26 ms·

Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA

585 points by davidgerard 12y ago

newman8r 12y ago
wish I had more time to search for it right now, but is there a link where people can donate specifically for this cause? (if not a general donation will have to suffice) please post if so
- davidgerard 12y ago
  Not that I know of. But I do know that charities find tied donations a goddamn PITA - if you trust someone to do good work, just giving them the money for the general pool is the right thing in almost all cases. But they do love to know what inspired a particular donation. So I would suggest dropping a few bucks to the ACLU and WMF's general contribution addresses, but including a note that this is why :-)
  - newman8r 12y ago
    that does seem like a hassle - general fund makes sense
- kenrick95 12y ago
  You can donate to WMF via http://donate.wikimedia.org/ http://donate.wikimedia.org/ [general donation]
devnonymous 12y ago
I miss groklaw. I wish PJ comes back online. That'll help us, the non-lawyers, especially outside the US, make sense of this lawsuit (besides others).
- davidgerard 12y ago
  PJ stopped doing Groklaw out of disgust that the law was so deeply disrespected by the government. Perhaps when Snowden is elected President.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    I miss Groklaw dearly but also understood there was a little more than disgust in play.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    It wasn't simply a matter of disrespectful law, but of the risks posed to both her and her informants. PJ also refused on principle (AFAIU) to use PGP or other encryption on the basis that those made her (and her informants) more likely to be surveilled. I don't agree with her reasoning on this point. Still, it's a tremendous loss.
nullc 12y ago
“If you don’t like people looking why not try putting on some pants?”, my response on the Wikimedia Blog: http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/2yjda6/wikimedia_v_nsa_wikimedia_foundation_files_suit/cpa4627 http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/2yjda6/wikimedia_... (cross-posted to reddit because I could provide links there)
- davidgerard 12y ago
  SSL in the casual case relies on all CAs being uncompromised. I understand this is not the case. In any case, both technical and legal approaches are appropriate. And you know as well as I do that everyone at WMF desperately wants SSL for everything, and that this is a thing they are specifically working toward (but it turns out to be a bit more complicated than just switching everyone to SSL) - there is no way in which the legal approach precludes the technical approach. I mean, you're right, this has been a problem for ages and you personally yelled really loudly and quite appropriately at them for it, and I really wish WMF had moved forward sooner. But if yesterday was the best day to act, then today is the next-best day.
  - nullc 12y ago
    > SSL in the casual case relies on all CAs being uncompromised. Not really, -- it pushes the monitoring into active interception, which is much more costly (and thus does not work as well to hoover up everyone's data) and it is incredibly risky because it is detectable and if detected leaves cryptographic proof of the attack (and which CA was compromised or complicit with it.) I'm all for other tools as well, which can provide protections that SSL cannot; but shuffling all the readers through Tor isn't practical today while HTTPS _is_ (as demonstrated by most of the other large web properties) and provides pretty decent protection against pervasive surveillance. > In any case, both technical and legal approaches are appropriate. Sure. I wanted to litigate about this in the past as well. But I am concerned that the complete failure to take the issue seriously historically weakens the claim of damages here. > And you know as well as I do that everyone at WMF desperately wants SSL for everything I don't know what to believe on that front anymore. There is a simple clear metric for "want" in an institution, whats the funding level? This project has not been raised to a level of importance where its receiving line item disclosed funding, as far as I can tell. There was a plan for deployment in 2013 which hasn't been completed, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia... ... and in the time since then Wikimedia has received another hundred million in funding from the public-- with fundraising running something like 17% ahead of expenditures. > but it turns out to be a bit more complicated Yes, it's complicated. Don't forget that I contributed to making it possible too. I'm not waxing away the technical details. > But if yesterday was the best day to act, then today is the next-best day. Similar things were said when I raised a similar complaint when Wikimedia posted denying providing any assistance to prism in 2013. (A position that I consider to be a lie by omission) Continuing to deny that there is a problem here will not result in the problem being resolved.
htor 12y ago
This is great news. We need more powerful voices like these to really be heard. Remember Wikipedia's blackout against SOPA!
scrrr 12y ago
