6 ms·

EFF to Congress: Stop the Cybersurveillance Bills

279 points by panarky 12y ago

travjones 12y ago
I <3 EFF.
actionscripted 12y ago
Congress to EFF: screw you, pay me.
- coldcode 12y ago
  They already get money, just "screw you".
diafygi 12y ago
Obligatory: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate I highly recommend signing up for a $19.84 recurring monthly donation. Also, is there a SuperPAC or 501(c)4 that can lobby for this cause that we can donate to?
- SchizoDuckie 12y ago
  While I do respect the EFF and what they're doing, I'm flat out against joining the whole SuperPAC thing where we're joining a piss-off contest into who can give easily corruptible politicians that have no clue what they're voting on the most money.
  - amsheehan 12y ago
    I agree 100% I often argue with a lobbyist friend of mine about their (lobbyists) role in the ecosystem. Right now the paradigm seems to be hire lawyers to serve in Congress because lawyers know how to write potential laws. Leave it to lobbyists to convince them of the policy they should care about. I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their ideas into bills, we'd be better served. There would still be special interest groups trying to convince them of what to do, but I feel it would avoid situations like SuperPAC's buying clueless politicians, and clueless politicians being appointed to committees they know nothing about.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their ideas into bills, we'd be better served. Interesting. Instead of lawyers on the inside, specialists on the outside, we would have specialists on the inside, lawyers on the outside. I've wanted something similar for a while, and I like this way of phrasing it.
  - late2part 12y ago
    Instead, take 5 minutes and write a letter to your congresspeople telling them to vote against all surveillance legislation (including reauthorizations) that don't comply with a constitutional constraint. Demand warrants from real (not FISA) courts for surveillance and capture of data, not just review. Tell them you will work to get them unelected if they vote for more surveillance. Use a site like this [1] to send the letter if you don't want to print and stamp - https://www.google.com/search?q=send+letter+on+internet&oq=send+letter+on+internet&aqs=chrome..69i57.4255j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=send+letter+on+internet&oq=s...
- imglorp 12y ago
  There is Lawrence Lessig's Mayday PAC. He is addressing the root cause of our government ills in general--campaign finance--rather than privacy or rights in particular. https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/
- zmanian 12y ago
  The ultimate defense of liberty is in the hands of local privacy groups. Become a member of a Restore the Fourth and we will help you find local like-minded folks. We also have a voice in these national policy debates that you can definitely use. http://restorethe4th.com/ http://restorethe4th.com/
fweespeech 12y ago
As much as I love the EFF, I think we have to be honest with ourselves and admit its a fundamental generational problem. The people who think this is a good idea don't fully understand the implications. Hell, people get dox'd because they don't understand how the whole system works with publicly available information when they are discussing something they really shouldn't under their real names. Hell, even without the NSA its pretty easy to imagine a scenario where: [Person discusses having an affair on Platform X] -> [Some bored IT guy notices, thinks the woman is attractive and has no morals] -> [Uses exchanged information to exploit her for sexual favors because its better than her husband divorcing her and leaving her with nothing] It doesn't even occur to these people that they are creating weapons that literally could be used to exploit anyone who has a secret they want hidden, domestically. The firewall that exists between "domestic" and "international" that is supposed to prevent this is exactly what these politicians are burning down. At least, I keep hoping its ignorance.
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  > I think we have to be honest with ourselves and admit its a fundamental generational problem I disagree, and I'm not sure which generation you see at fault. I see careless disregard for privacy among all generations. Likewise, I see privacy advocates of all ages.
  - fweespeech 12y ago
    I think the majority of people 55+ don't really understand what these bills actually do. https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL... > The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 113th Congress was 57.0 years; of Senators, 62.0 years. Literally, every person I know that is a "oh, this is okay with [insert cybersecurity bill]" freaks out when I point out how I could find out X about them without knowing them and show them how.
- task_queue 12y ago
  People have a blind faith in the watch guards and a natural tendency to hand them the rope necessary to be hung with. I have a friend in the middle of a divorce. Her husband works for their cell provider. He has harassed her with allusions to "keeping tabs" on her because of his position of power. When you point the panopticon inwards you realize just how scary unfiltered communication and location data taken out of context can be and how dangerous someone with malicious intent and access to that data can be. No one should have that power over someone. It certainly shouldn't be consolidated into the hands' of any group of people, either.
