
Antiprism - justincormack
http://antiprism.eu/
======
coopdog
Specific desired actions that are realistic within the current legal
frameworks. Go pirate party.

------
swombat
How do I support this? I'm a Swiss citizen living in the UK.

~~~
louthy
I suppose a simple way, without getting involved politically, would be to stop
using any service which is hosted in the US or by a company that falls under
US jurisdiction.

A stampede of users leaving the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. would put
pressure on those companies to use their resources to fight it 'at home'.

I realise this is a relatively naïve POV, but you only have to see how quickly
Instagram reversed their ToCs a few months back - after users started closing
their accounts in droves - to see how this can prompt the big boys into
action.

You could also argue that there's a real opportunity for a European competitor
to launch a rival to these services, under the guise of our strong data
protection laws (in the UK at least). So if a DropBox or Gmail clone (for
example) started to get traction, again it would put pressure on.

~~~
embolism
Unfortunately the UK is actually _worse_ :
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-
secret-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-
communications-nsa?CMP=twt_gu)

The only thing companies like Google and Facebook can do to improve matters is
to stop collecting and storing giant troves of personal data.

~~~
louthy
It may tap the cables, but if you encrypt then they're going to struggle to
get at anything. Ultimately if they want access to your data they need a
warrant.

------
johnvschmitt
It's unlikely that the powerful institutions will give up their powerful
tools.

What I do think might work, though, is a system added to it where every human
query is logged & their human peers can ask, "WTF Carl? Why are you looking at
data on your ex wife? Or, Why are you looking at your political enemies?"

I think the humans inside those institutions would not limit their power, but
they would want to keep an eye on their peers to make sure their peers are not
abusing their power.

Those query & access logs can be periodically reviewed by their peers, and
their superiors, and those logs should be kept as long as the data is, &
queryable just the same as any other data.

~~~
alan_cx
Im 99.99% against this sort of thing, but even I have to reluctantly accept
that wheels don't get un-invented. So, proper regulation and oversight is the
only way to go.

------
skwirl
"We are appalled to learn of the unprecedented surveillance of Internet users
worldwide through PRISM and similar programmes."

There has not been a shred of evidence that PRISM gives the government any
capability that it did not already have with FISA. All we learned was the name
of the system that some companies use to respond to FISA requests, a name that
they weren't even aware of. There is no practical difference between the U.S.
companies listed on the PRISM slides and U.S. companies that are not; FISA
covers them all. The initial claims by Glenn Greenwald that PRISM gave the NSA
direct access to company servers have been refuted a hundred times over and
walked back by Greenwald himself. If you were just now appalled to learn about
the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the
times.

~~~
michaelfeathers
For me, the big takeaway is that information is being stored in advance of it
being 'collected' (as they are [mis-]using the word). I don't think that is an
interpretation that the lawmakers anticipated, and it is an incredible end-run
with potentially cataclysmic effects for liberty.

We all know that information can be leaked or misused. In fact, I think it is
a truism: all 'secret' information is eventually leaked or misused.

The old process, where the government had to go to court to even start to
collect information about a suspect was a completely different thing with less
horrific side-effects.

And yes, we learned that the government may not have direct access to servers
of the social media companies, but dispelling that claim brought the issue of
internet backbone access to the fore.

~~~
skwirl
I don't follow. "Information is being stored in advance of it being
'collected'" \- what exactly do you mean? Your GMail e-mail is stored with
Google. The government can only get it with a FISA request targeted at you or
someone yo e-mailed (via a request aimed at their account).

~~~
michaelfeathers
Fibre optic splitter:
[https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager...](https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager.pdf)

And there's this story, also on the front page of HN now:
[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-
retain-...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-and-
use-data-inadvertently-collected-from-communications-of-us-citizens/)

~~~
skwirl
This was exposed in 2006. As PRISM claims are walked back, it seems the
recently renewed outrage is being pushed to other old stories.

~~~
tlrobinson
That's fine. There wasn't enough outrage the first time around.

------
PavlovsCat
I think this also answers the question wether the US needs a pirate party (or
several).

