
What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know - ssclafani
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/what-we-dont-know-about-spying-on-citizens-scarier-than-what-we-know/276607/
======
ck2
Today I am throwing out the newspaper I was saving from the day after Obama
was elected and all the electronic newspaper front pages from around the world
I was saving from that day are being deleted from my hard drive. I've lost all
pride.

I am utterly disgusted with this administration. Any good he has done is wiped
out by being far worse than Bush with the domestic spying and whistleblower
prosecutions.

How are we any better than China - because we at least eventually find out?
Because people don't get disappeared off the street?

You remember that feeling of incredible relief when we saw Bush finally being
flown away in the helicopter on his last day? Well that feeling is going to be
deja vu in a couple years.

I just hope the next president doesn't try to do a one-up like Obama did to
Bush. Obama's library/museum is going to be even more hypocritical than
Bush's.

~~~
rosser
_Please_ don't make this about one party or one president. It's not. This kind
of behavior goes way, _way_ beyond partisan politics, and to reduce it to that
is to abdicate pretty much all of your agency or ability to do anything about
it, not least because partisan politics is more about apportioning blame for
problems than it is finding solutions to them.

Getting all, "Thanks, Obama!" over what the NSA was up to long before he was
elected — if not before Bush was elected — is giving the people who actually
did this, and are still doing it, a complete pass.

~~~
ck2
The president has the sole power to go the media every single day and say
"this is wrong".

He also has the power to bring to light any bill that is put on his desk for
signature.

Obama grew everything Bush did. The TSA, the NSA, all have become far bigger
and more "powerful" under Obama.

I'm not an idiot, I know congress is as much at fault. He is at fault for not
fighting it - it's his job as president of this country.

~~~
adventured
Not to mention the President has substantial executive order powers, that are
often very hard to overrule. If the President went to bat for privacy, openly
and regularly explained to the US public why, and used his executive order
powers to implement changes - well, let the Congress try to overrule that.
Obama can then issue 500 executive orders the next morning, slicing the issue
into countless separate pieces, let Congress choke on trying to overrule it
all, and if they want to stop him at that point, then they can impeach him -
and at least Obama would stand on principle, and he'd be the only President
impeached for doing the right thing.

Obama could stop all of this. He does not want to.

~~~
vidarh
I agree that he probably doesn't want to. That Obama is somehow progressive
was a fantasy people clung to because of the trauma of Bush, but Obama didn't
even campaign on a progressive platform - at best he fit in the centre, but on
many things he is right wing even by the standards of pre 9/11 US politics at
least (by European standards he's still far right, as pretty much every US
president, - many of his policies would be hard to defend even for most
European conservative parties)

He just looked like a progressive choice against the backdrop of Bush and
Cheney and McCain tied to the horror of possibly having Palin represent the
lunatic fringe.

BUT, even if he did want to, if he tried to stand firm, _everything else_
would grind to a halt. He'd burn all political capital he's got.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_...he is right wing even by the standards of pre 9 /11 US politics at
least..._

You are misremembering. Before 9/11, domestic spying and the warfare state was
primarily part of the left wing platform. Bush was elected on a platform of
"humble foreign policy" (as compared to Clinton/Gore's interventionism) and
Republicans generally opposed domestic spying.

Only a few years before 9/11, it was paranoid gun toting right wing conspiracy
theorists who defended crypto and turing machines, opposed the first patriot
act (pushed by Biden and Clinton), and generally opposed the government.