xnull2guest 12y ago
Two things. There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with espionage and sabotage operations as well as foreign propaganda. One of the main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the companies that the information - which usually amounts to close to all network traffic at the border and sometimes inside the corporate network and for many companies the customer records it keeps (although some are merely programs whereby only malware and hacker IPs or propaganda social media posts, etc are shared) - can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. This is something that many organizations, including the EFF, are not talking about. Second thing. The purposes of these programs are not to combat terrorism - the defense industries of the Western world feel they need surveillance and propaganda capabilities because their superpower status is hollowing out as the world's economic base shifts to the Asia Pacific and as new challenges to Western institutions such as super- and hyper-sonic warhead delivery systems enable ICBMs to land payloads across the globe now in under 40 minutes. It is challenges to the old order that make our democratic institutions feel they need to reach for our rights to defend themselves. The Constitution is a peacetime document - and there is no peace for powers that feel their influence hollowing out. It is not useful to discuss these programs in terms of terrorism - they are not designed for terrorism.
- adventured 12y ago
  I dispute that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific. The US still has the same share of global GDP that it had 35 years ago, and faces no credible threat to the dollar's dominance. The US economy is larger than the size of Japan + China combined, and is now 250% larger than Japan, and that gap will increase significantly. Canada has become vastly stronger over that time, it has as large of an economy as India with just 2.7% of the population (with not even a small fraction of the problems that India faces). Mexico's GDP has doubled in 15 years. Brazil has become one of the major GX economies, with an economy 50% larger than Australia or South Korea. Spain has as big of an economy - even after all the problems they've had - as South Korea (which is the #4 economy in the Pacific region). Germany, the #2 economy in the West, is likely to pass Japan's economy in size in the next 10 to 15 years (with 1/3 less people). In the last 20 years that Japan has been treading water and taking on vast debt, Germany's economy has doubled in size post re-unification. Most of the best countries in the world in terms of high standard of living are in Europe. Meanwhile the Asia Pacific region has nearly two billion people living in what can only be described as intense poverty by Western standards. China alone has ~600 million unemployed captive 'farmers' earning $3 / day, because there are no other jobs for those people to do. Japan is in such dire condition 40% of their budget goes to paying interest on their debt, their GDP hasn't grown in 20 years, and they've gotten so desperate they've taken to aggressively debasing the Yen to keep their government solvent (rapidly chopping down the Japanese standard of living in the process). Japan is of course Asia's second largest economy. China has spent the last six years post great-recession faking their growth by taking on $30+ trillion in new debt, in the process becoming one of the most indebted nations on earth. Japan and China, Asia's two biggest economies, are facing disastrous demographics issues, while they simultaneously drown in debt (a bad combination when you have to take care of a lot of elderly). Compare the top 20 economies of the West vs the top 20 economies of the Asia Pacific, in terms of incomes, wealth, standard of living - it's not even remotely a close contest. The 10th largest economy in the West is the Netherlands ($50k GDP per capita); compare them to Malaysia ($10k GDP per capita) or Thailand ($5k GDP per capita). I fail to see how this sum represents a shift to the Asia Pacific economically.
wahsd 12y ago
I know some people don't want to even think about it, but just as a thought exercise; where does the limit lie? How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? Do we just keep asking and asking while things get worse and worse and the next generation that is born into blanket state surveillance sees nothing wrong with the situation? I get that there are civil remedies like the subject one, along with judicial methods, and even electoral ones. But it also seems that there is a distinct process in place that effectively shields and converts, or generally simply disconnects legislative representation from the will of the people. How much does it matter that those who oppose blanket surveillance make up an inconsequential minority among the established legislators that have political or financial reasons to oppose what society wants, or simply have been scared by boogiemen that various agencies heavily lean on in order to justify their existence and funding. Also, what happens when the will of the people, for whatever reason lacks the foresight to prevent unintended consequences of irreversible actions or decisions by, e.g., constantly electing people that will only perpetuate the surveillance state we currently live in? I'm simply asking the question of anyone, where they think the line currently is or will be drawn? It seems that examples in human history abound of philosophical boundaries constantly being pushed back, all the while the position becomes ever increasingly overbearing and draconian and authoritarian. Have there been any efforts to establish what it is that the founders of this country would have established as the final line in the sand? I don't know, and maybe it's just a misinterpretation, but it seems that the very most fundamental and core concepts of our country and society were violated a long enough time ago to have reasonably expected remediation by now.