I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago, and there's just no way it will simply stop. All we can do is decide how we handle it personally and whom we trust to keep our data safe. And if we really need to create certain kinds of data in the first place (with many kinds we have no choice).
- chippy 12y ago
  I think there are parallels both in times and geography. In the west - Cold War / 60's Red Witch-hunts and in the east at roughly the same time - East Germany, KGB etc. Different technologies, but the actions changed and were addressed via politics mainly. Technologies might be here to stay, but we shouldn't expect that the way we use them as societies stay the same.
- michaelt 12y ago
  they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it It's true that even if the NSA stopped tapping undersea cables, that wouldn't stop China doing it. But there are plenty of other things they could do. Instead of weakening encryption standards, they could work to strengthen them. Instead of trying to get software vendors to install backdoors, they could get them to use deterministic builds with release checksum transparency. Instead of developing hardware backdoors, they could develop inspection systems to find them.
  - snarfy 12y ago
    Strengthening encryption standards strengthens the enemy too, at least this seems to be how they think.
    - rapind 12y ago
      What enemy is that? Would it really be that horrible if everyone had access to strong encryption regardless of their beliefs. With sufficient know-how and sophistication you can keep your messages private anyways no? If that's the case, then isn't it really just the average joe using off the shelf tech that's screwed? Edit: That sounded combative, but it wasn't meant to be.
brohoolio 12y ago
The NSA is here to stay because who can remove their power without being removed from office? They have all communication.
lgp171188 12y ago
Almost all of our communication protocols and technologies are built on trust on those who run various services. So as long as that is the case, imho there is no way to stop surveillance. It would be great to start from scratch and build things without the expectation of any trustability from anyone, but I don't see that happening ever! Sad to see that the people elected by other people like us to do good for all the people tend to do everything other than that.
- htor 12y ago
  It is a fact that the internet - designed to be de-centralised - is becoming more and more centralised, evolving around service providers. > Almost all of our communication protocols and technologies are built on trust on those who run various services. That is why we need to build and use de-centralized systems like Bitcoin, Tor and physical mesh networks to share and communicate. These evolve around people, not service providers. Of course, there's a huge difference between trusting people and trusting corporations. > It would be great to start from scratch and build things without the expectation of any trustability from anyone, but I don't see that happening ever! Too bad that you're not too bright about the future. A lot of people are working on fixing it. Maybe these links will inspire you to think about it differently? https://bitcoin.org/en/ https://bitcoin.org/en/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking https://ssd.eff.org https://ssd.eff.org
  - lgp171188 12y ago
    > Too bad that you're not too bright about the future. A lot of people are working on fixing it. Maybe these links will inspire you to think about it differently? I have come across these things that you have pointed out and yes they are steps in the right direction. But if you ask me if any of those will become the mainstream de-facto thing that everyone will use some time in the future? Based on the evidence available at the moment, I would still stick to what I said and maintain that it is highly unlikely given the current state of affairs. Yes, I would be very glad to be proven wrong but not enough atm to feel optimism. :)
chippy 12y ago
I have some sympathy for our fellow hackers who work as contractors or in big companies, many of them with security clearance. Database engineers, software developers, data experts - the five eyes intelligence agencies directly and indirectly fund many of you readers of HN. They might be becoming increasingly disillusioned with their chosen life and/or unable to change course. Perhaps the money is too good, perhaps their contracts too restrictive. They might have inside knowledge and believe that the NSA is in the right, but they would not be able to voice that belief to us, their friends and colleagues. Unable or unwilling to change course if they believe their country is in the wrong and unable or unwilling to speak up in defence if they think it is in the right. I'd certainly like to talk (in private) to those I knew who at the start of the Snowden affair openly said that he was a traitor and hear what they now think.
- Sven7 12y ago
  Their opinions are bought and paid for. At current rates its 75 Billion dollars a year.
  - cjslep 12y ago
