
Restore the Fourth - sethbannon
http://www.restorethefourth.net/#July4th
======
pg
I have to admit, I didn't realize before this how explicitly the Bill of
Rights forbids fishing expeditions. If I were working at the NSA I'd be
worried about that. It may be inconvenient to be restrained by the
constitution, but violating it seems the policy equivalent of selling one's
soul to the devil. Once you've started down that road, where do you stop?

~~~
lupatus
First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you
without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th
Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't
broken...?)[1].

Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the
duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and
domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools
of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version.

Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_
be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American
system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools
from being abused in a tyrannical manner.

In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified
government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the
Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they
really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted
against Obama both times).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_\(surveillance_program\)),
paragraph 4.

[2]
[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_IV)

~~~
tlogan
I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable
search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why
do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't
care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not
do that without warrant.

~~~
ewoodrich
But what are intangible phone records? Are they "persons, houses, or papers"?
Probably not. Maybe they're "effects", but that still would historically
suggest physical property.

However, the Supreme Court has clarified these issues in a number of
decisions, which is why our law is primarily based on judicial precedent, and
not literal interpretation.

That may or not be a good thing, but it's the way our legal system is in fact
designed to work.

~~~
tlogan
Yes - we did have "weird" interpretation of our constitution. Like putting of
Japanese Americans in concentration camps (the Supreme Court called it
"military necessity"). But eventually public perception changed and the
interpretation of our constitution was corrected.

So as first step I want to hear from Supreme Court whether this is
constitutional. But NSA says that what they are doing is secret, so ...

------
tokenadult
I will be at the Minneapolis Restore the Fourth protest (with my wife, a
first-generation immigrant, and our two youngest children). I've put a link to
the main Restore the Fourth website on my Facebook wall, and heard that my
oldest son, now living in New York City, will be at the New York City protest.
We like our freedom in our family. We are not afraid to go out in public and
express our opinions on public policy in the view of onlookers, cameras, and
the police. (The Minneapolis protest is on the plaza of the Hennepin County
Government Center, a familiar first amendment space in our state, which is
right across from the City Hall and headquarters of the Minneapolis police.)
Petitioning the government peacefully for the redress of grievances is what
America is all about. Being out in public to indicate our support of the Bill
of Rights and oversight of the government by elected officials is an
appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. See you there if you are in the
Twin Cities.

By the way, there are other means we can use to work together to promote
freedom. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-
fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever
you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of
the Albert Einstein Institution,

[http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html](http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html)

remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in
those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around
the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic,
Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen),
Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French,
German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian,
Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish,
Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the
world.

~~~
future_grad
Thank you for sharing the link to the publications. Looks like they will be a
wonderful read.

~~~
SnowProblem
I 2nd this. Wouldn't it be great if nonviolent strategies for change were
required learning in secondary schools? Not just history lesson facts like
Ghandi did X and Martin Luther King did Y, but a real education about power in
society and methods for change.

------
joshdotsmith
This is my first protest. I shared my reasoning for that here with HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991332)

I really encourage you to go, even for an hour.

If you can't make it but agree in principle, then discuss it with your friends
and family at their BBQ, before fireworks, or whatever you're doing to
celebrate today. You don't need heated discussion. Just share what you think
and why you think it.

I think you'll be surprised how many minds can change by simply talking. Maybe
not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.

~~~
physcab
> Do you want to give the government free reign on all your data?

For some reason, I just don't feel passionately about this issue. I could be
in the minority, but to me, our society has become very desensitized by
sharing with Facebook leading the charge. This is a new reality and I don't
think it's such a bad thing that warrants a protest, though I respect those
who feel differently. Our government having the ability to track me has only
led to benefits in my life including:

* Being able to retrieve a stolen car

* Not being blown up by terrorists

* Practice any religion I choose

* Fly safely between 5 states and 5 different countries

* Drive hundreds even thousands of miles safely

* Buy and sell what I please, without fear of jail

So yes, if it means I am kept safe and if it means society as a whole can
operate more openly, then the government can do what they want with my call
data, car location and speed records, buying history, surfing history, etc

~~~
enraged_camel
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the things you listed - with the
exception of the first one, _maybe_ \- is made possible by the government
spying on you.

What you are living in is not safety. It is the illusion of safety. And thanks
to years of government propaganda, you have come to associate the pleasant
feelings that come with this illusion with government spying programs.

~~~
objclxt
> _What you are living in is not safety. It is the illusion of safety_

Statistically, people _are_ safer today than in the past, if you are looking
at violent death rates. It's really not an illusion. Life expectancies are
higher not just because of scientific advances, but because we are simply less
likely to die at the hands of others.

Putting aside the domestic manslaughter rate, over the past few decades people
have been _far_ less likely to die through war than at any other point over
the past 3-4 centuries (if not longer, records pre the 1700s are unreliable).

What I think _could_ be argued as an illusion is that this period of safety
has been due to increased surveillance and espionage, especially domestic
surveillance.