- mhurron 12y ago
  > How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? First ask how much of society has an issue with the direction. Then you can ask how far they'll go.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  If you want to understand why the Congress does what it does, you have to first accept that they are addressing the desires of large portions of the population. When it seems like they are not, it's because many of the desires of the population are directly conflicting. For example, people want very low-cost energy, but people also want a clean environment and to fight global warming. Or, people want the freedom to own their own guns, but they are horrified by mass shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary. Or, people want planes to never ever crash for any reason, but people also hate any security inconvenience at airports. In the case of privacy, people want their data to be secure, and they want to keep the bad guys out of our companies. Even here on HN, look at the reactions to news of major hacks. The reaction is 100% negative. No one says "eh, that company was probably doing everything right, and just got unlucky." No, the prevailing opinion is "those idiots need to get better at security." The thing is, there is no possible way for a company to get better at security without transacting information in some way. Cutting-edge exploits must be shared to be understood and mitigated. You can't do that without sharing information. The EFF does not even discuss this, which is fine, because that's not really their job. Their job is to fight against a bad bill. But we should not make the mistake of thinking that no one wants the government to help with cybersecurity. Actually most companies DO want that, and indirectly, their customers and employees do too.
justcommenting 12y ago
Some historical context for considering why bills proposing to compel greater collaboration or coordination or cooperation from companies storing private communications might be problematic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
cordite 12y ago
Do we have a svn blame for parts of bills? Who keeps putting these in? Are they aware that they are, or are they just copying from what others with other interest give them?
- Rayearth 12y ago
  The mental image of members of Congress themselves committing to an official US federal law Github repo is kind of amusing. It would make being on a "committee" take on a whole new meaning...
zmanian 12y ago
We have two major surveillance efforts from the government moving down the pike and we do not have the attention of the Internet. 1.A set of surveillance bills under the guise of enhanced cyber security. https://stopcyberspying.com/ https://stopcyberspying.com/ 2. Patriot act renewals that would reauthorize the governments phone and Internet metadata authorities. https://fight215.org/ https://fight215.org/ Anything you can do to increase awareness of these bills would make an enormous difference...
pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
Congress to Everyone: Fuck you. we've manipulated your legal processes to cement our authority over you. you are nothing. bow to us. we own you. we don't believe you will rise up against us, because we've militarized and turned a blind eye to your local law enforcement. you're all too big of pussies to rise up and do what you know you need to. haha. you suck.
ccvannorman 12y ago
How is the top voted comment here about Asia's economic rise? Whether these programs are "meant" for terrorism is irrelevant -- they are being pushed in the name of terrorism. If they are about economic power in Asia, and our politicians are using terrorism as a front to pass it, THAT is the problem. We don't need to be discussing Asia. We don't need more government control or surveillance, period. It's obviously a bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to BE VOCAL. Call your representatives and talk to your friends and family about this important issue.
- bmelton 12y ago
  The top voted comment about Asia's economic rise agrees with your assessment, only goes further to explain potentially ulterior motives of the government to better inform those who are on the fence, as well as arming those opposed with better arguments as to why such surveillance is unnecessary.
- themeek 12y ago
  The top voted comment is not about economics in China specifically - it is the only substantive reply that the parent got so that's what the conversation devolved into. The top comment is more broadly about the US being challenged - it's hollowing out of power. In the iron age if you can't wield iron you will be cast down. In the information if you can't wield information...
late2part 12y ago
xnull2guest and others make good points. Most of the information our government can't get from us; they get from other governments on us. This needs to stop. Support the EFF and more importantly, help our elected representatives understand that they need to stop this and comply with the constitution. Vote them out if they don't.