(They dropped this opposition the minute Bush was elected, of course...)

~~~
ReidZB
Turing machines? What do they have to do with privacy?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Back in the 90's there was a movement in congress to lock down all computers
iPhone style - i.e., ordinary users should not have access to Turing machines.
The Clipper Chip was one of the early attempts at this.

The goal was to prevent piracy, encryption, child pornography, violent video
games, and all the other bad things that the internet was enabling.

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

------
kijin
> _The U.S. government is on a secrecy binge ... We need whistle-blowers._

Q: What's the difference between the kind of transparency that Wikileaks et
al. tries to promote, and the kind of transparency that Mark Zuckerberg wants
Facebook users to adopt?

A: The former asks transparency of powerful entities, helping to check their
power. The latter asks transparency of relatively powerless individuals,
enabling the modern surveillance state and making individuals even more
powerless.

The most important thing that we should keep in mind when we talk about any
sort of justice in the context of information is how possession of information
alters the balance of power in the world. Because politics, ultimately, boils
down to who has how much power over whom. It's not about embarrassment. It's
all about the loss of authority that public scrutiny and embarrassment can
cause.

"Knowledge is power": knowing something about somebody gives you power over
that somebody. This rule of thumb even works when we interact with physical
objects (if you know how something works, you have the power to use it to your
advantage), and it works just as well when we interact with other people.
Asymmetric transparency leads to asymmetric power because they know enough
about you to take advantage of you but you don't know enough about them to
take advantage of them.

This is why I firmly believe that powerful entities should be required to be
several orders of magnitude more transparent, and therefore open to public
scrutiny, than the average chump would ever need to be. The only thing that
can balance off the asymmetry of power that complex social organization
usually entails is an asymmetry of knowledge in the other direction. Example:
Who I talked with on the phone last night is none of your fucking business.
But if you're in a position of considerable power, every meeting you ever have
with every lobbyist in the Universe should be damn well everyone's business.
This is not unfair at all. Clinton had no right to get secret blowjobs in my
opinion. Nobody should be allowed to have both power and privacy, because the
combination is a recipe for tyranny.

------
pfortuny
And we are now exactly where the terrorists wanted: a terrified administration
knee-jerking, kneeling before them, breaking the law and treading on the
american constitutional rights because 'they are a threat' or even 'can be a
threat' ... they?

Man, if Bin Laden were still alive he would be salivating right now.

This is freaking unbelieable: the Administration is (has been and seems to be
going to be) simply TERRIFIED. They may not believe in God (I do not know) but
they do certainly believe in the Devil and they call it 'Terror'.

So, they have won, and they have won big. The classical thrashing of the
enemy.

Has the Administration really learnt nothing since McCarthy?

These people talk about due process but they really know (or willfully reject)
anything about it.

"Get all that Roman Law and burn it, it is useless: what is that about
citicens? WE RULE, and WE RULE THE WORLD."

S.H.A.M.E-O.N.-Y.O.U. NSA and the Administration (whatever the party, whatever
the President).

Thankfully, there was someone with a conscience out there.

------
rosser
_Our government is putting its own self-interest ahead of the interests of the
country. That needs to change._

This, this, a thousand times, this.

------
sigkill
[Honest question with absolutely zero bad intentions] I hate to bring this up
again and again, but how long before the USG turns into Nazi Germany? Right
now, they're in the data collection phase, and are squashing dissidents.

I don't live in the US but I casually told this news to a 'normal person' I
met yesterday [my parents] and they weren't even flinching. Almost like it
wasn't their problem. I wonder if the 'not living in the US' part has anything
to do with this.

The reason I'm worried about this is, now that USG has this tech, they won't
hesitate to sell this to other countries.

EDIT - To the person who downvoted me, I am not upset but can you tell me why
my post does not contribute to the discussion? It is a known fact that any
tech the US researches and implements is soon commercialized and sold to other
countries, and as compared to weapons, surveillance tech sales is definitely a
walk in the park.

~~~
hga
The threshold I generally use is the use of extra-legal violence, e.g. open
violence against those "dissidents" with the organs of the state ignoring it.

Which won't work very well at all in such a well armed, and better armed every
day country (for the last several years _every_ month has had higher gun sales
from licensed gun stores compared to the month a year ago, details can be
found at [http://www.nssf.org/](http://www.nssf.org/)). Also makes a very big
difference that policing is primarily under local control, and the central
government can't stop state prosecutions without explicitly acknowledging the
target is a government agent (see the squashing of the state prosecution of
Lon Horiuchi
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charg...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge)).

