
Do you have a secret? - chuckharmston
http://www.doyouhaveasecret.org
======
jrockway
Brandon Mayfield was arrested as a material witness, not as a suspect. The
problem here is the increasing use of material witness warrants to arrest
people suspected of a crime, rather than actually getting an arrest warrant.

According to Wikipedia, "Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology
from the U.S. government and a $2 million settlement."

I'll be honest: I feel like I'm being swindled by doyouhaveasecret.org.
Instead of presenting me with facts, they're relying on emotion and hearsay.
And that's just as bad as the government wanting to search my laptop. The
EFF's campaign is a more mature: <https://cyberspying.eff.org/>

~~~
malandrew
The sad part is that the people we have to convince that these laws are a bad
idea will only be swayed by emotion. It's emotion that convinced them to
support bills like this and it is going to take an appeal to emotion to
convince them otherwise.

It sucks to admit that, but it's how many humans work.

~~~
kingkawn
Physicians contended for a long time that they were too educated, thoughtful,
and professional to be swayed by advertising and other promotional efforts
that were not directly related to efficacy and cost of drugs:

<http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192314>

Nobody is immune to advertising, PR, or emotional appeals. Some of us are
more/less impacted by specific types of advertising, but we are all
susceptible. Including the people in this community.

~~~
incision
Interesting.

It seems physicians have a long history pompous bullshit.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinions)

~~~
kingkawn
Which puts them in the beautiful company of the rest of humanity.

Edit: Also Semmelweis was a badass.

~~~
einhverfr
We have this interesting idea that modern medicine is what is responsible for
greatly extending life expectancy. Semmelweis's work largely showed at least
in his day that for women it was the opposite (remember his work started with
the question of why midwives had so much lower maternal mortality rates than
physicians), and even today, it is probably a distant third behind year-round
food supply and modern sanitation.

------
tptacek
Huh? What does any of this have to do with CISPA?

There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people trying
to manipulate you into opposing it.

~~~
tomku
_There are good reasons to oppose CISPA. You shouldn't appreciate people
trying to manipulate you into opposing it._

This is something that really annoys me. It's incredibly frustrating to see
people argue "on my side", but using reasons that are based almost entirely on
FUD and hyperbole. It undermines that entire side of the argument, because
people who aren't already on your side assume that if you had valid reasons,
you wouldn't be resorting to manipulative exaggerations for shock value.
Unfortunately, when the internet outrage machine is whipped up into a frenzy,
people don't seem to care and will happily upvote and share anything that
supports their side, even if it's completely full of shit.

~~~
wahsd
Unfortunately, while the sticklers insist on moral purity and perfect
argument, they live in a world that operates on FUD and is grotesquely
exploited and has become the modus operandi of our government, corporations,
and fear mongering right.

It is the reason that science and reason cannot take hold in many human
societies, because there is a false equivalency of opposition. Opposing
heinous attempts to control are not equivalent to opposing freedom, liberty,
and self-determination.

~~~
tomku
That's nice rhetoric, but when you disregard the truth in order to keep up in
the arms race of lies that you claim the other side started, you become as
reprehensible as them.

~~~
Retric
Telling lies and X is not equally as bad as telling lies and not X. EX: Where
X is killing people. 'Smoking cigarettes makes you popular smoking cigarettes
makes you unpopular.'

~~~
Symmetry
That's a particularly bad example, since the idea that cigarettes will make
you unpopular will be a transparent falsehood to the target audience, and
might cause them to doubt you when you say that cigarettes will kill them.

~~~
Retric
There was some recent anti smoking advertising that used that line, basically
smoking = bad smell/yellow teeth = unpopular. Where a few years ago similar
advertising used the smoking = cool = you become popular line of argument.

Granted this was sub textual, but the implications where clear enough.

------
drucken
I fail to see the link between the title plus domain of this site and opposing
CISPA.

I do not think I could even call it link bait. They may as well have called
it, "doyoulovebluewhales.org"...

Also, the soundtrack ruins its factual/informative presentation value and use
of scripting for such a light site makes it feel unprofessional and insecure.

Some of the content and flow of information is good though. But overall just
too light, lowbrow and unconvincing if I was not a techie but otherwise had
half a brain to care about issues like this.

