

Join the largest online protest since SOPA to stop NSA spying - sinak
http://CallForFreedom.org/

======
tzs
I don't trust these people. They were prominent in the CISPA argument, pushing
infographics with claims that didn't match the bill, asking for donations and
email addresses.

Now here they are on this issue, with a prominent donate button, and asking
for your email. The put the email request in the middle of a form asking for
name and address. They need the later because they are writing Congress on
your behalf. They do not need your email for that, and so putting the email in
the middle of that form smacks of a trick to get you onto their mailing list.

~~~
brilee
If you want to help people organize and get together without being
underhanded, you're more than welcome to set up your own organization.

------
tomelders
For UK readers, here's two related petitions calling on Parliament to launch
inquiries.

[http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51959](http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51959)

[http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51392](http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51392)

Please sign. And as always, email your MP.

[http://www.writetothem.com](http://www.writetothem.com)

~~~
MarcScott
Thanks for these links. Feeling a little impotent here in the UK, but happy
now that I can voice my concerns.

~~~
Sharlin
Well, you have your GCHQ doing the exact same thing and actively co-operating
with the NSA...

~~~
Avalaxy
Doesn't mean he should consent with the NSA spying.

------
run4yourlives
Online Protest == Can't be bothered to actually do something meaningful to
register my outrage.

Sorry, but change means getting off your fat ass.

~~~
dobbsbob
Media is a sucker for anything social media, they would probably run a longer
news segment on this online protest than they would chaos in the streets. Last
workers riot where I live the media solely concentrated on how they were
caught from facebook and other social media profiles, they hardly mentioned
the reasons for the rioting.

~~~
tossmeup
And the media is the next best thing to an online petition surrounded by
ads... ephemeral bullshit to hold attention while we show you commercials.

If they aren't afraid of you burning down their palace, they are not about to
change.

Why do people in the US think that change comes from meaningless, one-click
bullshit? In Egypt, the military says GTFO. In Syria, they can take up arms
and say GTFO and have it not work. You didn't see arabs using twitter for the
"retweet this if you want change." It was the get over to street a and b and
mob.

Peaceful sit-ins on unused public land, out of the way of the entrenched
interests is something to lampoon... nothing to be afraid of. You can't put a
poster of Ghandi up on the wall and be taken seriously.

Peaceful resistance is standing in the way of the tank and letting the
entrenched powers present themselves to the horror of the world. They will
either turn popular sentiment strongly enough that they are taken away,
changed, of they will stand down from stupidity.

It's like not forcing legislators to actually filibuster on their feet. Tweet-
it-in resistance is worthless.

Stand up, step in, and cross the line if you mean it. Otherwise STFU and GTFO.

~~~
hindsightbias
Sometimes I feel like everyone else took a history class where the pages of
the textbooks were filled with change brought about without violence being
done unto someone.

It would seem Twitter and FB have figured out a way to monetize that.

~~~
groby_b
Or maybe many people around you have actually read up on the success
probability and found that nonviolent resistance works twice as well than
violent resistance:
[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33...](http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7)

~~~
tossmeup
Not sure if you're seeing my statement as advocating non-violent, but
confrontational methods... that was the intent. Non-violence without any depth
of coverage is a tree falling in the woods with nobody there. You need
visibility while being non-violent and catalyzing. You must be present and
visible to embody the narrative that enables peoples' opinions to be matched
with yours. Who takes the internet hate machine seriously?

If you are similar or the same in fundamental, value/moral terms, others are
able to identify with you and see how your plight/demands and their
aspirations for themselves are the same.

Online petitions are worthless. You need videos that tell the story - like
Mitt Romney and his 47%. You need students getting pepper-sprayed. Overreach
and douche-baggery strengthen resolve for the believers and give second-
thought to anyone trying to reconcile their better selves with the crappier
elements of their own side.

Non-violence means little if you are not causing people to deal with you.
Nobody is called to account for an online petition or a peaceful protest
covered lightly as a hippie revival.

You have to push the envelope and make it uncomfortable - something requiring
answers.

