the same level as nuclear weapons, as jet engines, as automatic weapons. We're never going to experience a world where systemic and universal surveillance is not happening again. The question I think we should start asking ourselves is, how do we live in this world?
- atmosx 13y ago
  EFF and IDL are terrible because they don't have money to lobby, neither do you (I assume) and the industry that does, want's possibly even less privacy (Faceboo, Google, Twitter, FourSquare, etc). The thing is that I don't want to erase or use a fake name in my StackOverflow or Twitter account. I know perfectly well that at any time my data could be exploited by a third party. That's why I'm saying that the only way to get over this, is to make large part of the population aware of the issue. And the more people use the internet the easier will become. You can reject it, but in a democratic country that's the way things work: Politicians want (and sell themselves easily) for more votes. Exchange your vote for privacy, the administration might want to control our lives using espionage, but if MPs don't get votes they can't support the administration and I believe they will turn their back to the administration way more easily if they know that they will gain more votes (more raw power). So all you have to do, is put the issue high on the agenda, nothing more. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not impossible either. Once an NSA executive goes in jail for mis-conduction will have set a precedent. Same thing will happen in Germany, etc. Then you can say that you are relatively safer because everyone who is going to exploit our data, could face prison. And that's not an entertaining thought, especially for politicians and executives.
  - Intermernet 13y ago
    Although I agree completely with your recommended course of action, and indeed your sentiment, I find it frightening to see our reliance on the emergent properties of democratic process so bluntly demonstrated. We don't really know how to live in this society yet! No one has a definite solution, but greater public awareness will definitely accelerate the outcome, whether it be a solution for the general populous, or a "solution" for those in power.
- amirmc 13y ago
  > "... and the options before us are to either eschew all technology entirely, or to figure out how to live without privacy." A completely false and thoroughly unhelpful dichotomy. It's comments like this which lead to defeatist attitudes and a lack of push-back (which, unsurprisingly, becomes self-fulfiling). Options include: - Engaging in the political process. What's the point of democracy if people are unwilling to use it? There are so many fringe interest groups that have managed to get their way because they've figured the system out and how to play it. It's fucking irritating when smart technical people simply write off this piece of the process. If you want to 'hack some (non-computer) system to your advantage', let it be this one. - Advocate for and try to use secure technologies. Security on the internet is a farce and ordinary people are constantly misinformed or poorly educated on the issue. Even developers don't get it right. It's in this state because the hard work of coming up with secure crypto is only a third of the problem. Another third is making it useable by normal people/devs and the final third is actually working on getting adoption of products and services that incorporate it. Of course, this directly conflicts with any business model based on advertising so it's time for new models too. Anything that gets decent crypto usable and widely deployed is a good thing for everyone. - Understand that 'privacy' is a multi-faceted thing (and help others understand). It's completely ridiculous and unhelpful to talk about it in binary terms and it's made worse when people confuse privacy with anonymity. There's a scale on which people treat these things which is obvious when you consider behaviour rather what people say about it. Change doesn't occur overnight, it takes schlep and conviction.
- hga 13y ago
  Are you unaware that the first time this came to a vote in the House, it was rather close, and critically it didn't break along any boundaries? Not by party, by region, or by anything else I could discern. Although the leadership/establishment of both parties are not on our side, e.g. Boehner and Pelosi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/pelosi-boehner-nsa_n_3653560.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/pelosi-boehner-nsa_...) The political answer is pretty clear: elect enough non-establishment politicians, President and VP, both houses of the Congress, and we can get this fixed. As for who, I don't watch the Democratic party at this level (but note the ones already elected in the Congress who are fighting this), but on the Republican side perhaps Ted Cruz, not Rand Paul, who's stances on drones showed he is poser, in general "Tea Party", we want to be left alone types. The latter aren't Republicans per se, in fact they're an existential threat to the establishment GOP, which is why the latter has been complicit in their suppression. Implicit in the above advice, and observation of that first vote, if this is really one of your most important issues, forget about parties and PC, vote for and donate money to individuals who share these values. If, on the other hand, voting for or donating money to a "Republican" is unthinkable, then you've demonstrated this is not actually a very important issue for you.
na85 13y ago
Yes, thank you. It boggles my mind that Americans haven't put Keith Alexander behind bars. Lying to Congress is supposed to be a felony. I feel like the rule of law is dead along with privacy.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Rule of law is an ideal. It's not something we've reached. You just didn't know that it wasn't there until something woke you up and made you pay attention, because it was missing for Someone Else all this time.
  - na85 13y ago
    Hey, thanks for your condescending comment!
jodrellblank 13y ago
We fight at the only ground it ever mattered: Politics!!! Behind the scenes politics: GCHQ intercepts internet backbones, records millions of Yahoo video chats. Front of house politics: Every UK company with a website has to put a warning on their website that they use cookies. http://i1.wp.com/blog.silktide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cookie-Law-infographic-reduced-size.png http://i1.wp.com/blog.silktide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
e12e 13y ago
Well said. However: > Fighting organizations with larger amount of money that we will ever have, was always a dead end. You can't fight fire with fire. I'm not sure how you define "more money tha[n] we will ever have" -- but that certainly includes most companies and political parties -- and I can't accept that -- those are exactly the kind of organizations we must fight? And, yes, you can absolutely fight fire with fire. In terms of politics, I'd say wide general strikes is one way to do so -- when one party tries to control the means and output of production, one way to "fight fire with fire" is to shut down production. While not getting as much media attention as it deserved, this was a major factor in the first stages of the Egyptian uprising (not that what has happened there lately is very encouraging).
- atmosx 13y ago
  Sorry that phrase was suppose to be: "Fighting organizations with larger amounts of money [at the technology front] ...". IMHO you fight fire with fire if you don't mind getting burned. But speaking of privacy we don't want transparency for all, we want our privacy back without having to hide every digital step we take. Now, you mention Egypt. I understand that both US and UK are leaning towards a digital pseudo-democracy but surely the situation is not as bad as it was in Egypt. You still get to vote, you (and me) might not like the results, but ultimately that's what democracy is all about: accepting the results of the (voting) majority and having to make even uncomfortable decisions.