    If you would like to put words in my mouth, please at least put the right ones in there for me. Otherwise, I'll take that $75 billion you are referring to and let you say whatever you want on my behalf. In all seriousness, you can support the Federal Government and still have constructive debates. EDIT: My point is no person is getting $75 billion just to shut up and have their opinion swayed. Being loyal to the Federal Government does not bar you from using its processes to improve its processes.
    - Sven7 12y ago
      Good luck. That $75 Billion is only going up. It stops when we can't afford it. Until then everyone can keep debating all they want. This script has already played out in the sphere of Nuclear Disarmament. The day I take the defense and intelligence communities opinions seriously is the day they drastically change their goalposts. Spend the same amounts on world peace or just take the cash and prey on people's fear of the next ISIS or Boston bomber. Everybody knows what the easy choice is.
fragmede 12y ago
The EFF is surprisingly absent from this coalition. The other organizations listed as participating are: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America. From: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_note-2 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_...
- daddykotex 12y ago
  I wonder why they are not part of it? Maybe they are prepping to do something on their own. I'd like to see the NSA under fire from many opponents rather than just one.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    > Maybe they are prepping to do something on their own. As listed above, it's probably because they're already in the middle of their own[0] (assuming that they will appeal, which I'd imagine is almost certain assuming they can fund it). The EFF has been fighting this battle long before the Snowden revelations, so it's certainly not for lack of interest that they're not a claimant in the Wikimedia case. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen...
- diafygi 12y ago
  I'm guessing because they just got shot down on a similar challenge, which they will likely be appealing. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen...
Dorian-Marie 12y ago
The solution should be technical: You don't want to NSA to read your communications: encrypt them (eg: HTTPS everywhere, encryption built-in everywhere). And that's us, builders of technologies, that need to make that happen. Basically securing against the NSA is the same as securing against hackers, it should be treated as a security threat like any other.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  There is no reason not to take the legal approach as well. Technologies take effect inside a society.
- sitic 12y ago
  The technical solution can not solve all problems, wikimedia plans to activate HTTPS per default for all users: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/ http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-... One of the problems is that certain countries block HTTPS (e.g. China), should wikimedia effectively block all chinese users from free knowledge that wikimedia aims to provide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
  - Dorian-Marie 12y ago
    Thanks for the link, very interesting that it's a technical limitation for them to not enable HTTPS. About china, maybe only the IPs from china can use HTTP, maybe only zh.wikipedia.org can use HTTP, ... I think legal solutions are just temporary fixes, technical ones fix the root of the problem in a more generic way.
- 7952 12y ago
  I agree that we need encyption everywhere, although I think the current apporoach of implementing it in client software is not fit for purpose. You constantly see apps making mistakes in how they implement encryption that leave the user vulnerable. Because the data is encypted it is very difficult to validate and moniter.
- 12y ago
tokenadult 12y ago
I am a Wikipedian, a contributor of free content to Wikipedia. (I contribute in Chinese, in German, and in some other languages too.) I read the Wikimedia Foundation blog kindly submitted here by an early Wikipedian and read all the comments here posted before mine before writing this reply. In the last two weeks, I've renewed acquaintance with quite a few local Wikipedians at two Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons that occurred in my town. I see the Wikimedia Foundation has a rationale for its suit based partly on United States law. It writes, "Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world." Because I edit Wikipedia in languages other than English, crucially including Chinese, I am painfully aware that there are a lot of restrictions of the rights of users of Wikipedia all over the world, evidently some of them not within the reach of the United States legal system. There seems to be no prospect, for example, of the Wikimedia Foundation suing the Russian or Chinese central governments (not even to mention north Korea's regime or the ISIS self-styled regime) to protect the rights of users of Wikipedia. That's too bad. If the NSA surveillance programs ceased later today, there would still be a lot of places around the world where Wikipedia would be inaccessible or Wikipedia users would be harassed by agents of other governments.
- jsnathan 12y ago