~~~
foobarbazqux
If I win by provoking somebody else to hurt me, that's still violence. True
non-violence means nobody gets hurt.

~~~
PavlovsCat
"True non-violence" also means nobody eats, ever.

Not even Ghandi's movement was non-violent by your definition.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Yeah, I agree. Violence is basically unavoidable at some level. I prefer true
non-violence as the solution to problems, which is why I have a problem with
labeling Gandhi's version of violence as non-violence. I think it's better
understood as extreme passive aggression.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Please change the title: "stop NSA spying" is like "stop using condoms for
having sexual relationships"

"Stop massive surveillance" , or "control NSA abuses" are probably better.

~~~
ihsw
'Stop suspicionless surveillance' is probably what you're looking for. In
countries like Afghanistan with numerous independent terrorist factions,
'massive' surveillance is an inevitability.

~~~
rdl
I'd use the phrase "unwarranted", since there's both the plain-language
meaning of unnecessary or unjustified, and the legal meaning of a warrant
("and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized").

~~~
dllthomas
or "unreasonable"

------
nobleach
The only reason anything happened with SOPA is not because we somehow showed
the government that the people didn't want it. It's because we threatened the
business that supported it with lost profits. All of their lobbyists were the
ones that decided that one. It's a bit more difficult to do that with the NSA.
It's not like the federal government looks out the window and says, "what do
the citizens want?" these days. It's more like, "what can we get away with?"

~~~
eksith
There's still a way around that. The NSA was able to do what they do by and
large with the cooperation of very powerful businesses. Now it may not be as
easy to do without some of these as opposed to, say ESPN, but it can be done
if people are willing to accept certain sacrifices.

And we know most people won't.

------
Avalaxy
Is this for United Statians only, or can we (Europeans) sign it too to let the
US government know that we're tired of their shit?

~~~
Sharlin
We should let our elected representatives in the EU know we're tired of this
shit. It's almost certain that the signals intelligence agencies all around
Europe have known about the deal for a long time and have been actively
exchanging information with the NSA. Most agencies also have their own
programs in place not at all unlike the NSA's, and probably with just as
little parliamentary supervision.

------
waxjar
That's all very nice, but what about the rest of the world?

~~~
tomelders
I don't know, what about the rest of the world...?

It's in your hands.

------
zby
The Pirate Parties in Europe made this page:
[http://antiprism.eu/](http://antiprism.eu/)

------
Carlee
Can't Britain revoke America's government until they figure this out?

~~~
Sharlin
Why would they? They knew about this (at least to some extent) and were/are
actively cooperating.

------
thesmileyone
If EVERYONE ON THE PLANET signed it, they would carry on doing it anyway.

------
dutchbrit
They won't change, they'll just try to keep it more secret and deny
everything... Pointless petition if you ask me, even though I think people
should be fighting against it.

------
detcader
How has Reddit "signed on"? Their userbase is one of the biggest on that list
but they didn't change their homepage at all..

~~~
betawolf33
There was mention of the listed companies matching donations from the public
towards television adverts against the suspicionless surveillance. Perhaps
that's what they mean.

However, I agree that Reddit in particular could be doing more to spread the
word.

People are calling this the 'largest online protest since..' but I'm not
actually seeing much in the way of protest. I'm skeptical that those not
interested in the subject are seeing anything.

~~~
Semaphor
Ads for it are plastered all over the site & they made a blog post.

------
medde
If only the president would be held accountable for his promises, we would not
be having this discussion (PATRIOT Act).

------
graycat
I suspect that the politicians in Congress are still of the same mind they
were when they passed the Patriot Act, etc. to begin with: They want to be
seen as _doing something_ so that when there is another attack, e.g., the
Boston bomber, no political opponent can get votes screaming "soft on
terrorism". The politicians are trying to cover their asses (CYA).

That situation hasn't changed.

For violating the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the
politicians are willing to do that to CYA.

Yes, the Patriot Act, etc. are likely unconstitutional, and voters can scream
that to the politicians, but the politicians still just want to CYA against
another Boston bomber or a charge of "soft on terrorism".

But the US founding fathers saw this situation: Someone with 'standing' brings
a legal case, and eventually the case makes it to the Supreme Court of the US
(SCOTUS) which can accept the case and rule on the constitutionality of the
laws. So, the politicians just took advantage of this solution and hit the
ball, the hot potato Cthey didn't want to handle, across the street to the
SCOTUS.