~~~
samsolomon
Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin on a lot of issues,
including privacy. Having many parties, regardless of stance, would at least
allow for more varied discussions.

~~~
famousactress
This is why I'm so glad this NSA dustup happened during Obama's presidency
(note: I voted for him). I think if this had happened during a Republican
administration, particularly the last one, even less would be made of it. I
think there's a really good chance it would have been reduced to a partisan
scuffle and people that identity Republican would have been less inclined to
find it offensive. I think the hilariously consistent approach to our privacy
and the Patriot Act by both administrations creates an opportunity for the
public to react to the facts relatively independent of their party
affiliations.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Yes, but it also means that the party in power, currently the Democrats in the
Senate and Executive Branch, have a stake in the status quo, as did the
Republicans previously. Witness the contrast between candidate Obama in 2008,
piously railing against privacy invasions and warrant-less wiretapping, and a
defensive, contrite President Obama this month, smoothly reassuring us that
NSA analysts won't monitor content without a warrant.

By the time the 2014 elections roll around, this issue will be all but
forgotten by the vast majority of the electorate. At least, that's what both
parties are probably counting on.

~~~
redblacktree
> By the time the 2014 elections roll around, this issue will be all but
> forgotten by the vast majority of the electorate.

I sure hope you're wrong about that one. It's only a little more than a year
away.

~~~
betterunix
Yeah, and politicians know how to deflect attention from this issue. A few
months before the election, if people are still talking about the NSA, you can
expect the media to suddenly start reporting on a scandal involving some
politician, or how the economy is taking a new downturn, or how we gave
Syrians some kind of deadly weapon. The people in charge of this country know
how to deal with reporters: give the reporters a scoop, and they'll forget
whatever it was that they were reporting on before that.

------
kintamanimatt
How do we know there isn't a European equivalent of PRISM? The American one
was kept secret for quite some time and it's not like European countries are
any less technically advanced or motivated.

~~~
swombat
We know that GCHQ in the UK is doing something similar. But unlike the US
system, we may have a chance to make a difference here since the EU is already
pretty strict on data protection laws.

~~~
kintamanimatt
I was under the impression that the data protection laws don't really say much
about what the government can do internally, or even whether they play by the
rules.

------
robotic
If they want to reach a bigger mainstream audience they'd do well to change
their name and logo. The word "Pirate" isn't associated with doing good.

~~~
PavlovsCat
I think that might be the point:

[http://uspirates.org/wiki_src/index.php/Pirate_National_Comm...](http://uspirates.org/wiki_src/index.php/Pirate_National_Committee_\(PNC\)/Constitution)

 _For our values, we have been derided as “pirates”. For our hope that every
person may be free to access all of human knowledge, we have been called
“pirates”. For our belief that one need not ask permission to participate in
governance, industry, culture, and other aspects of society, we have been
called “pirates”. For our insistence that citizens should not be surveilled
and distrusted as if they are criminals, we have been called “pirates”. For
our rejection of authority and profit-seeking when it does not serve the
common good of all people, we have been called “pirates”.

We reclaim this label of “pirate” and abjure its derogatory, incendiary
implication. We are Pirates. We stand for the liberty, equality, and
solidarity of all human beings, and against all threats they may face._