  Precedent is a powerful thing. I wouldn't give up hope yet, for the anti-surveillance movement.
- chopin 12y ago
  In German law, there is the principle of "Es gibt keine Gleichheit im Unrecht" which means that it is not admissable to break the law if some other person does it. The land of the free should be ashamed of its mass surveillance no matter what. Even if Russia and China and whatnot continue to do it. And, the USA has much more grip on critical internet infrastructure. Therefore it makes a difference if they care.
- joelhaus 12y ago
  Well put. Another comment ITT[0] also pointed out the global surveillance arms race and the futility of pressuring the US to unilaterally disarm. This is particularly true in light of the many legitimate global threats to freedom mentioned in your comment. Knowing how unpopular this opinion is here, I still feel the need to share... Lawsuits like these strike me as either incredibly naive or a cynical public relations stunt. I don't enjoy my donations supporting either kind of effort and unfortunately, will likely cease future contributions. The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. If there was a single change to the NSA that I could advocate, it would be stronger and harsher mandatory minimums for anyone found in violation of the existing prohibitions on domestic surveillance. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073
SloopJon 12y ago
As people become increasingly inured to the trickle of revelations, I do think that lawsuits are important. If Wikimedia doesn't have anything more than a logo on a slide, however, this will be tossed for lack of standing, like several cases before it.
- sitkack 12y ago
  I have a new idea for government lawyers, if anyone _does_ show lack of standing, claim that the evidence of harm is a state secret, try and jail them for spying before hearing the case, claim they must serve the first sentence before it will hear the original case. My argument has many parallels with existing statements by the Supreme Court that lawyers representing terror suspects could they themselves be tried under the 'material support' law for simply filing paperwork with the state to clear their client.
kerkeslager 12y ago
This is an important lawsuit which will cost a lot of money. I urge you to donate: Wikimedia: http://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give http://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give
motbob 12y ago
Despite what they say in the article, I really don't think they have standing. But I would love to hear why they do from someone familiar with the legal argument.
- unreal37 12y ago
  I thought that too at first. But the NYT op-ed does a better job of explaining.[1] Basically, they think that the NSA has the ability to index anonymous readers with pages visited, and anonymous editors with pages changed. Then if the NSA is sending that data to a bunch of governments around the word (Egypt, Israel, the Five Eyes, whoever else), dissidents around the world are at risk of being caught for browsing/editing Wikipedia for the crime of being opposed to the government in power. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wik...
  - motbob 12y ago
    I see. I thought it might be impossible for any U.S. entity to ever get standing in a lawsuit against the NSA, but this theory might have a fair shot.
  - flyryan 12y ago
    "Then if the NSA" That's a big IF and one that will be almost impossible to prove. I don't see how the case holds any merit if they can't prove this happens.
    - unreal37 12y ago
      Seems like a hard battle for sure.
AdmiralAsshat 12y ago
Wikimedia's evidence that it was targeted was due to a leaked slide. What's going to stop the court from dismissing that key piece of evidence due to it being a "state secret"/"matter of national security" that was not meant to be publicly disclosed?
cryoshon 12y ago
Bravo. They've earned my donation this year. I hope that more organizations come forward with similar suits so that we can get back on the right path.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Is no one targeting the 12333 Executive Order? Isn't that the one that causes the most mass spying abuses. It's great to see the FISA "warrants" targeted as well, as most just seem to look at the Patrio Act's 215 section, but I think they should look at the 12333 EO, too.
snowwrestler 12y ago
I'll be interested to see how the rulings on standing go. That seems like the crux of the matter to me, because the issue is not just "was your name mentioned," but also "were you harmed?" 4th Amendment cases are usually litigated in the context of a criminal appeal; obviously a defendant is facing real jeopardy in a prosecution, and therefore has standing. Civil lawsuits exist to make plaintiffs whole after suffering a harm. But the court might find that being surveilled, alone and by itself, is not harm. The court could say that nothing has been removed, destroyed, prevented, or altered in Wikimedia's servers, so they have no harm to make whole. The court could say that merely copying data does no harm to the original data creator or holder. (This argument might sound familiar here on HN, as it is sometimes used to argue that file sharing does no legal harm to publishers.)