Of course, also in light of Nazi Germany, any serious national effort at gun
confiscation will instantly spark the civil war we seem to be sliding towards.
On the likelihood of that (kudos to you for acknowledging the systematic
"squashing" of dissidents), let me quote the recently woken up Peggy Nonan
([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)):

" _What does it mean when half the country_ —literally half the country—
_understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is
politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try
to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country,
letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political
rights._ "

She's using "shoot" in a metaphorical sense (tellingly, American English has a
lot of shooting and gun metaphors).

~~~
buerkle
Noonan hasn't woken up; it's her same trash as always. She conveniently
ignores that these groups were going for non-profit status. They were not
being prosecuted. They were trying to forgo taxes when quite possibly under
the law they do not qualify for tax exempt status. Besides the IRS has given
non-profit status to more than twice as many conservative groups as liberal
groups recently.
[http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C73...](http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90)

~~~
hga
Keep on thinking that as we slide towards civil war, our side is not igorning
the truth as acknowledged by various heads of the IRS and Obama; if they say
something wrong was done, perhaps there was?

To put this in perspective, here are two other 501(c)(4) "social welfare"
organizations: the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action,
founded in the late '70s, and Organizing for Action, what Obama's campaign
Organizing for America became. And ironically the latter's first effort was
post-Newtown gun control.

Besides ignoring all the other abuses, not all from the IRS, it sounds like
you're confounding tax exempt with non-profit. E.g. donors to the political
efforts of 501(c)(4) do not get to donate tax free. The organizations _are_
allowed to be non-profits, they aren't established to make a monetary profit.

Well, they were, this abuse hasn't stopped, you know, despite all the
apologies from the IRS for "poor customer service".

------
hooande
I want to provide some perspective here, at the risk of being downvoted.

To compare what the US government is doing to a truly oppressive regime is
insulting. People in the world today live in fear of physical harm from their
own government. They aren't worried about phone call meta data or blanket call
logging. They're worried about being taken by force with no trial, no ACLU or
EFF to help them. Just gone.

Ai Weiwei served months in jail for art projects that were critical of the
government. Can anyone _imagine_ that happening here, in the country where
flag burning is constitutionally protected? There are dozens of countries in
the world today that have a near 100% conviction rate for political
dissidents. Here in America confessed terrorists have the right to an attorney
and god help the prosecution if there was any missed technicality during the
arrest.

Don't dare be a girl trying to go to school in many middle eastern countries.
Might get run over by a tank if you openly oppose the chinese government.
Offend the king of saud with your actions and you'll be literally stoned to
death in the street. And we're worried about phone call meta data?

I think a lot of this is ignorance about how modern counter terrorism works.
The most effective tool we have is social network analysis. Find a terrorist
and see who calls them, then see who calls those people and out and out. Look
at the vertices and edges and dependency networks and we can learn a lot about
complex organizations without risking any lives. It's understood that this is
offensive to many people's privacy beliefs, but it's the best tool we have.

If you want to know why government agency's are engaging in this wildly
unpopular behavior, here's the answer: On 9/11 a lot of people swore to god
that it would _never happen again_. That might sound like a joke to people who
never held up their hand and vowed protect and defend. People give their
fucking _lives_ to stop threats that you'll never know about. Question their
methods all you want, they aren't going to listen.

