
The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence - Tehnix
http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2014/02/11/the-day-we-do-nothing-of-consequence/
======
bguthrie
In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing. Don't
give up hope yet. The Demand Progress folks are committed and have a good
sense of what it takes to bring about political change in a democracy. Please
support them.

And believe it or not, legislators do watch those calls and emails––especially
calls. All of them of them will tell you that the perception of a groundswell
of support or opposition to an issue is enough to start to sway minds on
Capitol Hill. Don't give in to cynicism.

~~~
rch
And by all means, back up those phone calls by voting.

~~~
chroem
That implies there's a non-trivial number of candidates who are legitimately
against the NSA.

~~~
rch
That's fair, but it's perfectly alright to vote against the incumbent as a
purely punitive, as opposed to corrective, measure.

~~~
pankkake
Tell me when that ever worked.

~~~
rch
Obama.

~~~
pankkake
Given your previous responses I fear you are serious. Ouch.

------
pvnick
Talk about contrarian bullshit. I would ask joepie91 (the author) if he has
even called his representatives. This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting
the cause. Everyone knows activism is difficult. Bitching about how everyone
else practices their activism is easy.

~~~
mhurron
> This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting the cause.

So is this:

The Day We Fight Back

A bit of text at the top of the page. It is doing nothing but still feeling
like you did. You were so moved that you did ... nothing. That is the message
it sends. These people are too lazy to do anything except put a little banner
up that in no way disrupts anything about their little lives.

------
furyofantares
One prerequisite for change here is public support. Public support requires
people to know and be reminded about the issue, and it requires people to know
that other people care deeply about the issue and that it's okay for them to
care about it too.

So I don't buy the common complaint that raising awareness is valueless. It
isn't something you'll be able to measure tomorrow morning but that does not
actually imply it is not valuable, just that we don't know for sure if it is.

~~~
Sparkky
Awareness isn't valueless, look at what pink and a ribbon did for cancer.

This is just another cynical internet blogger trying to make himself feel
enlightened ;) nothing more.

~~~
jimhart3000
To add to the cynicism, I'd say "look at what pink and a ribbon" did for the
Susan G. Komen foundation, rather than what it did for cancer...

------
temuze
That's how democracy works! People voice their opinions! And yes, when it
happens all at once, they can create a debate by getting the attention of
others.

Anyone who thinks change comes easily or quickly is wrong. That's the downside
to a democracy. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to
time."

~~~
jcslzr
exactly....the problem is that if you look closely, there is no democracy at
least not in the USA. Just like the tagline for the last of the Godfather
movies: "Real power is not given,is taken", sadly I think History is just
Mafias that get a hold of power until a new Mafia takes over, and once a
century a good guy gets at the top, most of the time gets killed. When you
open your mind to the possibility to see that there may be another level of
power above of what the news tell us, it makes the picture easier to
understand.

------
gamerdonkey
Oh good, the UPDATE brought some helpful advice to the original article.

> _So if you 're expecting me to tell you what to do, here you go: develop a
> strategy that is in line with your beliefs and goals, and share it with
> others._

If only The Day We Fight Back people were doing that. Like, if they had found
a piece of legislation that worked toward their goals, come up with ways to
improve it further, developed a strategy to support that legislation, and then
embarked on a widescale sharing campaign, maybe they could get something done.

------
zeteo
>Not only do these tactics not accomplish anything in reality, they also
distract people from making a real effort to change the world.

You might say the same thing about a massive street protest. Those people are
just standing in the street shouting, they're not physically acting to solve
their complaints! And yet, from civil rights to overturning dictatorships,
peaceful public protests have proven unsurpassed for effecting change. In a
world where social networks are no longer local, people still need a way to
coordinate and make a show of strength in support of their chosen causes.

~~~
rmgraham
I think the author was trying to say that these online campaigns make people
feel like they've contributed and therefore don't need to participate in a
street protest.

While I do see the parallel you are pointing out, I think "I care so much that
I spent 5 seconds to type in my email address!" and "I care so much that I
gave up a whole day of my life" might be a case of a quantitative differences
large enough to be qualitative.

------
DennisP
I don't expect this event alone to have much effect, but let's remember that
similar efforts did put a stop to SOPA, and the NSA is facing a bit of
pressure from Congress already.