585 points by davidgerard 12y ago

wish I had more time to search for it right now, but is there a link where people can donate specifically for this cause? (if not a general donation will have to suffice) please post if so

davidgerard 12y ago
Not that I know of. But I do know that charities find tied donations a goddamn PITA - if you trust someone to do good work, just giving them the money for the general pool is the right thing in almost all cases. But they do love to know what inspired a particular donation. So I would suggest dropping a few bucks to the ACLU and WMF's general contribution addresses, but including a note that this is why :-)
- newman8r 12y ago
  that does seem like a hassle - general fund makes sense
kenrick95 12y ago
You can donate to WMF via http://donate.wikimedia.org/ http://donate.wikimedia.org/ [general donation]

devnonymous 12y ago

I miss groklaw. I wish PJ comes back online. That'll help us, the non-lawyers, especially outside the US, make sense of this lawsuit (besides others).

davidgerard 12y ago
PJ stopped doing Groklaw out of disgust that the law was so deeply disrespected by the government. Perhaps when Snowden is elected President.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I miss Groklaw dearly but also understood there was a little more than disgust in play.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  It wasn't simply a matter of disrespectful law, but of the risks posed to both her and her informants. PJ also refused on principle (AFAIU) to use PGP or other encryption on the basis that those made her (and her informants) more likely to be surveilled. I don't agree with her reasoning on this point. Still, it's a tremendous loss.

nullc 12y ago

“If you don’t like people looking why not try putting on some pants?”, my response on the Wikimedia Blog: http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/2yjda6/wikimedia_v_nsa_wikimedia_foundation_files_suit/cpa4627 http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/2yjda6/wikimedia_... (cross-posted to reddit because I could provide links there)

davidgerard 12y ago
SSL in the casual case relies on all CAs being uncompromised. I understand this is not the case. In any case, both technical and legal approaches are appropriate. And you know as well as I do that everyone at WMF desperately wants SSL for everything, and that this is a thing they are specifically working toward (but it turns out to be a bit more complicated than just switching everyone to SSL) - there is no way in which the legal approach precludes the technical approach. I mean, you're right, this has been a problem for ages and you personally yelled really loudly and quite appropriately at them for it, and I really wish WMF had moved forward sooner. But if yesterday was the best day to act, then today is the next-best day.
- nullc 12y ago
  > SSL in the casual case relies on all CAs being uncompromised. Not really, -- it pushes the monitoring into active interception, which is much more costly (and thus does not work as well to hoover up everyone's data) and it is incredibly risky because it is detectable and if detected leaves cryptographic proof of the attack (and which CA was compromised or complicit with it.) I'm all for other tools as well, which can provide protections that SSL cannot; but shuffling all the readers through Tor isn't practical today while HTTPS _is_ (as demonstrated by most of the other large web properties) and provides pretty decent protection against pervasive surveillance. > In any case, both technical and legal approaches are appropriate. Sure. I wanted to litigate about this in the past as well. But I am concerned that the complete failure to take the issue seriously historically weakens the claim of damages here. > And you know as well as I do that everyone at WMF desperately wants SSL for everything I don't know what to believe on that front anymore. There is a simple clear metric for "want" in an institution, whats the funding level? This project has not been raised to a level of importance where its receiving line item disclosed funding, as far as I can tell. There was a plan for deployment in 2013 which hasn't been completed, https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia... ... and in the time since then Wikimedia has received another hundred million in funding from the public-- with fundraising running something like 17% ahead of expenditures. > but it turns out to be a bit more complicated Yes, it's complicated. Don't forget that I contributed to making it possible too. I'm not waxing away the technical details. > But if yesterday was the best day to act, then today is the next-best day. Similar things were said when I raised a similar complaint when Wikimedia posted denying providing any assistance to prism in 2013. (A position that I consider to be a lie by omission) Continuing to deny that there is a problem here will not result in the problem being resolved.

htor 12y ago

This is great news. We need more powerful voices like these to really be heard. Remember Wikipedia's blackout against SOPA!

