5 ms·

So that's it - the net legislative effect of all the "bombshell" disclosures that Ed Snowden made has been what - Nothing, NADA, Zilch. Proving once again that

So that's it - the net legislative effect of all the "bombshell" disclosures that Ed Snowden made has been what - Nothing, NADA, Zilch. Proving once again that going thru "Official" Channels was never an option. That in the toxic hyper-partisan environment of Washington the Powerful will find a way to kill any meaningful reform of even the worst abuses. The solution to this has to be first and foremost Technological.

pXMzR2A 12y ago
A little bit familiarity with the US ways of congress tells me that this comment is most probably right about this and that the voters need to be categorized qualitatively ("Why did you vote against?) rather than quantitatively ("Did you vote against?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8627770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8627770
vitno 12y ago
saying that it is "Technological" is merely dodging what you are actually doing is a technology based form of rebellion. It is the statement that the government is not correct, and that the people can organize and do better. I very much agree, but keep that in mind.
andrewfong 12y ago
First, a single political defeat is not the end-all-be-all here. Politics may move slowly, but it does move (e.g. the political status of a black lesbian is undoubtedly better today than it was 50 years ago). Second, technology and political are not an either/or proposition (or even a primary/secondary proposition). IMHO, it's something like: Privacy = Technology * Politics. Simply stressing one will give you (relative) diminishing returns if you don't push the other as well. Good encryption can make it difficult for the NSA to conduct widespread online surveillance, but given (a) the difficulty of getting crypto right, (b) the sheer number of organizations with the ability to (intentionally or unintentionally) compromise security for a large number of users, and (c) the relatively low impact privacy and security have on purchasing decisions for many (if not most) people, it's something like the size of the NSA's budget (a political question) that will ultimately determine whether mass surveillance is prohibitively expensive or merely inconvenient.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - pault 12y ago
    I just wanted to chime in and say that I had always avoided infosec as "too hard" (I'm primarily a UI guy), but the Snowden leaks have made me a lot more conscious of my digital footprint and security in general. I even spent several months on khan academy learning the requisite maths to understand the stanford crypto 101 class on coursera (awesome course by the way!). Of course I'm far from journeyman status but I believe there are many more like me whose awareness of the issue was significantly raised by the leaks. Even if no political changes come about as a result, that's a huge aggregate effect that will only increase over the next years/decades.
    - patronagezero 12y ago
      I think it's a bit odd so many hackers view technology as even a possibility to their saving grace in this struggle. Were hackers the ones largely supporting actionable development efforts of Tor? Do they continue to? How many people do you know that use Tor for casual internet browsing vs spending more time on Facebook? Take a look at your paycheck, expenses, taxes, and then contributions to technological solutions by-the-people, for-the-people. How many of you work at $job doing data-analysis for marketing schemes verses something useful to society. After all of that, then do some rough statistics on programmers that contribute to meaningful projects regarding cryptography (properly implemented, not talking about crap like 'secret') and freenet-type ideas. How many of us are going to quit our jobs to focus on this problem, how many of us could if we wanted to. Stop kidding yourselves, we're all literally paying for the work of evil-doers to subvert long extinguished ideas of privacy. Either adapt to survive or resist in a meaningful way, stop diluting yourselves with ideas of grandeur. Tech people are nothing more than glorified marketers by-and-large. We handed the reigns of technology to those with capital, and the results are sickening. RMS was and will always be correct. The rest of you live in a vacuum fortified by paychecks and social support.
      - 12y ago
wdr1 12y ago
It's far from zilch, but year, I agree this is very frustrating.
3327 12y ago
Honestly, I'll start by saying I am a democrat so before the full flak of the HN community peppers me. Rule contraction at times of relative piece and expansion at times of duress are never effective. Expanding surveillance after 9/11 with sweeping judicial reforms and due process, and vice versa (in today's case) contracting or attempting to contract is also not a good idea. Yes there are many problems, but think of it from a impact and policy perspective. What happens after if there is a terrorist event? Then do we expand again because perhaps someone yells out "not enough oversight or data?". Although many here are PRO reform, the pattern contraction/expansion is not the way to go about national security policy.
- ericcumbee 12y ago
  For what it's worth I am Republican (or a Republican Affiliated Libertarian might be a more apt description) I am active in the local GOP and sit on the county party executive committee. The serpentine flow of the amount of power given to the executive branch or government in general is nothing new. There was an overstep with the patriot act, and according to Rep. Sensenbrenner (the author of patriot act) the executive branch under Bush and Obama exceeded the authority of the patriot act. I think ultimately these types of powers need a congressional kill switch. Much like under the war powers act. The Congress through a concurrent resolution can remove the executive's authority under these acts.
  - bobsil1 12y ago
    Congress is a client of mass spying. It will not rein it in in any meaningful way.
- ibejoeb 12y ago
  I'm not peppering you because your political leanings, but because I have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that there is never a good time to change our current state of mass surveillance. What pattern of expansion and contraction are you talking about? I know the expansion part, but I certainly don't know what the last contraction was. What due process are you talking about? These policies were effected unilaterally, in secret. What is a good way "to go about national security policy" if not by working within the legislative framework? Are you saying that there is no legislative solution? What if there is a terrorist event now? How much more data can we collect? My position is that it is never too early to examine the effects--the consequences--of any legislation. This particular incident has lingered secretly for well over a decade, and that is oppressive. Regardless of wordsmithing and mental gymnastics, these programs are clearly out of line with the spirit of American civil liberties and need to be checked.
higherpurpose 12y ago
It's okay. Now we all have a reason to recommend others against using American products. If the Washington leaders "don't want to" make a reform, let's force them to do it.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  The vast majority of people don't care, though. We saw this in the latest election. Surveillance wasn't a central issue for most candidates, and the electorate was OK with that.
  - bobsil1 12y ago
    Just need a telegenic "privacy rape" case, which is inevitable.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Pretending that the entire West is not working together on intel only helps guarantee US dominance.
  - olifante 12y ago
    No, the entire West is not working together on intel. Most Western countries are not part of the 5-eyes agreement. Of course most states secretly have no qualms about violating the privacy of their citizens, but this should in no way distract us from the fact that UKUS capabilities far exceed those of anyone else.
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      Five Eyes is not the only agreement, and the UKUS capabilities are not far in excess of the others. Nearly all European nations did/do have agreements with the NSA and other intelligence organizations to share data on both their own citizens and foreigners. For example, the NSA categorized Germany's BND as a Tier 2 partner.
senateandnsa 12y ago
The worst thing is: This was only about mass surveillance conducted over phones. If this "analog tip of the iceberg" already fails, how can they ever be stopped politically regarding mass surveillance conducted by simply tapping all Internet traffic (as was shown they do)?
etha 12y ago
Actually, the lesson is that people don't WANT a "solution".
RexRollman 12y ago
The apathy and cowardice of the American people allows this to continue.
dreamweapon 12y ago
No. It means they're scared and are circling the wagons. And that rather than dropping the fight, we need to keep pushing even harder.
adultSwim 12y ago
No. The solution to this has to be first and foremost Activism. Just look at how the civil rights movement made progress. It certainly wasn't just by writing polite letters to their representatives...

