
EFF to Congress: Stop the Cybersurveillance Bills - panarky
https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-congress-stop-cybersurveillance-bills
======
xnull2guest
Two things.

There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America
and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with
espionage and sabotage operations as well as foreign propaganda. One of the
main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company
onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the
companies that the information - which usually amounts to close to all network
traffic at the border and sometimes inside the corporate network and for many
companies the customer records it keeps (although some are merely programs
whereby only malware and hacker IPs or propaganda social media posts, etc are
shared) - can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. This
is something that many organizations, including the EFF, are not talking
about.

Second thing. The purposes of these programs are not to combat terrorism - the
defense industries of the Western world feel they need surveillance and
propaganda capabilities because their superpower status is hollowing out as
the world's economic base shifts to the Asia Pacific and as new challenges to
Western institutions such as super- and hyper-sonic warhead delivery systems
enable ICBMs to land payloads across the globe now in under 40 minutes. It is
challenges to the old order that make our democratic institutions feel they
need to reach for our rights to defend themselves. The Constitution is a
peacetime document - and there is no peace for powers that feel their
influence hollowing out.

It is not useful to discuss these programs in terms of terrorism - they are
not designed for terrorism.

~~~
adventured
I dispute that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific.

The US still has the same share of global GDP that it had 35 years ago, and
faces no credible threat to the dollar's dominance. The US economy is larger
than the size of Japan + China combined, and is now 250% larger than Japan,
and that gap will increase significantly. Canada has become vastly stronger
over that time, it has as large of an economy as India with just 2.7% of the
population (with not even a small fraction of the problems that India faces).

Mexico's GDP has doubled in 15 years. Brazil has become one of the major GX
economies, with an economy 50% larger than Australia or South Korea.

Spain has as big of an economy - even after all the problems they've had - as
South Korea (which is the #4 economy in the Pacific region).

Germany, the #2 economy in the West, is likely to pass Japan's economy in size
in the next 10 to 15 years (with 1/3 less people). In the last 20 years that
Japan has been treading water and taking on vast debt, Germany's economy has
doubled in size post re-unification.

Most of the best countries in the world in terms of high standard of living
are in Europe.

Meanwhile the Asia Pacific region has nearly two billion people living in what
can only be described as intense poverty by Western standards. China alone has
~600 million unemployed captive 'farmers' earning $3 / day, because there are
no other jobs for those people to do.

Japan is in such dire condition 40% of their budget goes to paying interest on
their debt, their GDP hasn't grown in 20 years, and they've gotten so
desperate they've taken to aggressively debasing the Yen to keep their
government solvent (rapidly chopping down the Japanese standard of living in
the process). Japan is of course Asia's second largest economy.

China has spent the last six years post great-recession faking their growth by
taking on $30+ trillion in new debt, in the process becoming one of the most
indebted nations on earth.

Japan and China, Asia's two biggest economies, are facing disastrous
demographics issues, while they simultaneously drown in debt (a bad
combination when you have to take care of a lot of elderly).

Compare the top 20 economies of the West vs the top 20 economies of the Asia
Pacific, in terms of incomes, wealth, standard of living - it's not even
remotely a close contest. The 10th largest economy in the West is the
Netherlands ($50k GDP per capita); compare them to Malaysia ($10k GDP per
capita) or Thailand ($5k GDP per capita).

I fail to see how this sum represents a shift to the Asia Pacific
economically.

~~~
xnull2guest
It should be noted that many people have gone bankrupt over the past three
decades predicting the end of China's growth (adjusted for purchasing power,
China's GDP has already surpassed the United States GDP). Anyway, a couple
things.

First: the claim is that the world's economic base is __shifting __to the Asia
Pacific - not that it is already there. One reason for this is that these
(huge) economies are emerging into consumer rather than producer economies and
another that much of the modern industrial capacity for 21st century goods
(e.g. electronics) are centered in this area. The Renminbi is a credible
threat to the dollar.

The second thing is that this is the perception of the Western world - it is
the reason for the Bush and Obama administrations' joint plan for the Pivot to
Asia. Maybe our government is wrong - but this perspective is what informs it
and is leading its decisions.