scrrr 12y ago

I've been thinking about surveillance lately and have come to the conclusion that it's simply here to stay. I really doubt any legal action will change anything what the NSA does. The future is digital, they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it. It's such a big power factor that it cannot be ignored. The arms race in cyberspace has begun long ago, and there's just no way it will simply stop. All we can do is decide how we handle it personally and whom we trust to keep our data safe. And if we really need to create certain kinds of data in the first place (with many kinds we have no choice).

chippy 12y ago
I think there are parallels both in times and geography. In the west - Cold War / 60's Red Witch-hunts and in the east at roughly the same time - East Germany, KGB etc. Different technologies, but the actions changed and were addressed via politics mainly. Technologies might be here to stay, but we shouldn't expect that the way we use them as societies stay the same.
michaelt 12y ago
they cannot and will not step down while other countries, basically everyone that is capable to do it, will do it It's true that even if the NSA stopped tapping undersea cables, that wouldn't stop China doing it. But there are plenty of other things they could do. Instead of weakening encryption standards, they could work to strengthen them. Instead of trying to get software vendors to install backdoors, they could get them to use deterministic builds with release checksum transparency. Instead of developing hardware backdoors, they could develop inspection systems to find them.
- snarfy 12y ago
  Strengthening encryption standards strengthens the enemy too, at least this seems to be how they think.
  - rapind 12y ago
    What enemy is that? Would it really be that horrible if everyone had access to strong encryption regardless of their beliefs. With sufficient know-how and sophistication you can keep your messages private anyways no? If that's the case, then isn't it really just the average joe using off the shelf tech that's screwed? Edit: That sounded combative, but it wasn't meant to be.

brohoolio 12y ago

The NSA is here to stay because who can remove their power without being removed from office? They have all communication.

lgp171188 12y ago

Almost all of our communication protocols and technologies are built on trust on those who run various services. So as long as that is the case, imho there is no way to stop surveillance. It would be great to start from scratch and build things without the expectation of any trustability from anyone, but I don't see that happening ever! Sad to see that the people elected by other people like us to do good for all the people tend to do everything other than that.

htor 12y ago
It is a fact that the internet - designed to be de-centralised - is becoming more and more centralised, evolving around service providers. > Almost all of our communication protocols and technologies are built on trust on those who run various services. That is why we need to build and use de-centralized systems like Bitcoin, Tor and physical mesh networks to share and communicate. These evolve around people, not service providers. Of course, there's a huge difference between trusting people and trusting corporations. > It would be great to start from scratch and build things without the expectation of any trustability from anyone, but I don't see that happening ever! Too bad that you're not too bright about the future. A lot of people are working on fixing it. Maybe these links will inspire you to think about it differently? https://bitcoin.org/en/ https://bitcoin.org/en/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking https://ssd.eff.org https://ssd.eff.org
- lgp171188 12y ago
  > Too bad that you're not too bright about the future. A lot of people are working on fixing it. Maybe these links will inspire you to think about it differently? I have come across these things that you have pointed out and yes they are steps in the right direction. But if you ask me if any of those will become the mainstream de-facto thing that everyone will use some time in the future? Based on the evidence available at the moment, I would still stick to what I said and maintain that it is highly unlikely given the current state of affairs. Yes, I would be very glad to be proven wrong but not enough atm to feel optimism. :)

chippy 12y ago

I have some sympathy for our fellow hackers who work as contractors or in big companies, many of them with security clearance. Database engineers, software developers, data experts - the five eyes intelligence agencies directly and indirectly fund many of you readers of HN. They might be becoming increasingly disillusioned with their chosen life and/or unable to change course. Perhaps the money is too good, perhaps their contracts too restrictive. They might have inside knowledge and believe that the NSA is in the right, but they would not be able to voice that belief to us, their friends and colleagues. Unable or unwilling to change course if they believe their country is in the wrong and unable or unwilling to speak up in defence if they think it is in the right. I'd certainly like to talk (in private) to those I knew who at the start of the Snowden affair openly said that he was a traitor and hear what they now think.