~~~
kristopolous
Ok, two things.

The first element loaded here on the train was stop soundtrack ... that made
me bounce as I thought "My mobile tethering will choke on this" and "I don't
have headphones hooked up".

* A lot of idle browsing come from idle time spent at coffee shops, libraries, and trains using low-power devices (e.g. netbooks, tablets, phones). If you want that to be your time then you have to play by those rules. Make sure your experience is acceptable for these scenarios.

* People don't expect playing audio on page-load. If you are trying to shock, ok. But if you are trying to get a message across, and people are around other people they will bounce from your site or have to quickly press mute...you're forcing your user to be really reactive here. Instead of trying to understand the content, they are doing damage control.

Think about your grandparents riding the subway reading the old-time newspaper
or standing in line somewhere with the 25cent novel. Although our media today
has changed, the purpose of the content consumption really hasn't. Make sure
you captivate people in analogous ways.

Second, the domain made me think it was a reboot of "post-secret".

You can go with a goofy or an intriguing domain as long as you deliver
something that matches the level of goof or intrigue. The delivery here is ok
... being on HN, I just expected more I guess.

~~~
385668
Exactly, if there's one thing I don't miss from mid 90's internet it's
embedded, can't be turned off audio. And, as you pointed out, I also thought
it was going to be a post-secret type thing or news story about how common
certain 'secrets' are.

That most of the 'facts' present are at best tangentially related to what the
bill allows just made it worse.

------
ap22213
This site showed me nothing about the bill in question. I would have liked at
least a few references to sections of the bill that are considered bad.

Anyway, a link to the bill is here:
<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2105pcs>

------
debacle
This is just creating a database of informed CISPA dissenters. Wake up
sheeple! </tinfoilhat>

On a more serious note, this could have been presented much better. This gave
me the same feeling as that semi-attractive girl in college stepping into your
personal space to tell you all about how unjust mandated meal plans are.

~~~
AznHisoka
why does it give you that same feeling?

~~~
debacle
It's pandering to the lowest common denominator in an unprofessional and not
entirely honest fashion, using shitty vectors (a soundtrack, really?).

~~~
reinhardt
To each his own. I found the presentation pretty well done and the soundtrack
was a nice touch. Perhaps that's exactly why it could be seen as a problem; it
is _too_ appealing and thus "unprofessional" (i.e. not boring enough to cause
one hit the back button midway through).

------
tomku
For a slightly more balanced take on it, check out the Wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act)

There are definite problems with CISPA in regards to privacy, but a lot of the
stuff on that "Do you have a secret?" page is just mindless FUD.

~~~
alanh
> _calls page mindless FUD when in fact there are specific examples cited on
> page_

> _doesn’t back up own claims of FUD_

Hello?

~~~
tomku
Please explain how either of the examples (one is specific, one is not) have
anything to do with CISPA. One was a traditional terrorism investigation that
was horribly botched, while the other is a case in a foreign country with laws
that are completely different (and much, much worse) than CISPA.

Both qualify as FUD because their factual relevancy is extremely low, while
their shock value is high. Their only use on the page is to scare visitors
into going "Oh my god, that could happen to me!" so that they tell all their
friends about all these terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do
if we all don't oppose CISPA.

~~~
alanh
> _Their only use on the page is to scare visitors into going "Oh my god, that
> could happen to me!" so that they tell all their friends about all these
> terrible things that the evil gubmint is going to do if we all don't oppose
> CISPA._

Sounds relevant to me.

They’re just taking a big picture approach here, not focusing on CISPA. I
think that’s okay.

------
larrys
I question how seriously people would have taken this website if it was
designed based on "ransom note" 1990's design standards. And wasn't operated
by the age group that has taken up these causes.

It draws attention to the "Center for Rights" <http://fightforthefuture.org/>
and on that page there are a bunch of hipsters
<http://fightforthefuture.org/#staff> who know how to play things to the media
and get taken seriously.

Certainly a case at the very least for the importance of good design.

------
vinhboy
Ok. I guess I was the only one who enjoyed the site and soundtrack. I thought
it was rather creative.

My only complaint is the scrolling is a bit broken.

------
robotmachine
No, I don't have a secret. That isn't really what privacy is about. You don't
have to have something to hide in order to not want everything you do/say and
everywhere you go tracked. This makes it seem like everyone is hiding a folder
full of kiddie porn or emails from their other girlfriend and therefore that
is why you should care about privacy protection.