~~~
bmmayer1
Good point. The SOPA bill died a quick death on internet blackout day.

------
mcantelon
>Demand Progress, if after four years you are still talking about the same
problems, don't you think your strategy might not be working out?

It's pretty common for any movement seeking significant change to take
considerably longer than 4 years.

~~~
sp332
That's only 2 terms of a House representative, one presidential term, or 2/3
of a senator's term.

------
smacktoward
OK, so what do you propose we do instead?

 _crickets_

~~~
smacktoward
To avoid becoming part of the problem myself, here's my suggestion:

Find one Member of Congress who's been vocally supportive of these programs,
and run them out of their job. Throw down a challenge -- "we're coming for
Representative X" \-- then form a PAC (or piggyback on the PAC of a supportive
org, like EFF or the ACLU) dedicated specifically to turning that person out
of office, raise money, and use it to _nail their scalp to the wall._

Once you've demonstrated that you have enough support and money to do that, I
_guarantee_ the rest of Congress will start paying close attention to you.
Most Members of Congress care a lot more about their next election than they
do about issues in the abstract. And if one isn't enough, you'll have built
infrastructure that you can use the next election cycle to go after two, or
five, or ten more.

In other words, be the Wayne Wheeler
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler))
of individual privacy. He used these exact tactics to pass Prohibition.
Prohibition! Imagine what you can do if you harness them to something that's
actually _worth passing._

~~~
AceJohnny2
Someone like Dianne Feinstein, California Senator, who has emerged as vocal
defender of the spying programs?

[http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/18/nation/la-na-adv-
fei...](http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/18/nation/la-na-adv-feinstein-
profile-20140119)

[http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact)

~~~
smacktoward
Sure, why not? You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

One of the hallmarks of an effective issue advocacy group is that it cares
more about performance on its issue than it does about party affiliation. So
you might want to take on one Democrat and one Republican (preferably from
different states, to head off criticism that your movement is geographically
limited) to make the point.

One note, though: there is a _lot_ more money sloshing around in a Senate race
then there is in a House race. You might want your first targets to by House
members, therefore, to make the most of what will at first be limited
resources.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
>You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

To throw out Feinstein?

lol

~~~
smacktoward
And now you have evidence for how much tech's corporate overlords really care
about the surveillance programs.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Or how scared they are.

------
Tehnix
You can criticize the article about no making any proposals itself, but I
don't think that's the point of the article. I think the following bit,
talking about the effect of such events as "The Day We Fight Back", sums it up
pretty well,

> They make people feel like they've "done their part", effectively killing
> their willingness to get involved in any more constructive future efforts.

Overall, I agree with the sentiment of the author. That said, I can't say that
I have any solutions either.

------
jboynyc
Reminds me of Slavoj Žižek, who is fond of inverting the slogan ‘Don’t just
talk, do something!’ to remind activists that sometimes it is more important
to analyze a situation than chase after the instant gratification that comes
from doing something, whether it is charity, protest, or consumer
environmentalism.

------
__pThrow
I would have loved to see an Occupy 2.0 like movement with marches or protests
on the Mall, at NSA HQ, on the streets in front of their parking lot, at their
freeway offramps, and at the AT&T building in San Francisco.

(Hey! There is an event at the AT&T building. Good!
[https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/](https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/))

Protests in front of the White House.

Protests on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Protests wherever President Obama speaks for the next 30 days.

Local protests in front of Federal Courthouses.

Local protests at your Senator and Representative's office.

I sadly believe all these banners are mockable and worse than useless. The day
we fight back? There wasn't even an intentional Internet blackout today!

~~~
jmccree
Protests in front of your local federal court house does nothing. It annoys
the residents when FPS brings out the dogs to sniff trash cans and the college
newpaper camerman is blocking your front door, and the real news media
couldn't give a crap. Voting is the only thing that actually matters.

------
xwowsersx
Ironically, while deriding "The Day We Fight Back" as having no strategy, this
post offers none either. But I do agree it's important to assess our strategy
to see if it's actually accomplishing anything.

~~~
eudox
What do you want him to say that won't get him arrested?

