6 ms·

I think we should all look at the example of Mohammad Ali's appeals to the Supreme Court regarding charges of dodging the draft. In a documentary about Ali, I r

I think we should all look at the example of Mohammad Ali's appeals to the Supreme Court regarding charges of dodging the draft. In a documentary about Ali, I recall the one of the supreme court justice's clerks going back through the record, and it turned out the Ali's beliefs (being a member of the Nation of Islam) did qualify him as a conscious objector much like the Seventh Day Adventists. Before this point the courts has ruled the N.o.I. didn't deserve the same treatment for its members. Ruling for Ali posed a large problem for the Supreme Court, if they ruled in a way that set a large precedent that many people could claim they were objectors the country would have huge problems feeding the established "war machine" (the draft). So the justices went back through the record and found a technicality, as such they found a way Ali wouldn't be found guilty of dodging the draft due to a procedural error. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States for all the details. I expect if the court comes to review the facts in this matter they will either be impeded in succeeding due to national security concerns or find a way to decide for the plaintiffs in the smallest possible way to not upset the established order. Very rarely are judicial decisions groundbreaking in precedent. They are more like the tree trimmers of legislation and executive privilege, they typically only trim branches not cut down entire trunks as this ruling would possibly do for Internet surveillance. So this the world we live in, encrypt your life.

dan_bk 12y ago
> encrypt your life Absolutely. The problem is: communication is a "network good", you don't do it alone. How do you want the "Facebook people" to understand the gravity of the situation? We all do communicate with Facebook people.
- Ancorehraq 12y ago
  Perhaps the situation isn't grave. After all, despite EFF's best efforts, NSA is no more than a casual meme among all the Facebook people.
- DanBC 12y ago
  I genuinely do not understand conversations where people talk about the evils of mass government surveillance and then accept the evils of mass corporate surveillance. GCHQ supposedly operates under UK law and needs warrants to search their huge databases and operates under the oversight of elected representatives. While that's unacceptable it's more regulated than the chaos of corporate data misuse.
  - emiliobumachar 12y ago
    I'm much more worried about governments because of the potential synergy of mass surveillance with their other powers.
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    GCHQ routinely violates law and lies to its oversight committee, MPs, ministers and Parliament about it. Please do not hold them up as a paragon. Even after Snowden, ministers are not even aware of what JTRIG is, and GCHQ will not comment on intelligence matters even to them. They are a prime example of an agency gone rogue, and their efforts for mass surveillance and against encryption are not a new thing - ask Brian Gladman.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Do you have any examples of the routine viation of law or lies ro oversight committees? Which laws do you think GCHQ have broken? Normally when I ask people this they mention things like RIPA, but fail to notice the excemptions in RIPA for a bunch of GCHQ activity. Here's what IOCCO say: http://www.iocco-uk.info/ http://www.iocco-uk.info/
  - growse 12y ago
    Because mass surveillance by a group that can use violence and deprivation of liberty to enforce its will is a lot scarier than mass surveillance by a group who can't. Its not that people accept one and not the other, its that one is much more serious, and is impossible to opt out of.
    - 12y ago

dan_bk 12y ago

> encrypt your life Absolutely. The problem is: communication is a "network good", you don't do it alone. How do you want the "Facebook people" to understand the gravity of the situation? We all do communicate with Facebook people.

Ancorehraq 12y ago
Perhaps the situation isn't grave. After all, despite EFF's best efforts, NSA is no more than a casual meme among all the Facebook people.
DanBC 12y ago
I genuinely do not understand conversations where people talk about the evils of mass government surveillance and then accept the evils of mass corporate surveillance. GCHQ supposedly operates under UK law and needs warrants to search their huge databases and operates under the oversight of elected representatives. While that's unacceptable it's more regulated than the chaos of corporate data misuse.
- emiliobumachar 12y ago
  I'm much more worried about governments because of the potential synergy of mass surveillance with their other powers.
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  GCHQ routinely violates law and lies to its oversight committee, MPs, ministers and Parliament about it. Please do not hold them up as a paragon. Even after Snowden, ministers are not even aware of what JTRIG is, and GCHQ will not comment on intelligence matters even to them. They are a prime example of an agency gone rogue, and their efforts for mass surveillance and against encryption are not a new thing - ask Brian Gladman.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Do you have any examples of the routine viation of law or lies ro oversight committees? Which laws do you think GCHQ have broken? Normally when I ask people this they mention things like RIPA, but fail to notice the excemptions in RIPA for a bunch of GCHQ activity. Here's what IOCCO say: http://www.iocco-uk.info/ http://www.iocco-uk.info/
- growse 12y ago
  Because mass surveillance by a group that can use violence and deprivation of liberty to enforce its will is a lot scarier than mass surveillance by a group who can't. Its not that people accept one and not the other, its that one is much more serious, and is impossible to opt out of.
  - 12y ago