Also: Save the slippery slope nonsense. There is a 0% chance of the US
government becoming an oppressive regime, surveillance or not. Those things
just don't happen in times of peace and prosperity. No country has ever gone
from being an advanced democracy to being a tyrannical regime. Obama can't
even pass a law without 37 votes to repeal.

~~~
agwa
Here a few examples of how citizens are treated in the United States:

Cameron D'Ambrosio - held in jail for weeks without bail for posting rap
lyrics the government found offensive.
[[http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/](http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/)]

Peaceful Occupy protesters - subjected to beatings and pepper-spraying at
point blank range [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-
spray_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-
spray_incident)]. (Note that no one was actually run over by a tank in China;
OTOH, the US has the legacy of the Kent State Massacre
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)].
ETA: there have been worse massacres of protesters elsewhere, but the point is
that the US is not exempt from this.)

Bradley Manning - held for nine months in solitary confinement under
conditions that at times could only be described as torture: naked and without
his eye glasses, permitted to read or watch TV for only _one_ hour a day, not
permitted to exercise. [[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/manning-
treatment-i...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/manning-treatment-
inhuman/)], [[http://solitarywatch.com/2012/08/11/defense-motion-
describes...](http://solitarywatch.com/2012/08/11/defense-motion-describes-
bradley-mannings-unlawful-pretrial-punishment-in-solitary-confinement/)]

North-west anarchists - accused of no wrongdoing but refused to testify for a
grand jury. Held in contempt of court and sent directly to jail. Spent 5
months in jail, much of it in solitary confinement during which they were
permitted no visitors and had only one 15 minute phone call a month and
limited access to reading and writing materials. According to the judge who
both sent them there and then released them, "their physical health has
deteriorated sharply and their mental health has also suffered from the
effects of solitary confinement."
[[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4hDq2p2PpMKRDRDQzViLWJTUmc/...](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4hDq2p2PpMKRDRDQzViLWJTUmc/edit?pli=1)]

None of these people are even suspected terrorists. What they share in common
is that they did things the government didn't like.

As for suspected terrorists, they are _not_ guaranteed due process. See Jose
Padilla
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29)]:
_U.S. citizen_ , held from 2002 to 2006 as an "enemy combatant" and denied due
process. Finally transferred to civilian court and convicted anyways, showing
that criminal defendants do not get off on "technicalities" as you claim. Look
up "harmless error analysis" if you want to learn the truth about
"technicalities."

The United States is _not_ exceptional, and we need to stop pretending that it
is.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Note that no one was actually run over by a tank in China; OTOH, the US has
> the legacy of the Kent State Massacre

No protestor was run over by a tank at Kent State, either; OTOH, China has the
legacy of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, in which at least (even by the
official _government_ counts) 50 times as many civilians were killed as at
Kent State.

~~~
agwa
You're right. The point is that protesters are killed in the US too.

------
gridmaths
Bruce Schneier gives a more coherent overview on the current HN "surveillance
state" theme.

tl;dr : massive surveillance is real, there is far more, blow the whistle if
you can, take precautions

------
vixen99
As a non-American I am surprised no one here has commented specifically on
this electric call to arms: "Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral
activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and
methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to
engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely,
but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret
and probably illegal programs -- do it.

If you see something, say something. There are many people in the U.S. that
will appreciate and admire you. "

------
tigger
Thinking of that George Orwell quote from 1984: “You had to live - did live,
from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made
was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.” Perhaps
even in darkness!

~~~
mcintyre1994
Why use telescreens to watch people when you can just monitor the methods they
use to communicate what they're doing? Seems like a pretty reasonable
comparison in a way.

------
scanr
As a foreigner, it's pretty disappointing that spying on us is considered fair
game.

That said, it appears that any American who communicates with someone overseas
also gets to join our special club.

This feels like a fairly large loophole. Does replying to this comment count?

~~~
mcintyre1994
As a European it sort of makes you wonder about this Data Protection Act, with
its loophole safe harbours to allow data transfer to the US. How exactly is
that protected under these circumstances, and have Europe just given up on
protecting anything because the US told them so?

~~~
mcpie
Nothing was 'given up'. Something was traded. European intelligence agencies
regularly 'launder' intercepts through foreign governments ('hey NSA, we'll
trade you some info, if you can get us some info on one of our own...').

~~~
mcintyre1994
I asked have they just given up, so in that context given up referred to
stopped trying to protect us. Your comment seems to suggest that yes, they
have given up on protecting Europeans' data.

------
neilxdsouza
I have even scarier thoughts that this. Let's say the CIA, FBI etc had a
commong brainstorming session on how to target spying on people.