~~~
einhverfr
I think the key here is the ability of massive surveillance to be used to find
something to use to prosecute "bad guys" especially when combined with vague
laws. Really, everyone needs to read "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent."

Exhibit A: The Lori Drew prosecution. A lot of people thought that because she
did something bad, that we should find something to charge her with, so the US
attorney in California charged her with unauthorized access to MySpace's
computer systems for the "crime" of violating their terms of service. After
she was convicted of misdemeanor and acquitted of felony charges, the judge
held the law was too vague as applied and threw out the convictions.

Exhibit B: The Daniel Hurwitz prosecution. Here was a doctor following exactly
what the DEA's public guidance was, who was prosecuted and eventually
convicted on the basis that he had some knowledge of the _statistical
certainty_ that some of his patients were selling narcotics on the street from
his prescriptions. And indeed when the defence noted that they had the DEA's
public guidance to submit into evidence the DEA's response was to remove it
from their web site.

The fact is that total surveillance + vague laws is _exactly_ what the USSR
used to lock people up and exactly what China uses to lock people up. The
comparison to China on the page in question is actually a very good one.

------
sxp
It's really annoying when all these people complaining about bills like CISPA
and other potentially dangerous bills don't actually mention why the bills are
bad. Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly
quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill.

So what in particular is bad about this bill?
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2105/text>

~~~
anonymfus
>Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly
quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill.

Direct quoting of something to prove something is "original research", then
it's violation of Wikipedia's rules.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>

~~~
Jtsummers
Directly quoting the law and citing the source of the law would not be
"original research" in the context of your link. To quote your link:

    
    
      The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia
      to refer to material--such as facts, allegations, and
      ideas--for which no reliable, published sources exist.
    

For example, the Wikipedia page
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
includes the text of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. By your
interpretation that would make it original research.

Directly quoting a bill, citing the house.gov or whichever source, provides
context for the ensuing discussion (pros and cons) which in turn should
consist of a set of citations.

------
xbryanx
Turn off soundtrack by default please.

~~~
jmsduran
Yes I agree, Many software engineers frequent HN while on work breaks.

------
mattmaroon
I really don't like propaganda. I don't need you trying to whip me into
hysteria. Just tell me what the CISPA does that you think is so bad and let me
decide.

~~~
sliverstorm
_let me decide_

I don't think you understand how modern politics work.

------
abalashov
I am never sure just how much point there is to opposing such bills, due to my
assumption that intelligence agencies always have and always will have all the
indiscriminate access to domestic communications that they want. I think even
publicised history provides more than abundant examples of that.

If there is a real fight, it is over criminal procedure, rules of evidence,
and other things useful in more banal dealings with law enforcement, and thus
having some bearing on the juridical outcome in the event that one is
prosecuted (or persecuted) on the basis of some illegal surveillance
technique. In other words, you could get acquitted of dealing drugs if the
state's main evidence against you is something obtained through warrantless
electronic surveillance, and that surveillance is illegal. And that's
important.

But why is it important? It's important because it's small stuff, not the kind
of stuff governments would throw national-level resources like NSA
supercomputers at. So, the argument is really about the gaps, not the fringes.
As far as terrorism and national security-type activities go, it seems to me
they already have unlimited _de facto_ authority, capability, and inclination
to spy on you all they want, and that this has more or less always been true.