Sven7 12y ago
Their opinions are bought and paid for. At current rates its 75 Billion dollars a year.
- cjslep 12y ago
  If you would like to put words in my mouth, please at least put the right ones in there for me. Otherwise, I'll take that $75 billion you are referring to and let you say whatever you want on my behalf. In all seriousness, you can support the Federal Government and still have constructive debates. EDIT: My point is no person is getting $75 billion just to shut up and have their opinion swayed. Being loyal to the Federal Government does not bar you from using its processes to improve its processes.
  - Sven7 12y ago
    Good luck. That $75 Billion is only going up. It stops when we can't afford it. Until then everyone can keep debating all they want. This script has already played out in the sphere of Nuclear Disarmament. The day I take the defense and intelligence communities opinions seriously is the day they drastically change their goalposts. Spend the same amounts on world peace or just take the cash and prey on people's fear of the next ISIS or Boston bomber. Everybody knows what the easy choice is.

fragmede 12y ago

The EFF is surprisingly absent from this coalition. The other organizations listed as participating are: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America. From: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_note-2 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/#cite_...

daddykotex 12y ago
I wonder why they are not part of it? Maybe they are prepping to do something on their own. I'd like to see the NSA under fire from many opponents rather than just one.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > Maybe they are prepping to do something on their own. As listed above, it's probably because they're already in the middle of their own[0] (assuming that they will appeal, which I'd imagine is almost certain assuming they can fund it). The EFF has been fighting this battle long before the Snowden revelations, so it's certainly not for lack of interest that they're not a claimant in the Wikimedia case. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen...
diafygi 12y ago
I'm guessing because they just got shot down on a similar challenge, which they will likely be appealing. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sense-disappointing-decision-over-mass-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/jewel-v-nsa-making-sen...

Dorian-Marie 12y ago

The solution should be technical: You don't want to NSA to read your communications: encrypt them (eg: HTTPS everywhere, encryption built-in everywhere). And that's us, builders of technologies, that need to make that happen. Basically securing against the NSA is the same as securing against hackers, it should be treated as a security threat like any other.

davidgerard 12y ago
There is no reason not to take the legal approach as well. Technologies take effect inside a society.
sitic 12y ago
The technical solution can not solve all problems, wikimedia plans to activate HTTPS per default for all users: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/ http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-... One of the problems is that certain countries block HTTPS (e.g. China), should wikimedia effectively block all chinese users from free knowledge that wikimedia aims to provide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
- Dorian-Marie 12y ago
  Thanks for the link, very interesting that it's a technical limitation for them to not enable HTTPS. About china, maybe only the IPs from china can use HTTP, maybe only zh.wikipedia.org can use HTTP, ... I think legal solutions are just temporary fixes, technical ones fix the root of the problem in a more generic way.
7952 12y ago
I agree that we need encyption everywhere, although I think the current apporoach of implementing it in client software is not fit for purpose. You constantly see apps making mistakes in how they implement encryption that leave the user vulnerable. Because the data is encypted it is very difficult to validate and moniter.
12y ago

tokenadult 12y ago

I am a Wikipedian, a contributor of free content to Wikipedia. (I contribute in Chinese, in German, and in some other languages too.) I read the Wikimedia Foundation blog kindly submitted here by an early Wikipedian and read all the comments here posted before mine before writing this reply. In the last two weeks, I've renewed acquaintance with quite a few local Wikipedians at two Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons that occurred in my town. I see the Wikimedia Foundation has a rationale for its suit based partly on United States law. It writes, "Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world." Because I edit Wikipedia in languages other than English, crucially including Chinese, I am painfully aware that there are a lot of restrictions of the rights of users of Wikipedia all over the world, evidently some of them not within the reach of the United States legal system. There seems to be no prospect, for example, of the Wikimedia Foundation suing the Russian or Chinese central governments (not even to mention north Korea's regime or the ISIS self-styled regime) to protect the rights of users of Wikipedia. That's too bad. If the NSA surveillance programs ceased later today, there would still be a lot of places around the world where Wikipedia would be inaccessible or Wikipedia users would be harassed by agents of other governments.