I myself am not sure if I would like "Freedom Party" or something like that
better. When someone calls themselves "The Good Guys" without irony, I get
nervous. So at least given the choice between those extremes (which of course
is not the actual choice, the PP could have plenty of names that neither
"offensive" nor meaningless), I would prefer irony and alienating those who
don't get said irony.

~~~
hellcow
It isn't really the "Freedom Party" when they demand this: "For our rejection
of authority and _profit-seeking_ when it does not serve the common good of
all people, we have been called 'pirates'."

How can I pursue my own interests—how can I have freedom—if I have to serve
some nebulous "common good," just as if I lived in a communist state?

The philosophy you're looking for is libertarianism.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Right. And freedom, or even the idea of individual existance, is not nebulous
at all? Or maybe that's also related to acting stupid and squinting, i.e.
nothing ultimately holds up to scrutiny, but sometimes you just gotta agree on
what is likely meant in the current context, and move on?

I think the assumption here is simply the average human being, who is happy
when in company with other happy human beings, not the alienated, necrophile
collector of things and symbols who "lately" have become so numerous they
actually think just wearing shirts and shoes while running countries or
companies makes them a fully fledged fucking person, haha.

If you honestly cannot think of anything that profits you without hurting
others, then wtf _are_ your interests? How can others have freedom, whatever
it is, when your interest, whatever it is, is profiting off them, instead of
doing work that profits off, say, chaos and energy by making it useful at
least to you, if not others as well? How can you yourself even have any
meaningful development as a person that way?

If you plant a fruit tree in your garden, and only you get to eat the fruit,
and it makes you happy, then we're all better off for you being happier, and
those who create ideas and tools that last longer and reach farther than just
their belly are considered cooler still. But the purely parasitic BS has to
go, and since it tends to make people lazy and ignorant, there is fuck all
they will be able to do about it once the kindling actually catches. Is that
okay for you, can we move on now?

Why do some people understand that murder is not okay, but don't apply to the
same into, say, deceiving others into self-harm from which they profit? I
think it's privilege. It's mighty easy to have endless discussions about what
a gun actually _is_ when you don't have one pointed at you.

~~~
hellcow
What is the common good and who defines it?

If I plant a fruit tree in my garden, I no longer buy that fruit from a local
farmer. Thus, I hurt the farmer.

If I build Facebook, I hurt MySpace. If I build Spotify, I hurt iTunes. If I
build assembly robots that save businesses and consumers millions, I take away
jobs from factory workers.

Anything you build upsets the good of someone else; that doesn't make it
wrong.

------
pavanred
This article mentions Funding of Privacy-Conscious Software, one thing that
concerns me is, I am quoting from Wikipedia here, "..As of 2012, 80% of the
Tor Project's $2M annual budget comes from the United States government..".

So, the United States government funds programs that help secure the identity
of the people and the government also spends money on surveillance programs
such as PRISM. Can't the government just stop funding projects such as Tor any
time they please? In such scenario, aren't we at the mercy of the very
government to protect our identity that runs surveillance programs?

------
Yuioup
While I agree with the sentiment, will this actually change anything? I have
yet to see anybody anywhere making any difference ...

~~~
jumblesale
It's disappointing that the reaction to PRISM outside the US has not been one
of fury. Non-US citizens have been hit worse by this but nobody in the
mainstream European political landscape is making any noise about it. Is it
because they don't have the temerity to risk relations with the US by publicly
criticising them? I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to draw
scrutiny to their own programs for mass surveillance.

~~~
probably_wrong
I'm particularly surprised about Germany's reaction. Obama was scheduled to
speak this week in Berlin, in the same spot where Kennedy gave once a famous
speech (the Branderburg Gate). Now, I won't pretend that I'd expect the German
government to cancel his speech, but I'd hope at least some hard questions
would be asked.

I mean, Germans know exactly what happens when surveillance gets out of
control - the Wikipedia page about the Stasi [1] is pretty good, including
lines such as "counting part-time informers, the Stasi had one informer per
6.5 people" and "As the GDR began to fall, the Stasi did as well. They began
to destroy the extensive files that they had kept, both by hand and with the
use of shredders. When these activities became known, a protest erupted in
front of the Stasi headquarters". Can anyone imagine US citizens storming the
NSA, or the FBI? Even today those files are being reassembled, because people
wants to know what happened.