279 points by panarky 12y ago

travjones 12y ago

I <3 EFF.

actionscripted 12y ago

Congress to EFF: screw you, pay me.

coldcode 12y ago
They already get money, just "screw you".

diafygi 12y ago

Obligatory: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate I highly recommend signing up for a $19.84 recurring monthly donation. Also, is there a SuperPAC or 501(c)4 that can lobby for this cause that we can donate to?

SchizoDuckie 12y ago
While I do respect the EFF and what they're doing, I'm flat out against joining the whole SuperPAC thing where we're joining a piss-off contest into who can give easily corruptible politicians that have no clue what they're voting on the most money.
- amsheehan 12y ago
  I agree 100% I often argue with a lobbyist friend of mine about their (lobbyists) role in the ecosystem. Right now the paradigm seems to be hire lawyers to serve in Congress because lawyers know how to write potential laws. Leave it to lobbyists to convince them of the policy they should care about. I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their ideas into bills, we'd be better served. There would still be special interest groups trying to convince them of what to do, but I feel it would avoid situations like SuperPAC's buying clueless politicians, and clueless politicians being appointed to committees they know nothing about.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their ideas into bills, we'd be better served. Interesting. Instead of lawyers on the inside, specialists on the outside, we would have specialists on the inside, lawyers on the outside. I've wanted something similar for a while, and I like this way of phrasing it.
- late2part 12y ago
  Instead, take 5 minutes and write a letter to your congresspeople telling them to vote against all surveillance legislation (including reauthorizations) that don't comply with a constitutional constraint. Demand warrants from real (not FISA) courts for surveillance and capture of data, not just review. Tell them you will work to get them unelected if they vote for more surveillance. Use a site like this [1] to send the letter if you don't want to print and stamp - https://www.google.com/search?q=send+letter+on+internet&oq=send+letter+on+internet&aqs=chrome..69i57.4255j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=send+letter+on+internet&oq=s...
imglorp 12y ago
There is Lawrence Lessig's Mayday PAC. He is addressing the root cause of our government ills in general--campaign finance--rather than privacy or rights in particular. https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/
zmanian 12y ago
The ultimate defense of liberty is in the hands of local privacy groups. Become a member of a Restore the Fourth and we will help you find local like-minded folks. We also have a voice in these national policy debates that you can definitely use. http://restorethe4th.com/ http://restorethe4th.com/

fweespeech 12y ago

As much as I love the EFF, I think we have to be honest with ourselves and admit its a fundamental generational problem. The people who think this is a good idea don't fully understand the implications. Hell, people get dox'd because they don't understand how the whole system works with publicly available information when they are discussing something they really shouldn't under their real names. Hell, even without the NSA its pretty easy to imagine a scenario where: [Person discusses having an affair on Platform X] -> [Some bored IT guy notices, thinks the woman is attractive and has no morals] -> [Uses exchanged information to exploit her for sexual favors because its better than her husband divorcing her and leaving her with nothing] It doesn't even occur to these people that they are creating weapons that literally could be used to exploit anyone who has a secret they want hidden, domestically. The firewall that exists between "domestic" and "international" that is supposed to prevent this is exactly what these politicians are burning down. At least, I keep hoping its ignorance.

theandrewbailey 12y ago
> I think we have to be honest with ourselves and admit its a fundamental generational problem I disagree, and I'm not sure which generation you see at fault. I see careless disregard for privacy among all generations. Likewise, I see privacy advocates of all ages.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  I think the majority of people 55+ don't really understand what these bills actually do. https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL... > The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 113th Congress was 57.0 years; of Senators, 62.0 years. Literally, every person I know that is a "oh, this is okay with [insert cybersecurity bill]" freaks out when I point out how I could find out X about them without knowing them and show them how.
task_queue 12y ago
People have a blind faith in the watch guards and a natural tendency to hand them the rope necessary to be hung with. I have a friend in the middle of a divorce. Her husband works for their cell provider. He has harassed her with allusions to "keeping tabs" on her because of his position of power. When you point the panopticon inwards you realize just how scary unfiltered communication and location data taken out of context can be and how dangerous someone with malicious intent and access to that data can be. No one should have that power over someone. It certainly shouldn't be consolidated into the hands' of any group of people, either.

