4 ms·

I just read the actual report: http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chil

I just read the actual report: http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-... Sorry, but I'm not seeing the big deal here. There's surveillance in the U.S. and U.K., true, and it has to stop or be severely curtailed, but these countries are a far cry from a place like China, where people actually are arrested for violating strict censorship laws. The NSA's mass surveillance has been brought to light by a former contractor; the secret is blown, the cat's out of the bag, and Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall already. Americans have a newfound, healthy distrust of the federal government. There are lawsuits pending. Tech companies are already creating work-arounds, for example Apple's announcement of encryption for their users' devices that even they can't break. I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst who got fired). As for self-censorship, can anyone document how widespread that actually is? Today we are witnessing the most diverse array of opinions disseminated to billions of readers that has ever occurred in the history of the human race. These writers in this PEN survey sound timid and fearful to me. I wonder what they would say, had they had a chance to compare the current situation with that of eastern Europe and Russia during the Soviet period, or the military dictatorships of Latin America, where outspoken writers were rounded up and tortured. I'm not trying to belittle the surveillance problem that we have; I'm adamantly against it and it does indeed threaten our long term freedom. I'm voting against anyone who supports NSA surveillance. Unfortunately, it's going to take some time for the import of this situation to sink in to the dim consciousness of the American voter. I wish that the writers surveyed by PEN would lead the charge to raise people's awareness of the situation by writing bold essays and opinion pieces to state their views, rather than "self-censoring" as they apparently are doing in order to avoid what they imagine to be retribution or harassment from nefarious government entities.

xnull1guest 12y ago
However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions. Messages critical of the government and vocal of discontent are entirely allowed and not subject to censorship. Even group forming messages that support the government are censored. See this study done at Harvard for details: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf With regards to the freedom to protest, the US government has its own mechanisms to unfurl public group action. Apple still cooperates with law enforcement and can give access to almost all data which you might 'infer' from reports are protected. Please find details from Apple's report here: https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2... Also remember the removal of Apple's Warranty Canary. It's also interesting to note that were Secure Enclave manufacturers compromised or to collaborate with law enforcement (giving access to UUIDs mapped to each device) the whole scheme is caput. I am wondering if you can provide a quick primer on who you've not voted for and will not be voting for that supports surveillance.
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  Thanks for an interesting post. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the few prominent Republicans who opposes NSA surveillance; Marco Rubio of Florida supports it. The Democrats of the Senate recently voted for Obama's reforms of the NSA surveillance, and the Republicans mostly opposed it and blocked passage. I believe, however, that some of the more libertarian minded Republicans like Rand Paul voted against the bill not because they support the NSA, but because they felt the bill didn't go far enough to rein it in and would have created a false calm. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-oppose-nsa-phone-records-measure/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-... It's perplexing and frustrating to me, as a fiscal conservative who normally prefers the Republicans (albeit opposed to many of their social policies). I stopped subscribing to the conservative publications Commentary and WSJ because of their pro-NSA stance.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Thank you for replying with your list. I lean away from Cruz myself (not offering a strong enough dissent, a la Rand) but I did find it pleasant to see his SD-226 questioning of the Review Panel. I would note that I also am frustrated in my attempts to find a party and candidates I feel represent me. I wanted to reply to > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst who got fired). First I was wondering if you had a reference for the analyst that got fired. I hadn't heard that particular instance of (attempted?) abuse. Second I wanted to update the document regarding Apple. Here is their Legal Process Guidelines: http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guideline... Third I wanted to share that encrypted communications will not prevent disclosure of customer records pursuant of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication) and a constellation of other laws that require providers of communication, even when encryption is provided by them, to disclose those communications upon request: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 You will see a strong history of this with encryption laws with telecommunications providers and the Clinton Administration first attempt at using key escrow rather than regulatory measures (and in fact we have seen that telephony data is easy for the government to request).
orthecreedence 12y ago
> but these countries are a far cry from a place like China, where people actually are arrested for violating strict censorship laws. The argument is that we're headed in that direction, so let's turn the ship around before we get there. > The NSA's mass surveillance has been brought to light by a former contractor; the secret is blown, the cat's out of the bag, and Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall already. Yet, more people bitched and whined about whether it was legal to blow the whistle rather than the message itself. Snowden pointed, and everyone looked at his finger. > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors Impossible. Email providers cannot ensure this level of safety, only end-users themselves using tools like PGP, which is unfortunately still a mystery to many people. The sad truth is that end-to-end encryption requires know-how and a bit of effort (even if just a little). Most people don't care enough, or are just confused by it. Hell, I'm an experienced programmer and still have to look up "best practices" guides from time to time. Your average Joe Schmoe isn't going to do it, and nobody else can do it for them. > Unfortunately, it's going to take some time for the import of this situation to sink in to the dim consciousness of the American voter. Agreed, like I said, most people we're more distracted by the reveal itself than the actual information revealed. I was dumbfounded how easily the citizens of my country were led astray, and even more who swallowed the "terrorism" excuse. Pathetic. So I guess my point is that this is a bigger deal that you're making it out to be. Yeah, it's worse in China, but we're going to BE China soon if we don't stop multinational corporations from raping us over a barrel and controlling every aspect of our government. After all, what good is free speech if it stands in the way of progress?
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  To your point about email, wouldn't it be easy enough to install a browser add-on that handles the end-user PGP for you? Even people who don't understand all this encryption stuff could do it. "For safer surfing, install the SafeSurf extension and then no one can spy on what you write!" I suspect that eventually, and to the chagrin of the spies, most of us will have this type of extension installed, and share public keys with our correspondents or whatever. Then the next big market will be databases of public keys, but luckily those can be altered easily enough. In fact, make the extension automatically prompt you for a new one every 4 weeks.