The third thing of course is that your dossier is very coarse. It fails to
mention the problems in the Eurozone and the financial crashes centered around
the dollar. It casts the Spanish economy in good light and the Chinese one as
bad. It mentions Canada's growth, but not that it has been driven by
investment in China. Curiously, it uses Japan as a comparison for the US
economy - a country I would consider on the Western system - and later uses
Japan as an example of why the Asia Pacfic is weak.

Finally, economics have more to do with growth than they do with wealth. It
does not matter that Asia is not (so) wealthy right now. What matter is that
the growth is and will be centered in the Asia Pacific. The investment, global
investment, will be there. Everyone wants a piece of the 7%+ pie. This while
the Western world, while rich, is struggling to grow at 2%. It is not enough
to look at who has the wealth - you need to look at who will be getting
wealth.

What Washington thinktanks are talking about right now is:

\- How can we get the Japanese people to agree with expanded US military
deployment there?

\- Can we get S. Korea to reunify with N. Korea, what would China think, and
what are the prospects for Korea to become a world power?

\- What broad power plays are going to be made by Xi Jingping? How can we
prevent China from gaining control of the major ocean trade routes?

\- What investments can the Western World make in Eurasia? Can a strong
partnership with India, with its emerging economy and large population, enable
us to compete in the region? How can we keep India off of the AIIB (esp. wrt
coal)?

(And of course a great number of things not related to the Asia Pacific, like
how to keep the Arctic as a no-man's land)

So anyway, I'm not actually making the claim that the Asia Pacific is going to
be the center for economic growth of the world for the next 40 years. I am
more properly making the claim that Western institutions believe this and are
responding to it.

~~~
adventured
China's growth boom has already ended, I'm not predicting it.

If it weren't for perpetual stimulus, and truly epic debt accumulation, their
economy would already be contracting. And that's before the bottom billion
people in China have an opportunity to participate in a better life. The
painful reality is, there are not enough resources, savings, or consumers to
lift China's bottom one billion up to even the levels of a mid tier economy
(~$15k incomes) - at least not in this century. They're entering Japan's debt
phase of the post growth bust - the point where the country gets desperate to
maintain its growth and so turns to accumulating debt - and they're doing so
before having even a mediocre social safety net.

When you have to take on $5 in debt to get $1 of GDP growth, your growth is
over. Ten years ago their return on invested capital, and return on debt had
already begun to plunge. At this point China is far beyond yielding good
enough returns on the debt they're accumulating. Now it's merely a question of
when China enters a debt panic, as all of their 'growth' gets starved out due
to debt obligations.

7% GDP growth equates to $600 to $700 billion in new GDP per year for China.
They're taking on $4+ trillion per year in new debt annually. To maintain
above 5% growth, they will probably have to take on another $30+ trillion in
new debt the next six or seven years alone (based on what it has taken to
reach the growth levels of the last five or six years, and assuming a
continued decline in return on that debt).

Their liquidity mess has resulted in one of the greatest stock market bubbles
in history and will soon implode; 2/3 of the investors participating don't
even have a high school equivalent education level. Their real estate bubble
has already begun to implode, pushing fleeing money into the new bubble in
equities. They're also bleeding foreign capital, whereas previously capital
was desperate to enter China.

There are only two possible outcomes for China the next 20 years. A lost 20
years like Japan, for similar reasons, following the implosion of both a real
estate and stock market bubble (again mirroring Japan). Or China acts very
aggressively, very quickly to curb debt accumulation and to pop existing
bubbles - that will result in extremely mediocre growth (1% to 3%) for a
decade or two, after a period of painful contraction.

~~~
xnull6guest
I hear a great number of predictions regarding China - especially on
discussion forums. It's also interesting to hear your analysis of debt
accumulation. When the US did much the same what I kept hearing from finance
folks was that foreign capital works quite differently than personal savings
and that the US debt burden was (and is) not really so big a deal. I have
heard variations of your argument for some years and so far none of them have
been right - I am struggling to figure out how your argument now differs from
their arguments then.

Consistently, on the other hand, what I hear from Washington strategists is
that they can not make policy decisions based on the hope that China's economy
with deflate or implode (not to mention that this would offer its own kind of
disaster to the West - look at what Thailand unpegging the dollar did in '97).
Their assessment is quite divergent from yours. Although it shares so many
features with the many before you who have wrongly predicted an implosion it
would be interesting if you were right. To reiterate my earlier point
Washington behaves off its beliefs and it believes that growth in that
hemisphere, plus growth in China, will make the Asian theater the dominant one
for the next half century.