Thus, I find that the rhetoric is a bit off. This isn't about stopping the
government having "access to your e-mails". They already have that, in
principle. With enough initiative and spiritual commitment, they can track
you, read your e-mail, and listen to your voice communications. The real
objective ought to be framed more precisely, perhaps something like: "There
shouldn't be a law that goes out of its way to grant unto pedestrian police
the formal sanction to employ surveillance capabilities hitherto the province
of spooky intelligence agencies".

However, that's a lot harder to sell.

------
wavesounds
The "Privacy Policy" button doesn't work ... how ironic.

~~~
jblount
Sadly, that was my fault (I'm one of the developers over at FFTF). Thanks for
the heads up! Sorry for the foolish mistake.

For those playing along at home, here is our privacy policy:
<http://fightforthefuture.org/privacy>

------
shill
Do you have a secret?

Yes, I have many.

Now can you tell all of your friends?

No.

------
BryanB55
I'm curious if sites like this even work? There was a lot of them back when
SOPA was a bigger deal and you signup, put in your email and it has some
canned letter that gets emailed to your senator. If I was a senator getting
these I'd filter them all to go to the trash. Unless we are using this method
as some type of voting system now. It just seems like there should be a better
more personal way than "spam the shit out of your senator".

~~~
385668
As a result of all the letters I've sent my representative in the last six
months I received a letter from him (Fortenberry, R-NE) asking if I'd like to
attend a Q&A with him next week.

------
stretchwithme
Instead of always trying to get the government to listen to its citizens,
wouldn't it be better if it were required to seek OUR approval for new
legislation?

~~~
untog
What do you think elections are?

I realise that sounds sarcastic, but really- we have a democratic system for a
reason. No, it doesn't work perfectly, but whole point is that they are
_representatives_ of us.

~~~
alan_cx
Democratic? Really? Are we still kidding yourselves that we have some sort of
democracy? Oh man.

Representatives of "us"? Oh, you donated millions to an election fund, right?
No? Oh, OK then, you're a lobbyist, backed by millions? No. Ah well, they aint
representing you then.

We are sold government in the same way tobacco companies sold tobacco in the
past. Lies, misrepresentation, half truths, and attacks on the other brand.
And because advertising is so powerful, yes it is, you think you are part of
it. You're not, you are pawns. Necessary to get the "important" pieces in to
position, but in the end, sacrificed at will for their greater good. Your
jobs, homes, mortgages, businesses, financial health, health, all there for
the taking so that those at the top can get rich, or as the banks have shown,
survive and keep their bonuses. Its a filthy pyramid scheme, that we are
conned in to supporting.

Sorry, democracy is a myth.

I assume its worse in the US.

~~~
sliverstorm
So what do you propose instead? Direct vote on every issue?

~~~
385668
It would be an interesting thought, certainly I'd be willing to entertain the
idea of some kind of e-voting system, wherein people could, at very least,
keep a running poll for each senator/representative in their jurisdiction
regarding each piece of legislation, maybe make it an electoral
college/delegate thing. Accurate information is hard to come by in those
regards, so a lot of politicians vote the way they've voted for decades
because they assume people still believe what they did when they first ran for
election. Additionally, I'm intrigued by the Pirate Parties' "liquid feedback"
system, which allows people to have a back and forth with their
representatives and each other, in addition to being able to vote on the party
platform.

~~~
stretchwithme
Representatives know exactly who's supplying their campaign money and other
inducements. And probably know how many citizens support various positions.

Knowing is not the problem. Doing is the problem.

~~~
stretchwithme
If you could only hire an attorney from 2 options selected by other people
that you had no control over and you couldn't fire him for 4 years, who do you
think your attorney would be working for?