Here are some ideas they could come up with: 1\. Intel is the biggest
distributor of computer chips, lets target them 2\. Microsoft is the biggest
supplier of desktop software, lets target them. 3\. If we can pick up signals
from distant galaxies can we not make our own special network out of those
thousands of desktops running those powerful computer chips today?

Problem: If someone at intel/MS directly works with us, we will be found out.

Solution: Let's target a high level exec, he wont do anything other than allow
them to employ a few of our special programmers.

    
    
       Take the chip plans from Intel. Make some modifications to add another core, which is activated in a special mode and instruction running its own Operating System/wifi etc.
    
      Deployment: Tell the high level exec, tell us when your next upgrade to manufacturing hardware will arrive. Just give us the date and the shipping information.
    
      Intercept the hardware and modify it's software to dynamically change the plans, with a new one.
    
      For MS, hack the build system using something similar to the Ken Thompson hack.
    
      If I was into spying, with a govt agency I would definitely do this. Which is why I always assume my computer is compromised.

~~~
gasull
Alvin Toffler already talked about this possibility in his 1993 book Future
Wars [http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-
Flashpoin...](http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wars-Worlds-Dangerous-
Flashpoints/dp/0446364215&#x2F);

------
coldtea
A few quick notes:

1) They have and will be spying on citizens forever. Anybody who believes
mission statements, officials, and that they "follow the law", is extremely
naive.

2) More important than any terrorists to them, are dissident citizens. Not of
the gun-totting, hillbilly mountain militia type. The kind that can effect
political change to the system type, from Joe Hill and Mother Jones, to MLK
and Malcom X, to Occupy Wall Street (if that thing ever got anywhere
coherent). People making waves.

------
sneak
Fuck, I love Schneier so much.

He even ended with a call to action.

------
trxblazr
So realistically, what can we, the populace, do?

~~~
adventured
Only two sane choices.

Fight or flight.

1) Speak out, set up organizations like the EFF or similar to fight for
privacy. Or advocate on behalf of such organizations. Work the politicians
however you can, to whatever extent that might help. Encourage the people you
know to do the same; encourage people to give a shit again. Explain why it's
important to fight this.

2) Try to leave the US, or at least begin disappearing yourself. Leave less of
a trail. Communicate as little as necessary over the phone or digitally, and
keep it strictly business (so to speak). Use good encryption wherever you can.
Encourage the people you know to do the same.

Either option is valid, both are entirely personal, moral choices. Some people
stayed when the Iron Curtain went up in Russia and tried to fight it, some
fled; ditto Germany, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on.

~~~
flyinRyan
Personally, I chose option 2. Much easier for me. Martyrs and activists do
tend to win in the end, but they tend to be dead before victory is achieved.

------
tshile
The media finally has an opportunity to be what they always want us to believe
they are: a form of power of the citizenry to keep the government in check.

There's lots of discussion on how the people have no power since this problem
isn't an issue of voting for one side or the other - there's only one side
represented by politicians, and it's the pro-spying activity side. (Side note:
I don't mean to diminish those people's concerns, I'm sure majority of them
are honestly trying to protect us the best they can.)

The only way for real change to come about this style of government is for the
media to demand it. They've sat idly by watching it (ore more appropriately,
ignoring it) for over a decade now. It's time for them to put up or shut up.
Hopefully the AP/Reporter spying by the DOJ was enough to put a fire under
their butts about it. Hopefully this is just the start to intense scrutiny by
__all __media outlets (not just foxnews, not just msnbc, ie: not just one
party 's mouth piece, but all of them.) Unfortunately we just have to wait and
see. The media has a chance to redeem themselves for the past decade+ of
caring more about what is trending on Youtube and Twitter than protecting
their viewership. Hopefully they rise to the task.

------
jasonjei
_If you see something, say something._

That's funny. That's the slogan they have plastered all over New York's subway
system.

~~~
e12e
It's a joke, all right:

[http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-
campai...](http://www.dhs.gov/if-you-see-something-say-something-campaign)

------
DamnYuppie
Having read all the comments I am disappointed. This is a great opportunity to
discuss this issue and make more people aware of the dangers of such activity.
Yet the bulk of the discourse has degraded into partisan drivel of "Obama vs
Bush". Honestly who cares? Every administration has played a part in this and
they all have equal blame so get over it! Attempting to say one side did this
or that will not solve the issue.