by atmosx 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

Politics is the answer I expected and the answer I fully, completely, and entirely reject. The EFF, IDL, and other technology advocacy groups are terrible at getting legislation passed in the US. Just plain awful. The only thing they can do effectively is say no. This is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about when I say, "unring the bell". Our lives are out there, already. You, me, anyone with a Facebook account, an email address, a cell phone - we're exposed, and the options before us are to either eschew all technology entirely, or to figure out how to live without privacy. The ability to track the movements and activities of everyone in the world is the kind of tool that sits on the same level as nuclear weapons, as jet engines, as automatic weapons. We're never going to experience a world where systemic and universal surveillance is not happening again. The question I think we should start asking ourselves is, how do we live in this world?

atmosx 13y ago
EFF and IDL are terrible because they don't have money to lobby, neither do you (I assume) and the industry that does, want's possibly even less privacy (Faceboo, Google, Twitter, FourSquare, etc). The thing is that I don't want to erase or use a fake name in my StackOverflow or Twitter account. I know perfectly well that at any time my data could be exploited by a third party. That's why I'm saying that the only way to get over this, is to make large part of the population aware of the issue. And the more people use the internet the easier will become. You can reject it, but in a democratic country that's the way things work: Politicians want (and sell themselves easily) for more votes. Exchange your vote for privacy, the administration might want to control our lives using espionage, but if MPs don't get votes they can't support the administration and I believe they will turn their back to the administration way more easily if they know that they will gain more votes (more raw power). So all you have to do, is put the issue high on the agenda, nothing more. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not impossible either. Once an NSA executive goes in jail for mis-conduction will have set a precedent. Same thing will happen in Germany, etc. Then you can say that you are relatively safer because everyone who is going to exploit our data, could face prison. And that's not an entertaining thought, especially for politicians and executives.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  Although I agree completely with your recommended course of action, and indeed your sentiment, I find it frightening to see our reliance on the emergent properties of democratic process so bluntly demonstrated. We don't really know how to live in this society yet! No one has a definite solution, but greater public awareness will definitely accelerate the outcome, whether it be a solution for the general populous, or a "solution" for those in power.
amirmc 13y ago
> "... and the options before us are to either eschew all technology entirely, or to figure out how to live without privacy." A completely false and thoroughly unhelpful dichotomy. It's comments like this which lead to defeatist attitudes and a lack of push-back (which, unsurprisingly, becomes self-fulfiling). Options include: - Engaging in the political process. What's the point of democracy if people are unwilling to use it? There are so many fringe interest groups that have managed to get their way because they've figured the system out and how to play it. It's fucking irritating when smart technical people simply write off this piece of the process. If you want to 'hack some (non-computer) system to your advantage', let it be this one. - Advocate for and try to use secure technologies. Security on the internet is a farce and ordinary people are constantly misinformed or poorly educated on the issue. Even developers don't get it right. It's in this state because the hard work of coming up with secure crypto is only a third of the problem. Another third is making it useable by normal people/devs and the final third is actually working on getting adoption of products and services that incorporate it. Of course, this directly conflicts with any business model based on advertising so it's time for new models too. Anything that gets decent crypto usable and widely deployed is a good thing for everyone. - Understand that 'privacy' is a multi-faceted thing (and help others understand). It's completely ridiculous and unhelpful to talk about it in binary terms and it's made worse when people confuse privacy with anonymity. There's a scale on which people treat these things which is obvious when you consider behaviour rather what people say about it. Change doesn't occur overnight, it takes schlep and conviction.