~~~
oblique63
> _What I think could be argued as an illusion is that this period of safety
> has been due to increased surveillance and espionage, especially domestic
> surveillance._

Exactly. As we all should know by now, 'Correlation != Causation'. This
increase in safety could just as easily be attributed to the Flynn Effect[1]
as it can to spying.

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

------
Helpful_Bunny
Total numbers, out of a nation of 320,000,000: Less than 10,000 (and that's
being extremely generous).

Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about
being transparent?

Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself).
Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the
reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it.

Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an _extreme_ non-event.
Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+
protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their
total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a
magnitude far higher than this.

Happy 4th of July, America!

p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the
'motley crew' of under 20 activists! _Wise the fuck up._

------
dllthomas
The SF event was fantastic, and I am proud to have been a part. Even in the
face of the BART strike, we had a reasonable turnout.

One thing that was going through my head during the march: much ado has been
made about Obama's statement that "you can't have 100% security and also have
100% privacy." I think it deserves rebuttal, but a more careful one than a
simple statement that it is false. It is not false; if Obama had stopped
before the "and" it would have still been true: you can't have 100% security.
What bothers me about it is that it ignores the fact that liberty itself -
while valuable in its own right - is also an essential part of security
against some threats. It is also unreasonable that "there are tradeoffs" be
used as an excuse to avoid discussion of whether the decisions being made are
appropriate.

------
jedbrown
I attended the Chicago event. There were a couple hundred people, short
speeches for maybe half an hour in Daley Plaza, then walking a few blocks to
Millennium Park (several chants, of which "NSA has TMI" was the most
enthusiastic). There was one idiot yelling at the cops and eventually ticketed
for writing on the sidewalk. Everyone else was decent, but the rhetoric too
frequently strayed from asking for implementable legislation like judicial
transparency, actual oversight, and the extent to which terrorism can be used
to justify secrecy and the compromise of civil liberties to Snowden (which I
consider relevant only insofar as his treatment will affect future
whistleblowers and that the human story may cause more people to learn what he
leaked) and further to the OWS agenda.

~~~
Jd
Despite attending an "activist" undergrad school, I've never attended any
protests -- since I'm out of the US at the moment I can't attend this one even
though I would like to. But here's the question, what can be done to yoke a
protest and popular frustration to a particular implementable agenda? It seems
that there is a natural tendency in these things to something I can only call
"dumb populism" with the loudest people generally making their way most easily
to the microphone. I don't know if this is inevitable, but it certainly seems
the norm. Any thoughts?

------
mshron
I went to the Restore the Fourth rally in NYC. It was, by a long shot, the
most cohesive march I have ever been on.

It helps that the context was threefold: NSA spying, NYPD Stop & Frisk, and
NYPD unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout the tri-state area. All clear
4th Amendment issues. We had a diverse crowd, with a mix of geeks, Occupy-
types, Tea Partiers, and members of the Muslim community.

We marched, we chanted, we even took some streets in lower Manhattan. Hard to
say how big, but probably about a thousand there. The farthest anyone got off-
topic was "Free Bradley Manning." Very rare to see that kind of discipline in
a diverse crowd. I was very impressed.

~~~
itg
Mashable claims it was around 300 people at the NYC protest.
[https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-
protests/](https://mashable.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-fourth-protests/)

I imagine a few more people would have shown up but on the 4th, plenty of
folks already have their day planned out or want to spend the day with
family/friends instead.

------
donohoe
60,000 active Facebook users just started getting privacy notices regarding
the NSA

[http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-
warni...](http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warning-
users-about-nsa-surveillance)

------
anovikov
Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted,
what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over
internet again?

Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices
the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone
with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the
government on their own field, you always lose.

~~~
dllthomas
No, we need to push hard on _both_ fronts. A government which does not respect
the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.

~~~
a3n
Yes, this absolutely. I'm not so personally worried about intercepted
communications, as distasteful as that is. The danger is in having a
government that is wholly unconstrained by the Constitution. These are not
spot violations by corrupt individuals. These are government programs
supported by billions of dollars. This isn't individuals, it's policy. That's
horrifying.