What they are doing is bad, it shouldn't happen, all who support it need to be
kicked out..full stop...no excuses...

------
eldr
I'm usually skeptical of conspiracies, but now I guess I have to be more open
to the possibility of this kind of behaviour.

If they went to these lengths with tech companies can't we assume that
surveillance in place within financial institutions is even worse than what we
know it is? It could hint at another angle beyond having lots of money where
Wall Street has leverage over Washington. I can imagine bank execs threatening
leaks should things not go their way.

~~~
flyinRyan
You should always be _skeptical_ , but you must always keep in mind that
conspiracies do happen all the time [1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Allegations_of_the_Business_Plot)

------
jack_trades
Not sure how this story is breaking and unexpected. This is exactly the type
and style of program that was expected right after 9/11\. It's totally the
NSA's playground and the co-operation and/or backdooring of major,
communication-funneling corporations would be assured. How is this shocking?
It has little to do with political winds and everything to do with the spawn
of the military-industrial complex... the military-infocomm complex.

James Bamford

------
tn13
Just now I heard on NPR that China hacked several key military systems of
United States. US government has already chickened on this issue.

Not just governments but any institution when starts hurting those who can not
hit back, you know they are on decline.

If US interests are under threat from anyone then it is not Afghanistan or
Iran or Syria but China. US government wont get anything by spying on US
citizens but by standing upto China.

~~~
flyinRyan
I hope the US tries to stand up to China. The US has been long over due for a
good hard smack down, and it would be beautiful to watch China give it to
them.

------
D9u
This just goes to show that it took _both_ political parties, working together
for decades, to arrive at the current juncture.

------
venomsnake
There was this joke in my country when a recent wiretapping scandal broke -
the US equivalent will be:

How can you wish Happy Birthday to President Obama - just tell it on the phone
while talking to a friend - Erik Holder will already be listening and will
send the greetings.

------
merraksh
This is one of the best parts:

 _If you see something, say something._

and it's directed to potential whistle-blowers.

------
eightyone
This is off topic, but... Mozilla should develop Firefox OS to be as secure as
possible.

~~~
anon1385
That's impossible unless they throw out all the web technologies they
currently use.

Users need to be able to encrypt their data such that the cloud providers
can't ever see it. The web as it stands is just not designed to be used like
this; even if all my google docs data is encrypted and google does not have
the key, it will need to be decrypted in-browser to be displayed which means
a) broken javascript crypto and b) the page can then send all the data back to
google anyway.

A further problem is the economics of the web: it's largely based on providing
services that are free to use but paid for by advertisers. You can't target
advertising if you don't have data about user habits. Economically Google
can't exist without tracking people and recording as much data as possible.

------
mun2mun
People at r/conspiracy are like "I told you so" :). Also free software
supporters are feeling same thing I hope.

------
wslh
And then... they can't prevent attacks such as the Boston bombings. They
gather data but where is the intelligence?

------
camus
Welcome to the real world people , everyone has taken their red pile yet ? I
mean you are giving up personal infos and data for (crappy) free services ,
what did you expect ? a free lunch with no hidden cost ? the government has
all your datas and it will use it against you sooner or later.

~~~
sfjailbird
This has nothing to do with the services being free.

~~~
jayfuerstenberg
Actually it does.

Free services means the loyalty is NOT to the users but whoever pays the bills
(usually ad merchants).

That's why there are "privacy policies" and not "privacy guarantees".

~~~
mcintyre1994
Is there any evidence that paid Google Apps data, for example, wasn't
transferred then? If this is because the service is free, they'd be protected,
correct?

------
prollyignored
Has anybody seen﻿ Sam Lowry ?