hga 13y ago
Are you unaware that the first time this came to a vote in the House, it was rather close, and critically it didn't break along any boundaries? Not by party, by region, or by anything else I could discern. Although the leadership/establishment of both parties are not on our side, e.g. Boehner and Pelosi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/pelosi-boehner-nsa_n_3653560.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/pelosi-boehner-nsa_...) The political answer is pretty clear: elect enough non-establishment politicians, President and VP, both houses of the Congress, and we can get this fixed. As for who, I don't watch the Democratic party at this level (but note the ones already elected in the Congress who are fighting this), but on the Republican side perhaps Ted Cruz, not Rand Paul, who's stances on drones showed he is poser, in general "Tea Party", we want to be left alone types. The latter aren't Republicans per se, in fact they're an existential threat to the establishment GOP, which is why the latter has been complicit in their suppression. Implicit in the above advice, and observation of that first vote, if this is really one of your most important issues, forget about parties and PC, vote for and donate money to individuals who share these values. If, on the other hand, voting for or donating money to a "Republican" is unthinkable, then you've demonstrated this is not actually a very important issue for you.

na85 13y ago

Yes, thank you. It boggles my mind that Americans haven't put Keith Alexander behind bars. Lying to Congress is supposed to be a felony. I feel like the rule of law is dead along with privacy.

saraid216 13y ago
Rule of law is an ideal. It's not something we've reached. You just didn't know that it wasn't there until something woke you up and made you pay attention, because it was missing for Someone Else all this time.
- na85 13y ago
  Hey, thanks for your condescending comment!

jodrellblank 13y ago

We fight at the only ground it ever mattered: Politics!!! Behind the scenes politics: GCHQ intercepts internet backbones, records millions of Yahoo video chats. Front of house politics: Every UK company with a website has to put a warning on their website that they use cookies. http://i1.wp.com/blog.silktide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cookie-Law-infographic-reduced-size.png http://i1.wp.com/blog.silktide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

e12e 13y ago

Well said. However: > Fighting organizations with larger amount of money that we will ever have, was always a dead end. You can't fight fire with fire. I'm not sure how you define "more money tha[n] we will ever have" -- but that certainly includes most companies and political parties -- and I can't accept that -- those are exactly the kind of organizations we must fight? And, yes, you can absolutely fight fire with fire. In terms of politics, I'd say wide general strikes is one way to do so -- when one party tries to control the means and output of production, one way to "fight fire with fire" is to shut down production. While not getting as much media attention as it deserved, this was a major factor in the first stages of the Egyptian uprising (not that what has happened there lately is very encouraging).

atmosx 13y ago
Sorry that phrase was suppose to be: "Fighting organizations with larger amounts of money [at the technology front] ...". IMHO you fight fire with fire if you don't mind getting burned. But speaking of privacy we don't want transparency for all, we want our privacy back without having to hide every digital step we take. Now, you mention Egypt. I understand that both US and UK are leaning towards a digital pseudo-democracy but surely the situation is not as bad as it was in Egypt. You still get to vote, you (and me) might not like the results, but ultimately that's what democracy is all about: accepting the results of the (voting) majority and having to make even uncomfortable decisions.