And yet, what happened during the conference [2]? Angela Merkel essentially
stepping in defense of Obama. She could have said she didn't agree. She could
have remained quiet. And yet she speaks (mildly, though) in his favor, even
while by her own admission "the questions have not yet been satisfactorily
addressed". That was disappointing.

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

[2]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0D3A8FkPo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0D3A8FkPo)

~~~
jumblesale
Merkel isn't exactly a proponent of digital privacy[1][2]. It's unbelievable
that the government of a country where the Stasi were operating _in living
memory_ aren't incensed by this. If anyone's interested in a film showing what
life was like under the regime, The Lives of Others is a haunting exploration
of that period, particularly relevant to what's happening right now.

[1][http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/050907Merkel.htm](http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/050907Merkel.htm)

[2][http://www.dw.de/german-chancellor-merkel-rebuffed-on-
terror...](http://www.dw.de/german-chancellor-merkel-rebuffed-on-terrorism-
surveillance-bill/a-3833855)

~~~
justincormack
Indeed it is odd, especially as Merkel herself lived through this in East
Germany
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel#Early_life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel#Early_life)

~~~
virtu
It s not odd if you are on the other side of the surveilled people and
personally know the surveilors.

~~~
redblacktree
After all, it's needed to stop _terrorists_.

------
userabc
No amount of begging to any government will solve this problem. If you believe
that the government can or will help, you are the problem.

------
volaski
First thing that came to my mind: "Wow some device that gathers different
spectrum of light to fuse into a single awesome ray?"

~~~
alan_cx
Yeah, me too, ish. :(

~~~
mehrzad
Good example of why geometry education is flawed?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprism)

------
cseelus
There are times when it feels good to be european and at least have the
realistic choice between more than two equally bad choices.

~~~
embolism
Sadly, now isn't one of them: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-
cables-secret-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-
secret-world-communications-nsa)

------
Vu1c4n0
[http://antiprism.eu/sl](http://antiprism.eu/sl)

------
manveru
Looks like the link to the Austrian Pirate Party is going to the UK one.

------
swayvil
Digging the graphics

------
blaeks
Political egofagging at its best. Just ignore this.

------
gesman
buzzword-domain.com

------
Tangaroa
AJAX and REST sure are evil. The fact that 229 people have upvoted this is
certainly proof that web-based UIs are something that we as hackers ought to
oppose.

We are all aware that PRISM has been exposed to be nothing more than a user
interface to information provided by companies that receive a search warrant
after the request has gone through courts and lawyers, right? Surely 229 users
of Hacker News cannot be _that_ uninformed about PRISM, after so many front-
page articles on the subject giving so many opportunities to hash out the
details of what it is and is not, that they imagine it to be something
nefarious?

~~~
pedrocr
Note the .EU domain name and the non-US/Europe focus of the content. As far as
I've seen reported or stated by US representatives there's no going "through
courts and lawyers" for non-citizens. PRISM may very well not have changed any
of that but it was at least a wake up call outside the US for the fact that
using US-based companies puts decisions about your data privacy in the hands
of governments that view you, as a foreigner, as having absolutely no rights.

This is particularly scary because people have so far been used to considering
the Internet as a sort of borderless global place and when it comes to privacy
from government snooping it definitely is not.

~~~
embolism
Right since we can be certain that only the US government does anything like
this. Put your data anywhere outside the US and it will be safe.

~~~
justincormack
Thats why much of this is a call for more transparency and law within Europe,
including banning things that may be happening in the US, whether they are or
not. We know that some European governments are doing things along these lines
(with lower budgets). We had the Stasi in Europe, just a few years ago; we
invented the Panopticon, and we have had a very mixed record.

~~~
embolism
Good luck with that: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-
secret-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-
communications-nsa)

------
piqufoh
Sounds like a great idea - and sponsored by the pirate party I see. They seem
to be the ones trying to plant cookies on my computer, to 'improve' my web
browsing experience.

[http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/](http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/)

Thanks guys.