------
xp3ll3d
In Australia, the government is trying to grant their security organisation
(ASIO) permission to read citizens emails, monitor web behaviour, etc. There
is a similar petition for Australians to sign
[http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-
res...](http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/)

------
yefim323
Instead of simply displaying the phonenumbers of the local Congressmen, they
could use a simple Grassroutes widget (<http://grassroutes.us/>).
OccupyWallSt.org and Twitpic.com used the widget during the SOPA blackout.

------
ctdonath
Makes me consider that ObamaCare compels everyone to give the government their
medical records. Yeah, I'd consider those secrets subject to 4th Amendment
protection.

~~~
_pius
Don't believe everything Glenn Beck tells you.

~~~
ceejayoz
s/everything/anything

------
grumps
It would be nice if you'd provide DC in the list too. We have a senator, they
just don't vote.

------
rokhayakebe
Would it not be easier to create tools to ensure your complete anonymity when
online?

~~~
crusso
Unfortunately, you can't fight battles like this on only one front.

Ignoring bad, overreaching legislation but finding a technological way to
fight back will result in law enforcement going to congress later saying, "You
gave us the authority to take these broad measures, but technology prevents us
from doing our jobs. We now need new laws that outlaw those technologies or
give us new authority to circumvent them. Perhaps we need a law that forces
hardware manufacturers to include our backdoors so we can track users hiding
behind anonymizing technologies. We'll also need more funding to increase our
manpower and research to stay ahead of the subversive technologies out there."

~~~
385668
Precisely, especially with Anonymous' doings lately I've heard several
senators express a desire to outlaw TOR in the US, ironic since we were so in
favor of it's use in Egypt, and since we developed it for use by Chinese
dissidents.

------
hollerith
No need to shout :)

(That is my reaction to the graphical design of the page.)

------
misiti3780
bug - the information form at the bottom of the page is missing validation.

------
vyrotek
Hmm, I'm in trouble. The new NSA Data Center in Utah is being built just down
the street from my house.

------
s-phi-nl
Flagged as political.

------
Tangaroa
Wait a minute. We're supposed to be upset that the feds took a guy's computer
after they matched his fingerprints to a bomb bag used in the Madrid train
bombings that killed almost 200 people? And we're supposed to believe this was
ethnic harassment because "he is a muslim"? If any police anywhere find near-
conclusive proof that you killed 200 people, it doesn't matter if you believe
in the flying spaghetti monster. They just might take your computer away from
you.

It turns out the fingerprints belonged to somebody else. Blame it on faulty
software and faultier human interpretation. This scaremongering about routine
evidence-gathering is socially irresponsible.

~~~
cheez
> Blame it on faulty software and faultier human interpretation

So you mean blame it on no one but a man's life gets destroyed.

And you wonder why they get away with murder...

~~~
sliverstorm
Something bad happens, and the first thing on your mind is, "We have to blame
this on somebody!"

And you wonder why America is mocked as such a litigious country...

~~~
MichaelApproved
Im always surprised by peoples aversion for trying to put blame on someone or
some thing. Finding where the fault was is part of the process to make sure an
error doesn't happen again.

I think there's confusion with the "blame game". As in, once you can blame
someone, the problem is over and solved but that's just the start to solving
the problem. I always want to know who did something wrong and how it happened
so we could work to prevent it from happening again in the future.

~~~
ebrenes
Because as people state in this other thread
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4176658>) quite clearly:

"It's not about pointing the finger or otherwise apportioning blame. It's
about learning from mistakes and preventing them from happening again."

Just assigning blame is a cop-out that doesn't do anything other than make
people better by finding a scapegoat and punishing that scapegoat as a result.

~~~
cheez
Actually, I really don't care about blaming a person or a thing. What I am
most concerned about is that the person who was most affected by the issue
(the people who were incorrectly arrested) are made whole, as best as they can
be.

This would include, to my mind, monetary compensation as well as having the
offenders cover the cost of mental rehabilitation.

It's a traumatic experience and we should not be so heartless.

------
rahulmitra
if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear.

~~~
EliRivers
Live streaming webcam from your bedroom please. If you're not doing anything
illegal in there, you're happy to do that, I assume?