pXMzR2A 12y ago

A little bit familiarity with the US ways of congress tells me that this comment is most probably right about this and that the voters need to be categorized qualitatively ("Why did you vote against?) rather than quantitatively ("Did you vote against?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8627770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8627770

vitno 12y ago

saying that it is "Technological" is merely dodging what you are actually doing is a technology based form of rebellion. It is the statement that the government is not correct, and that the people can organize and do better. I very much agree, but keep that in mind.

andrewfong 12y ago

First, a single political defeat is not the end-all-be-all here. Politics may move slowly, but it does move (e.g. the political status of a black lesbian is undoubtedly better today than it was 50 years ago). Second, technology and political are not an either/or proposition (or even a primary/secondary proposition). IMHO, it's something like: Privacy = Technology * Politics. Simply stressing one will give you (relative) diminishing returns if you don't push the other as well. Good encryption can make it difficult for the NSA to conduct widespread online surveillance, but given (a) the difficulty of getting crypto right, (b) the sheer number of organizations with the ability to (intentionally or unintentionally) compromise security for a large number of users, and (c) the relatively low impact privacy and security have on purchasing decisions for many (if not most) people, it's something like the size of the NSA's budget (a political question) that will ultimately determine whether mass surveillance is prohibitively expensive or merely inconvenient.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- pault 12y ago
  I just wanted to chime in and say that I had always avoided infosec as "too hard" (I'm primarily a UI guy), but the Snowden leaks have made me a lot more conscious of my digital footprint and security in general. I even spent several months on khan academy learning the requisite maths to understand the stanford crypto 101 class on coursera (awesome course by the way!). Of course I'm far from journeyman status but I believe there are many more like me whose awareness of the issue was significantly raised by the leaks. Even if no political changes come about as a result, that's a huge aggregate effect that will only increase over the next years/decades.
  - patronagezero 12y ago
    I think it's a bit odd so many hackers view technology as even a possibility to their saving grace in this struggle. Were hackers the ones largely supporting actionable development efforts of Tor? Do they continue to? How many people do you know that use Tor for casual internet browsing vs spending more time on Facebook? Take a look at your paycheck, expenses, taxes, and then contributions to technological solutions by-the-people, for-the-people. How many of you work at $job doing data-analysis for marketing schemes verses something useful to society. After all of that, then do some rough statistics on programmers that contribute to meaningful projects regarding cryptography (properly implemented, not talking about crap like 'secret') and freenet-type ideas. How many of us are going to quit our jobs to focus on this problem, how many of us could if we wanted to. Stop kidding yourselves, we're all literally paying for the work of evil-doers to subvert long extinguished ideas of privacy. Either adapt to survive or resist in a meaningful way, stop diluting yourselves with ideas of grandeur. Tech people are nothing more than glorified marketers by-and-large. We handed the reigns of technology to those with capital, and the results are sickening. RMS was and will always be correct. The rest of you live in a vacuum fortified by paychecks and social support.
    - 12y ago