~~~
xwowsersx
This makes no sense. Let's imagine that he does have some strategy proposals,
but that stating such proposals would get him arrested. Well, if the fear of
arrest is the reason he's not doing it, then maybe that's exactly why the "The
Day We Fight Back" isn't as forceful as he thinks it ought to be. In which
case he's no better than the activism he's criticizing.

------
lysobit
>This whole "Day We Fight Back" thing is an utterly pointless waste of time
and efforts, and nothing more than feel-good armchair activism.

Actually, there is a ton of AFK non-armchair events going on for "Day We Fight
Back":
[https://thedaywefightback.org/events/](https://thedaywefightback.org/events/)

------
neilk
The author has some good points. Ultimately, it is a kind of slacktivism. And
a mass effort of one day won't fully counter the efforts of a few who are paid
very well to advance the contrary agenda, the other 364 days of the year. And
I speak as someone who was intimately involved in the anti-SOPA efforts.

But I disagree that it's completely futile. I often meet people who've never
even heard of Snowden. So awareness raising can be important. Ultimately I
think we're going to need new organizations and institutions, and new
relationships with elected representatives. But until that day, it's worth
doing what we can to delay the worst aspects of the surveillance state.

------
socrates1998
Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is
pointless.

Congress is completely broke.

We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote on budgets ourselves?

We have the internet. We can devise a way to vote online a few times a year,
once a quarter.

You login, you look at the proposals, you vote on what you think is good for
the country.

Congress is the middleman that is poisoning our system.

The three branches of government should be: the people, the court, the
executive.

And we could do away with the excesses of the President's power. No more NSA.
No more pointless wars. No more TSA.

Gone. Well, if that's what people want.

True democracy with the protections of the court and a true executive, not a
power hungry executive branch.

~~~
dllthomas
Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as
someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should
dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal
has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

~~~
socrates1998
I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating
it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about?

The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming
us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

~~~
dllthomas
You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not
typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues
are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on.
I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote,
we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else
could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is
unbecoming.

~~~
socrates1998
>You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not
typical.

You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE
OF REGULATING not know more?

It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles.

Because like you said

>I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the
top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on.