xnull2guest 12y ago

Two things. There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with espionage and sabotage operations as well as foreign propaganda. One of the main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the companies that the information - which usually amounts to close to all network traffic at the border and sometimes inside the corporate network and for many companies the customer records it keeps (although some are merely programs whereby only malware and hacker IPs or propaganda social media posts, etc are shared) - can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. This is something that many organizations, including the EFF, are not talking about. Second thing. The purposes of these programs are not to combat terrorism - the defense industries of the Western world feel they need surveillance and propaganda capabilities because their superpower status is hollowing out as the world's economic base shifts to the Asia Pacific and as new challenges to Western institutions such as super- and hyper-sonic warhead delivery systems enable ICBMs to land payloads across the globe now in under 40 minutes. It is challenges to the old order that make our democratic institutions feel they need to reach for our rights to defend themselves. The Constitution is a peacetime document - and there is no peace for powers that feel their influence hollowing out. It is not useful to discuss these programs in terms of terrorism - they are not designed for terrorism.

adventured 12y ago
I dispute that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific. The US still has the same share of global GDP that it had 35 years ago, and faces no credible threat to the dollar's dominance. The US economy is larger than the size of Japan + China combined, and is now 250% larger than Japan, and that gap will increase significantly. Canada has become vastly stronger over that time, it has as large of an economy as India with just 2.7% of the population (with not even a small fraction of the problems that India faces). Mexico's GDP has doubled in 15 years. Brazil has become one of the major GX economies, with an economy 50% larger than Australia or South Korea. Spain has as big of an economy - even after all the problems they've had - as South Korea (which is the #4 economy in the Pacific region). Germany, the #2 economy in the West, is likely to pass Japan's economy in size in the next 10 to 15 years (with 1/3 less people). In the last 20 years that Japan has been treading water and taking on vast debt, Germany's economy has doubled in size post re-unification. Most of the best countries in the world in terms of high standard of living are in Europe. Meanwhile the Asia Pacific region has nearly two billion people living in what can only be described as intense poverty by Western standards. China alone has ~600 million unemployed captive 'farmers' earning $3 / day, because there are no other jobs for those people to do. Japan is in such dire condition 40% of their budget goes to paying interest on their debt, their GDP hasn't grown in 20 years, and they've gotten so desperate they've taken to aggressively debasing the Yen to keep their government solvent (rapidly chopping down the Japanese standard of living in the process). Japan is of course Asia's second largest economy. China has spent the last six years post great-recession faking their growth by taking on $30+ trillion in new debt, in the process becoming one of the most indebted nations on earth. Japan and China, Asia's two biggest economies, are facing disastrous demographics issues, while they simultaneously drown in debt (a bad combination when you have to take care of a lot of elderly). Compare the top 20 economies of the West vs the top 20 economies of the Asia Pacific, in terms of incomes, wealth, standard of living - it's not even remotely a close contest. The 10th largest economy in the West is the Netherlands ($50k GDP per capita); compare them to Malaysia ($10k GDP per capita) or Thailand ($5k GDP per capita). I fail to see how this sum represents a shift to the Asia Pacific economically.

wahsd 12y ago

I know some people don't want to even think about it, but just as a thought exercise; where does the limit lie? How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? Do we just keep asking and asking while things get worse and worse and the next generation that is born into blanket state surveillance sees nothing wrong with the situation? I get that there are civil remedies like the subject one, along with judicial methods, and even electoral ones. But it also seems that there is a distinct process in place that effectively shields and converts, or generally simply disconnects legislative representation from the will of the people. How much does it matter that those who oppose blanket surveillance make up an inconsequential minority among the established legislators that have political or financial reasons to oppose what society wants, or simply have been scared by boogiemen that various agencies heavily lean on in order to justify their existence and funding. Also, what happens when the will of the people, for whatever reason lacks the foresight to prevent unintended consequences of irreversible actions or decisions by, e.g., constantly electing people that will only perpetuate the surveillance state we currently live in? I'm simply asking the question of anyone, where they think the line currently is or will be drawn? It seems that examples in human history abound of philosophical boundaries constantly being pushed back, all the while the position becomes ever increasingly overbearing and draconian and authoritarian. Have there been any efforts to establish what it is that the founders of this country would have established as the final line in the sand? I don't know, and maybe it's just a misinterpretation, but it seems that the very most fundamental and core concepts of our country and society were violated a long enough time ago to have reasonably expected remediation by now.