------
fragmede
You might want to leave your cellphone at home for this one:

[http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupier...](http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/)

~~~
wavesounds
I think posting a pictures on instagram/fb/twitter out weighs the risk of the
government knowing I was at a protest. I already signed a petition telling
them to stop violating the 4th anyway, its got my address and everything. Im
not going to let them scare me into being quiet.

------
lquist
Catchy name but the putative right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated in
the 4th Amendment, but is, "to be found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of
other constitutional protections." (Namely the 4th, 5th and 9th).

More detail here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)

~~~
darkchasma
That's because the name "Restore the 4th (including the 'penumbras' and
'emanations' of other constitutional protections found in the 4th, 5th, and
9th)" was already taken by a pedantic moron, so they had to settle on
something that got the point across without taking up pages of text.

~~~
lquist
No need to be snarky. I wasn't actually suggesting they change the name.

I was just trying to explain where the right to privacy comes from. It
surprises most Americans that it isn't explicitly enumerated and is built up
from several different amendments. That also means that it is far from
universally agreed upon by legal scholars. It is also the reason that people
push for a privacy amendment.

------
rmc
The US fourth amendment only applies to US citizens. Us non americans have
lots of data in US jurisdiction, but we have no rights. Go beyond the 4th.

~~~
joshuaellinger
I suspect that non americans will be moving a lot of it to other places.

And if we can't get our own government to obey the basic founding rules of the
country, we're got going to get any real protections for non citizens.

------
wavesounds
Great energy in LA today! Thanks and great job everyone! We even had a
supportive police officer who blocked traffic for us during the march!

~~~
jurassic
Totally. It was a small crowd but very positive, focused, and on message. I'd
go again. The saddest thing was how many people we passed at Grand Park that
had no fucking clue about the surveillance scandal. At all. The media is the
problem.

Edit: And the county sheriffs officers out in full combat gear, with M-4s and
body armor, were alarming. But not surprising.

~~~
wavesounds
Apparently they were running a training drill that included 1300 officers,
heavy weaponry and random bag checks.

------
sneak
One issue I have with this is that the goals here seem to be "end the
unconstitutional spying on Americans".

This isn't necessarily a bad goal, but even if NSA entirely stopped all
domestic spying, it would still continue to tap cables headed for foreign
lands, and would still be able to compel silent cooperation of any US company
to allow them to spy on foreigners.

This is unacceptable if the United States wishes to continue competing on the
Internet. If every US-based company can be silently forced to turn over their
data to the US government, why use US services? There are a whole lot more
customers on the web outside of the US than there are who are US citizens.

Why host on AWS, then, if you know it'll scare your customers away? Why use
Google Apps for your email? Why buy Android devices or iPhones for your
employees if that data's going straight to NSA via Google?

There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. There are only about
315 million US citizens, or about 4.5%. The vast majority of the profits to be
made from the Internet are _not in the USA_.

It's short-sighted. The US military really needs to serve the interests of the
country and its businesses, not some stupid fear-based warmongering agenda of
its own.

------
mikemoka
The leaks have been corroborated by the Director of the NSA itself actually,
the FAQ could be updated to reflect it:

"To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist
attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and
added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in
the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court"

[http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_...](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_dir.shtml)

------
jonmrodriguez
My POV experience of today's protest in LA:

[https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb...](https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb/)

------
kevinbluer
A few pictures from today's NYC event (with a particular focus on the creative
signs / props...also no faces, just in case):

[https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa6...](https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa64573f6/albums/e763e89687cc4a92bdf0383fc3db1a27)

------
presidentender
The Missoula, MT protest was sparsely attended (I think we had sixteen people
at the peak, perhaps 20 individuals altogether), but the passersby were all
enthusiastic and supportive, honking their horns and shouting their support.

------
pekk
Because only corporations should be allowed to maintain this kind of pervasive
surveillance, for pay.

~~~
ihsw
You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give
them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options
are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour.

Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society),
however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-
parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy.

Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even
tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union,
Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil
disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil
disobedience.

~~~
ericHosick
> Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society)

And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is
very little transparency?

~~~
cryptoz
Obama has been very clear about his love of NSA domestic spying since 2006. He
voted numerous times to expand and renew the USA PATRIOT Act. If you didn't
want a president with a love of spying on his citizens, you should not have
voted for him (if you did) in the primary elections. There were other options,
like Dennis Kucinich, who has a proven track record of _not_ voting for the
USA PATRIOT Act.

You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but
it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises
to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between
2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.

~~~
cgag
What if the only two choices are both pro-creepy spying?

~~~
cryptoz
That's why the primary elections are important - by the time we get down to
the final two choices, they usually are both in favour of all kinds of evil
things. But in the primaries in 2016, we'll probably have 10 choices from each
major party, and it's much more likely you'll find someone that matches your
views.

It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up
with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all
other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for
just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.

~~~
philwelch
The problem with elections is that however you vote, the majority always wins.

------
kimlelly
Seeing the numbers of yesterday's "Restore the Fourth" protesters, I guess I'm
gonna need some "Restore the Faith" now...

~~~
a3n
Consider that for every protester there are a handful of people who would
never attend a protest of any kind, yet agree or are influenced by the fact of
the protest. Those people are talking about this right now at dinner, at work
and at the gym.