So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted
by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.

~~~
dllthomas
_" You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN
CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?"_

... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and
taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and
on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a
specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing
in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating
and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job,
this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet _and_
treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians.

 _" So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily
corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors."_

They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected
official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of
the staffers. There is nothing _inherently_ wrong with delegation and
specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise
- is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the
politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more
democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

------
pasbesoin
I've found that writing concise and effectively worded personal letters, in my
own words, and faxing them to my representatives in Congress, does seem to
have some effect.

I lay out my case, demonstrate that I am knowledgeable on the topic and
obviously paying personal attention to it, and that I can think and reason
rationally including when I vote.

 _That_ , they -- and/or their staff -- seem to notice.

Of course, now my Congressional representatives seem to be beginning to hide
their fax numbers. So far, my Google-fu has remained sufficiently strong...

------
oscargrouch
There was a guy once, in India, that freed its own country from its greedy
colonizers, just by walking alone, 240 miles to the sea for 24 days, just to
produce salt without paying taxes to the imperialists that seized its country

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March)

If you dont want to do nothing, it's your right to do so.. but keep your
cynical pessimism to yourself, by doing that, you will give a real
contribution to the world.

------
invalidOrTaken
This is how you change the world: be a better person yourself. All the
awareness-raising in the world is futile if the populace are too indebted to
see beyond their next meal. So _don 't be that guy_. Live within your means.
Know your neighbors. Keep yourself fit and healthy. And try to increase your
viral coefficient.

EDIT: And yes, I did call.

------
zmanian
The only hope that we have of containing mass surveillance technologies is to
establish a moral norm against using these technologies as unchecked tools of
power.

The point of the Day We Fight Back is not that effect that we have in Congress
but the effect calling Congress has on us as a society.

------
comrh
> for people who want to feel like they are "changing the world", regardless
> of whether they actually are changing the world.

Is that really why people share/sign up for it though? I don't think so.
Sharing the message to the nontechnical community is important.

------
hangonhn
Well buddy you just made me feel stupid but you do speak the truth. Point
noted and lesson learned.

------
das107
The armchair activist is the person who thinks that the world's problems can
be solved in but 3 years, by doing nothing in particular whatsoever, and such
that you'll never again have to lift a finger to make the world a better
place.

------
AznHisoka
Thanks for saying what nobody else dared to say.

When I saw "The Day We Fight Back" in the header and in the #1 spot, I just
ignored it and click on the #2 article. The day we fight back? Please don't
waste my time.

------
cryoshon
So, what would you have us do? Shouting slogans in the streets and throwing
molotovs like a bunch of thugs? Democracies only work via citizens voicing
their preference and then participating in the civil structure as such.

Admittedly, democracy itself has been on life support for quite some time now,
but that's a separate issue.

------
joepie91_
Author here. Had to register a new account, as I lost the password to my
original account a while ago.

Addressing a few of the points made in the comments here...

> You're hypocritical because you just wasted time writing that post

This is false. That post took approximately 30-45 minutes to write, and this
comment will take me some 15 minutes to write. That's an hour at most. I work
on _many_ things related to activism in various shapes (to the point where I
barely have any real free time), and this is just a tiny drop in the bucket.
Comparing that to the fact that the bulk of people participating in the "Day
We Fight Back" stuff have that as their _only_ contribution to 'activism',
this is absolutely not a valid comparison. And no, I'm not trying to pat
myself on the back here - I'm just trying to show how this post is a result of
genuine frustration, and not some random hypocritical rant from somebody
lacking self-reflection.

> Representatives do listen to calls

This is entirely besides the point, and a part of the post actually addresses
this. It doesn't _matter_ whether representatives are listening to you or not.
Even if it might be a theoretical win, in practice you're not going to see any
results from it. The system that these representatives operate in is
inherently flawed in many ways, and for every "theoretical win", the situation
gets worse in ten other ways. I tried to subtly hint at the framework itself
needing change, but it doesn't seem like people picked this up.

> Why are you criticizing when you don't even have a solution

As said by one (!) commenter below, having a solution is not a prerequisite to
criticism - no matter the topic. I understand that some people will want to
bring this up as an argument, since it provides a way for them to wave away
the bulk of criticism coming their way (after all, criticism _usually_ lacks a
solution), but it's absolutely vital that you recognize that criticism can and
should stand on its own.

Yes, I do have some things that I believe are the solution to many of the
problems we currently face. No, I do not think they belong in this blog post.
No, I definitely don't want people to blindly follow those solutions, without
thinking through the issues themselves first.

> It takes much longer than 4 years to change the world

Yes, yes it does. The problem isn't that the problems haven't been solved yet,
the problem is that we're still stuck at the _exact same stage_ , with no sign
of progress. It's like a toy robot whirring against the stairs - you could
argue that eventually he'll arrive at the top, but in practice that's never
going to happen, no matter how long you wait. Four years is more than enough
to evaluate whether a strategy is going to have an effect, and it's the
evaluation (and subsequent conclusion) that's lacking here.

> An event like this also killed SOPA

It didn't. All it did was cause an outrage, and push it ahead a bit. If
anything, it gave rise to even worse proposals. I've also partly addressed
that in another post: [http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/04/20/im-tired-of-
this-...](http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/04/20/im-tired-of-this-protest-
the-next-lettersoup-bill-shit/)

------
ebbv
Wow. Glass houses much? A whole post of nothing but "You're all wasting your
time and not accomplishing anything."

In order to not be just 100% hypocritical he would need to offer some actual
solutions.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
You don't need to know how to cure cancer to know that poking me in the eye
won't cure cancer. You don't always need the right answer to recognize a wrong
answer.

~~~
ebbv
I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about _any_ kind of suggestion.

He's not being helpful, he's just being a douche.

~~~
randallsquared
"I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about any kind of suggestion."

What? If the suggestion isn't a good one, it's worse than no suggestion at
all, which at least won't mislead people into spending resources. Saying "I
don't know the answer" is better than pretending you know the answer, if you
don't.