------
coderdude
The Atlantic, who spams HN for hits, just happens to also have insight on what
the NSA is up to? Yeah, right. There is nothing in this article.

~~~
gridmaths
irrelevant, its Bruce Schneier

~~~
anigbrowl
I'll just suspend my critical faculties then.

~~~
bigiain
So exactly how are you demonstrating any use of your "critical facilities" by
dismissing Schneier's entire article with no thought-through critisism, but
just "Tha Atlantic? Meh…" followed by "There is nothing in this article." You
clearly haven't _read_ the article, and have some axe to grind against the
website. Fine - but don't try and claim this is your use of critical
facilities.

~~~
anigbrowl
I have read it, twice. Also, I'm not the same person who critiqued the
Atlantic in the first place.

Here are my objections to his position:

1\. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to
themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral
(but not illegal).

2\. While saying that it's scary what we don't know, he makes no effort to
educate his audience on what we do know, such as how this sort of activity
comes to be legal and constitutional in the first place, the answers to which
lie in the 1970s (see my other comments on Smith v. Maryland today, for
example).

3\. Schneier has absolutely nothing to say on how this state of affairs might
be fixed, or what it is that US citizens should demand of their senators and
state representatives to repair the situation through democratic means. My
answer to that question is that that we need a constitutional amendment that
creates an explicit right to privacy and another that narrows the power of
Congress to abdicate its oversight of the Executive branch, which latter is
conveniently required to maximize its defensive capabilities. I also think
it's high time that the AUMF was rescinded.

4\. Schneier has made a fine career out of complaining about the security
state but shows no leadership when it comes to rolling it back. We all hate
the TSA's instrusive searches and silly rules, yes? But when the TSA proposed
loosening the restrictions on what you could take onto a plane, to allow
practical exceptions like small pocketknives and so on, airlines lobbied
heavily against it on behalf of their staff (who, in fairness, would be facing
an elevated risk). Despite years of complaining about the TSA, Schneier did
not AFAIK write _anything_ about the proposed changes, let alone express
support or encourage others to do so. Although the proposed rule change was
pretty small, it would have represented at least a minor victory for common
sense instead of security theater. But when it was offered up from public
debate, Schneier didn't even consider it worth mentioning to his readers.

Schneier's great at stoking readers' outrage - not so good at educating them
or helping them channel it effectively. In my view, his punditry is emotional
rather than analytical.

~~~
flyinRyan
>1\. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to
themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral
(but not illegal).

Man do I hate this objection. Would you have behaved the same in Nazi germany?
"Come on! You're asking people to break the law! It's illegal to tell anyone
about our plant for murdering disabled people.". Well, yes. Because a corrupt
entity has control of the laws and is making it illegal to point out the
illegal activities said entity is engaging in.

~~~
anigbrowl
Collecting people's phone records, while objectionable, is _not_ on the same
moral plane as murdering them; and I've already explained at some length how
Americans' telephony records are not considered to be private information for
>30 years.

See, this is why I object to what Schneier is doing. He has you equating the
confidentiality of phone records with human lives.

~~~
flyinRyan
You're not thinking big picture. The government is building an infrastructure
for citizen monitoring on a scale that has never before been conceived. That
same government has already abused virtually every power they've ever been
given. No, we know of no Gasto-style "disappearing" as of yet but there's
really nothing holding it back but luck as far as I can see. How much longer
is our luck going to hold out?

And we don't need to put ourselves as the mercy of the worst people in
government. We don't need to allow this stuff as it buys us practically
nothing. Terrorism isn't a legitimate threat to America and never has been.
Even if we utterly ignored terrorism it will never be more than line noise
compared to things like heart disease, vehicular death and so on.

~~~
bigiain
" … we know of no Gasto-style "disappearing" as of yet but there's really
nothing holding it back but luck … "

I suspect Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and most of the people who've ever
been inside Guantanamo Bay probably see that a little differently.

~~~
flyinRyan
What are you saying? Those people see something holding back Gestapo-style
"disappearing"s? Or they think that it's already happening? In the cases you
mentioned, the people were too high profile to be completely disappeared but
how they have been handled is despicable enough.