jsnathan 12y ago
Precedent is a powerful thing. I wouldn't give up hope yet, for the anti-surveillance movement.
chopin 12y ago
In German law, there is the principle of "Es gibt keine Gleichheit im Unrecht" which means that it is not admissable to break the law if some other person does it. The land of the free should be ashamed of its mass surveillance no matter what. Even if Russia and China and whatnot continue to do it. And, the USA has much more grip on critical internet infrastructure. Therefore it makes a difference if they care.
joelhaus 12y ago
Well put. Another comment ITT[0] also pointed out the global surveillance arms race and the futility of pressuring the US to unilaterally disarm. This is particularly true in light of the many legitimate global threats to freedom mentioned in your comment. Knowing how unpopular this opinion is here, I still feel the need to share... Lawsuits like these strike me as either incredibly naive or a cynical public relations stunt. I don't enjoy my donations supporting either kind of effort and unfortunately, will likely cease future contributions. The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. If there was a single change to the NSA that I could advocate, it would be stronger and harsher mandatory minimums for anyone found in violation of the existing prohibitions on domestic surveillance. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073

SloopJon 12y ago

As people become increasingly inured to the trickle of revelations, I do think that lawsuits are important. If Wikimedia doesn't have anything more than a logo on a slide, however, this will be tossed for lack of standing, like several cases before it.

sitkack 12y ago
I have a new idea for government lawyers, if anyone _does_ show lack of standing, claim that the evidence of harm is a state secret, try and jail them for spying before hearing the case, claim they must serve the first sentence before it will hear the original case. My argument has many parallels with existing statements by the Supreme Court that lawyers representing terror suspects could they themselves be tried under the 'material support' law for simply filing paperwork with the state to clear their client.

kerkeslager 12y ago

This is an important lawsuit which will cost a lot of money. I urge you to donate: Wikimedia: http://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give http://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

motbob 12y ago

Despite what they say in the article, I really don't think they have standing. But I would love to hear why they do from someone familiar with the legal argument.

unreal37 12y ago
I thought that too at first. But the NYT op-ed does a better job of explaining.[1] Basically, they think that the NSA has the ability to index anonymous readers with pages visited, and anonymous editors with pages changed. Then if the NSA is sending that data to a bunch of governments around the word (Egypt, Israel, the Five Eyes, whoever else), dissidents around the world are at risk of being caught for browsing/editing Wikipedia for the crime of being opposed to the government in power. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wik...
- motbob 12y ago
  I see. I thought it might be impossible for any U.S. entity to ever get standing in a lawsuit against the NSA, but this theory might have a fair shot.
- flyryan 12y ago
  "Then if the NSA" That's a big IF and one that will be almost impossible to prove. I don't see how the case holds any merit if they can't prove this happens.
  - unreal37 12y ago
    Seems like a hard battle for sure.

AdmiralAsshat 12y ago

Wikimedia's evidence that it was targeted was due to a leaked slide. What's going to stop the court from dismissing that key piece of evidence due to it being a "state secret"/"matter of national security" that was not meant to be publicly disclosed?

cryoshon 12y ago

Bravo. They've earned my donation this year. I hope that more organizations come forward with similar suits so that we can get back on the right path.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Is no one targeting the 12333 Executive Order? Isn't that the one that causes the most mass spying abuses. It's great to see the FISA "warrants" targeted as well, as most just seem to look at the Patrio Act's 215 section, but I think they should look at the 12333 EO, too.

snowwrestler 12y ago

I'll be interested to see how the rulings on standing go. That seems like the crux of the matter to me, because the issue is not just "was your name mentioned," but also "were you harmed?" 4th Amendment cases are usually litigated in the context of a criminal appeal; obviously a defendant is facing real jeopardy in a prosecution, and therefore has standing. Civil lawsuits exist to make plaintiffs whole after suffering a harm. But the court might find that being surveilled, alone and by itself, is not harm. The court could say that nothing has been removed, destroyed, prevented, or altered in Wikimedia's servers, so they have no harm to make whole. The court could say that merely copying data does no harm to the original data creator or holder. (This argument might sound familiar here on HN, as it is sometimes used to argue that file sharing does no legal harm to publishers.)