xnull1guest 12y ago

However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions. Messages critical of the government and vocal of discontent are entirely allowed and not subject to censorship. Even group forming messages that support the government are censored. See this study done at Harvard for details: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf With regards to the freedom to protest, the US government has its own mechanisms to unfurl public group action. Apple still cooperates with law enforcement and can give access to almost all data which you might 'infer' from reports are protected. Please find details from Apple's report here: https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2... Also remember the removal of Apple's Warranty Canary. It's also interesting to note that were Secure Enclave manufacturers compromised or to collaborate with law enforcement (giving access to UUIDs mapped to each device) the whole scheme is caput. I am wondering if you can provide a quick primer on who you've not voted for and will not be voting for that supports surveillance.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
Thanks for an interesting post. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the few prominent Republicans who opposes NSA surveillance; Marco Rubio of Florida supports it. The Democrats of the Senate recently voted for Obama's reforms of the NSA surveillance, and the Republicans mostly opposed it and blocked passage. I believe, however, that some of the more libertarian minded Republicans like Rand Paul voted against the bill not because they support the NSA, but because they felt the bill didn't go far enough to rein it in and would have created a false calm. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-oppose-nsa-phone-records-measure/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-... It's perplexing and frustrating to me, as a fiscal conservative who normally prefers the Republicans (albeit opposed to many of their social policies). I stopped subscribing to the conservative publications Commentary and WSJ because of their pro-NSA stance.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Thank you for replying with your list. I lean away from Cruz myself (not offering a strong enough dissent, a la Rand) but I did find it pleasant to see his SD-226 questioning of the Review Panel. I would note that I also am frustrated in my attempts to find a party and candidates I feel represent me. I wanted to reply to > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst who got fired). First I was wondering if you had a reference for the analyst that got fired. I hadn't heard that particular instance of (attempted?) abuse. Second I wanted to update the document regarding Apple. Here is their Legal Process Guidelines: http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guideline... Third I wanted to share that encrypted communications will not prevent disclosure of customer records pursuant of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication) and a constellation of other laws that require providers of communication, even when encryption is provided by them, to disclose those communications upon request: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 You will see a strong history of this with encryption laws with telecommunications providers and the Clinton Administration first attempt at using key escrow rather than regulatory measures (and in fact we have seen that telephony data is easy for the government to request).

orthecreedence 12y ago

> but these countries are a far cry from a place like China, where people actually are arrested for violating strict censorship laws. The argument is that we're headed in that direction, so let's turn the ship around before we get there. > The NSA's mass surveillance has been brought to light by a former contractor; the secret is blown, the cat's out of the bag, and Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall already. Yet, more people bitched and whined about whether it was legal to blow the whistle rather than the message itself. Snowden pointed, and everyone looked at his finger. > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors Impossible. Email providers cannot ensure this level of safety, only end-users themselves using tools like PGP, which is unfortunately still a mystery to many people. The sad truth is that end-to-end encryption requires know-how and a bit of effort (even if just a little). Most people don't care enough, or are just confused by it. Hell, I'm an experienced programmer and still have to look up "best practices" guides from time to time. Your average Joe Schmoe isn't going to do it, and nobody else can do it for them. > Unfortunately, it's going to take some time for the import of this situation to sink in to the dim consciousness of the American voter. Agreed, like I said, most people we're more distracted by the reveal itself than the actual information revealed. I was dumbfounded how easily the citizens of my country were led astray, and even more who swallowed the "terrorism" excuse. Pathetic. So I guess my point is that this is a bigger deal that you're making it out to be. Yeah, it's worse in China, but we're going to BE China soon if we don't stop multinational corporations from raping us over a barrel and controlling every aspect of our government. After all, what good is free speech if it stands in the way of progress?

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
To your point about email, wouldn't it be easy enough to install a browser add-on that handles the end-user PGP for you? Even people who don't understand all this encryption stuff could do it. "For safer surfing, install the SafeSurf extension and then no one can spy on what you write!" I suspect that eventually, and to the chagrin of the spies, most of us will have this type of extension installed, and share public keys with our correspondents or whatever. Then the next big market will be databases of public keys, but luckily those can be altered easily enough. In fact, make the extension automatically prompt you for a new one every 4 weeks.