Standing? Maybe 120 million Verizon customers have standing. Maybe there is a
huge class action suit on behalf of all US Internet users. And apparently
Google has started a suit. So, maybe there are enough suits with standing.

Then if the SCOTUS strikes down the Patriot Act, etc., the politicians can
blame the SCOTUS and still have their CYA.

Uh, politicians tend to be 'chicken hawks': Talk like a hawk (tough on
terrorism), walk like a chicken (CYA).

"Peck a little. Talk a little. Peck a little. Talk a little. Peck, peck, peck,
talk a little more." \-- extra credit for the source!

~~~
jivatmanx
"But the US founding fathers saw this situation: Someone with 'standing'
brings a legal case, and eventually the case makes it to the Supreme Court of
the US"

Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of the supreme court in Marbury vs.
Madison. Madison was his secretary of state.

Here is his reasoning:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which
would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest
as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for
party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the
more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the
other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected
no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more
wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves"

It's difficult to consider the counter-factual of the court not being created
and common law having been continued, but it's useful to understand that there
was opposition, and why, so that if you support it, you can use this knowledge
to make it better.

In more modern times, partisanship does seem to be a problem, with many of the
most important decisions are made 5-4 on party lines.

As you have brought up, another problem is that, contrarily, that it may be
that the supreme court isn't actually not be powerful enough. If the U.S. is
using the U.K. to spy on Americans, isn't that a blatant end-run around the
constitution? But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret
courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything?

At the same time, it's not "Just the supreme court's" job to uphold the
Constitution. Ultimately, it's the people's, and our most direct
representatives are the House. They take an oath to uphold the responsibility,
and they can't simply subcontract it, it doesn't work that way.

~~~
graycat
Thanks. I had not seen Jefferson's remarks. Bright guy. And now apparently to
cover up the flaws of "honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with
others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their
corps" the court is awash in pretense of impeccable objectivity, competence,
and final authority!

If we take Jefferson seriously, then for the constitutionality of the Patriot
Act, etc., the SCOTUS is not really a superior arbiter and not the last word
but just one stop on the way to the voting citizens.

Sounds like time to revise the letter I have under draft, waiting for the
SCOTUS to make their _unique_ contribution to the _constitutionality_ , quit
deferring to and waiting on the SCOTUS, warm up my FAX modem, send to my
Representative and two Senators, and tell them that the final arbiter here is
the voting citizens, that I vote, and that my decision on the
constitutionality of the Patriot Act and whatever else the NSA has been using
and generally the means, direct or indirect through London or wherever, is
"No" \-- not constitutional, and, thus, I expect them to correct the situation
with legislation.

So, as a voting citizen, the attitude for me to take here is not to quibble
over fine points of law or the precise wording of the First or Fourth
Amendments but just to state, from my power and authority as one voting
citizen, that this NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, whatever Federal Government under the
table, around the world backwards and into the back door, spying on my
Internet usage, my USPS usage, my FedEx or UPS usage, my license plate
locations, my favorite French or Italian wines, my cell phone tower usage, the
items I buy at A&P, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, the items I charge on a credit card,
my purchases at Amazon, who visits me, whom I visit, my Internet posts, my
garbage items, what my kitty cats eat, etc. is unconstitutional and, besides,
unacceptable as in torques me off, and I herewith demand that they pass laws
that will shovel out the stalls of the NSA, FBI, etc. and stop that stuff
where _stuff_ is not the only word I have in mind.

They can't "subcontract", send the ball, or hot potato, to the SCOTUS, and
have to do some real work themselves -- find ways to protect the US within the
Constitution.

"But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and
gag orders are imposed on everything?"

Apparently someone thought that that was a cute Catch 22, but I don't think it
will wash. So, if the FBI shows up at my Web site server farm (when and if I
get it built!), hands me a double secret, triple top secret, _national
security letter_ (NSL), where the first rule of NSL is never to talk about
NSL, I just say:

"I have not told anyone about your NSL; still, I've already consulted with my
lawyer about any such thing, and he advised me to say that we will see you in
open court. Have a nice day. I've got to get back to work. Oh, gee, it looks
like my kitty cat has made a mess on your nice NSL -- here, you can have it
back."

Maybe by the next 4th of July we will have this mess cleaned up.