mhurron 12y ago
> How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop thrusting itself down the slope? First ask how much of society has an issue with the direction. Then you can ask how far they'll go.
snowwrestler 12y ago
If you want to understand why the Congress does what it does, you have to first accept that they are addressing the desires of large portions of the population. When it seems like they are not, it's because many of the desires of the population are directly conflicting. For example, people want very low-cost energy, but people also want a clean environment and to fight global warming. Or, people want the freedom to own their own guns, but they are horrified by mass shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary. Or, people want planes to never ever crash for any reason, but people also hate any security inconvenience at airports. In the case of privacy, people want their data to be secure, and they want to keep the bad guys out of our companies. Even here on HN, look at the reactions to news of major hacks. The reaction is 100% negative. No one says "eh, that company was probably doing everything right, and just got unlucky." No, the prevailing opinion is "those idiots need to get better at security." The thing is, there is no possible way for a company to get better at security without transacting information in some way. Cutting-edge exploits must be shared to be understood and mitigated. You can't do that without sharing information. The EFF does not even discuss this, which is fine, because that's not really their job. Their job is to fight against a bad bill. But we should not make the mistake of thinking that no one wants the government to help with cybersecurity. Actually most companies DO want that, and indirectly, their customers and employees do too.

justcommenting 12y ago

Some historical context for considering why bills proposing to compel greater collaboration or coordination or cooperation from companies storing private communications might be problematic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung

cordite 12y ago

Do we have a svn blame for parts of bills? Who keeps putting these in? Are they aware that they are, or are they just copying from what others with other interest give them?

Rayearth 12y ago
The mental image of members of Congress themselves committing to an official US federal law Github repo is kind of amusing. It would make being on a "committee" take on a whole new meaning...

zmanian 12y ago

We have two major surveillance efforts from the government moving down the pike and we do not have the attention of the Internet. 1.A set of surveillance bills under the guise of enhanced cyber security. https://stopcyberspying.com/ https://stopcyberspying.com/ 2. Patriot act renewals that would reauthorize the governments phone and Internet metadata authorities. https://fight215.org/ https://fight215.org/ Anything you can do to increase awareness of these bills would make an enormous difference...

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago

Congress to Everyone: Fuck you. we've manipulated your legal processes to cement our authority over you. you are nothing. bow to us. we own you. we don't believe you will rise up against us, because we've militarized and turned a blind eye to your local law enforcement. you're all too big of pussies to rise up and do what you know you need to. haha. you suck.

ccvannorman 12y ago

How is the top voted comment here about Asia's economic rise? Whether these programs are "meant" for terrorism is irrelevant -- they are being pushed in the name of terrorism. If they are about economic power in Asia, and our politicians are using terrorism as a front to pass it, THAT is the problem. We don't need to be discussing Asia. We don't need more government control or surveillance, period. It's obviously a bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to BE VOCAL. Call your representatives and talk to your friends and family about this important issue.

bmelton 12y ago
The top voted comment about Asia's economic rise agrees with your assessment, only goes further to explain potentially ulterior motives of the government to better inform those who are on the fence, as well as arming those opposed with better arguments as to why such surveillance is unnecessary.
themeek 12y ago
The top voted comment is not about economics in China specifically - it is the only substantive reply that the parent got so that's what the conversation devolved into. The top comment is more broadly about the US being challenged - it's hollowing out of power. In the iron age if you can't wield iron you will be cast down. In the information if you can't wield information...

late2part 12y ago

xnull2guest and others make good points. Most of the information our government can't get from us; they get from other governments on us. This needs to stop. Support the EFF and more importantly, help our elected representatives understand that they need to stop this and comply with the constitution. Vote them out if they don't.