wdr1 12y ago

It's far from zilch, but year, I agree this is very frustrating.

3327 12y ago

Honestly, I'll start by saying I am a democrat so before the full flak of the HN community peppers me. Rule contraction at times of relative piece and expansion at times of duress are never effective. Expanding surveillance after 9/11 with sweeping judicial reforms and due process, and vice versa (in today's case) contracting or attempting to contract is also not a good idea. Yes there are many problems, but think of it from a impact and policy perspective. What happens after if there is a terrorist event? Then do we expand again because perhaps someone yells out "not enough oversight or data?". Although many here are PRO reform, the pattern contraction/expansion is not the way to go about national security policy.

ericcumbee 12y ago
For what it's worth I am Republican (or a Republican Affiliated Libertarian might be a more apt description) I am active in the local GOP and sit on the county party executive committee. The serpentine flow of the amount of power given to the executive branch or government in general is nothing new. There was an overstep with the patriot act, and according to Rep. Sensenbrenner (the author of patriot act) the executive branch under Bush and Obama exceeded the authority of the patriot act. I think ultimately these types of powers need a congressional kill switch. Much like under the war powers act. The Congress through a concurrent resolution can remove the executive's authority under these acts.
- bobsil1 12y ago
  Congress is a client of mass spying. It will not rein it in in any meaningful way.
ibejoeb 12y ago
I'm not peppering you because your political leanings, but because I have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that there is never a good time to change our current state of mass surveillance. What pattern of expansion and contraction are you talking about? I know the expansion part, but I certainly don't know what the last contraction was. What due process are you talking about? These policies were effected unilaterally, in secret. What is a good way "to go about national security policy" if not by working within the legislative framework? Are you saying that there is no legislative solution? What if there is a terrorist event now? How much more data can we collect? My position is that it is never too early to examine the effects--the consequences--of any legislation. This particular incident has lingered secretly for well over a decade, and that is oppressive. Regardless of wordsmithing and mental gymnastics, these programs are clearly out of line with the spirit of American civil liberties and need to be checked.

higherpurpose 12y ago

It's okay. Now we all have a reason to recommend others against using American products. If the Washington leaders "don't want to" make a reform, let's force them to do it.

enraged_camel 12y ago
The vast majority of people don't care, though. We saw this in the latest election. Surveillance wasn't a central issue for most candidates, and the electorate was OK with that.
- bobsil1 12y ago
  Just need a telegenic "privacy rape" case, which is inevitable.
happyscrappy 12y ago
Pretending that the entire West is not working together on intel only helps guarantee US dominance.
- olifante 12y ago
  No, the entire West is not working together on intel. Most Western countries are not part of the 5-eyes agreement. Of course most states secretly have no qualms about violating the privacy of their citizens, but this should in no way distract us from the fact that UKUS capabilities far exceed those of anyone else.
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    Five Eyes is not the only agreement, and the UKUS capabilities are not far in excess of the others. Nearly all European nations did/do have agreements with the NSA and other intelligence organizations to share data on both their own citizens and foreigners. For example, the NSA categorized Germany's BND as a Tier 2 partner.

senateandnsa 12y ago

The worst thing is: This was only about mass surveillance conducted over phones. If this "analog tip of the iceberg" already fails, how can they ever be stopped politically regarding mass surveillance conducted by simply tapping all Internet traffic (as was shown they do)?

etha 12y ago

Actually, the lesson is that people don't WANT a "solution".

RexRollman 12y ago

The apathy and cowardice of the American people allows this to continue.

dreamweapon 12y ago

No. It means they're scared and are circling the wagons. And that rather than dropping the fight, we need to keep pushing even harder.

adultSwim 12y ago

No. The solution to this has to be first and foremost Activism. Just look at how the civil rights movement made progress. It certainly wasn't just by writing polite letters to their representatives...