Luckily for the world all predictions made in this thread are falsifiable - we
need only watch to see what happens over the next couple of decades to find
out. :)

------
zmanian
We have two major surveillance efforts from the government moving down the
pike and we do not have the attention of the Internet.

1.A set of surveillance bills under the guise of enhanced cyber security.
[https://stopcyberspying.com/](https://stopcyberspying.com/)

2\. Patriot act renewals that would reauthorize the governments phone and
Internet metadata authorities. [https://fight215.org/](https://fight215.org/)

Anything you can do to increase awareness of these bills would make an
enormous difference...

------
diafygi
Obligatory: [https://eff.org/donate](https://eff.org/donate)

I highly recommend signing up for a $19.84 recurring monthly donation. Also,
is there a SuperPAC or 501(c)4 that can lobby for this cause that we can
donate to?

~~~
SchizoDuckie
While I do respect the EFF and what they're doing, I'm flat out against
joining the whole SuperPAC thing where we're joining a piss-off contest into
who can give easily corruptible politicians that have no clue what they're
voting on the most money.

~~~
amsheehan
I agree 100%

I often argue with a lobbyist friend of mine about their (lobbyists) role in
the ecosystem.

Right now the paradigm seems to be hire lawyers to serve in Congress because
lawyers know how to write potential laws. Leave it to lobbyists to convince
them of the policy they should care about.

I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we
surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their
ideas into bills, we'd be better served.

There would still be special interest groups trying to convince them of what
to do, but I feel it would avoid situations like SuperPAC's buying clueless
politicians, and clueless politicians being appointed to committees they know
nothing about.

~~~
nitrogen
_I feel that if we had representatives with more diverse backgrounds, and we
surrounded them with lawyers and staff to explain how to best translate their
ideas into bills, we 'd be better served._

Interesting. Instead of lawyers on the inside, specialists on the outside, we
would have specialists on the inside, lawyers on the outside. I've wanted
something similar for a while, and I like this way of phrasing it.

------
ccvannorman
How is the top voted comment here about Asia's economic rise? Whether these
programs are "meant" for terrorism is irrelevant -- they are being pushed in
the name of terrorism. If they are about economic power in Asia, and our
politicians are using terrorism as a front to pass it, THAT is the problem. We
don't need to be discussing Asia.

We don't need more government control or surveillance, period. It's obviously
a bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to BE VOCAL. Call your
representatives and talk to your friends and family about this important
issue.

~~~
themeek
The top voted comment is not about economics in China specifically - it is the
only substantive reply that the parent got so that's what the conversation
devolved into. The top comment is more broadly about the US being challenged -
it's hollowing out of power. In the iron age if you can't wield iron you will
be cast down. In the information if you can't wield information...

------
fweespeech
As much as I love the EFF, I think we have to be honest with ourselves and
admit its a fundamental generational problem.

The people who think this is a good idea don't fully understand the
implications. Hell, people get dox'd because they don't understand how the
whole system works with publicly available information when they are
discussing something they really shouldn't under their real names.

Hell, even without the NSA its pretty easy to imagine a scenario where:

[Person discusses having an affair on Platform X] -> [Some bored IT guy
notices, thinks the woman is attractive and has no morals] -> [Uses exchanged
information to exploit her for sexual favors because its better than her
husband divorcing her and leaving her with nothing]

It doesn't even occur to these people that they are creating weapons that
literally could be used to exploit anyone who has a secret they want hidden,
domestically. The firewall that exists between "domestic" and "international"
that is supposed to prevent this is exactly what these politicians are burning
down.

At least, I keep hoping its ignorance.

~~~
task_queue
People have a blind faith in the watch guards and a natural tendency to hand
them the rope necessary to be hung with.

I have a friend in the middle of a divorce. Her husband works for their cell
provider. He has harassed her with allusions to "keeping tabs" on her because
of his position of power.

When you point the panopticon inwards you realize just how scary unfiltered
communication and location data taken out of context can be and how dangerous
someone with malicious intent and access to that data can be.

No one should have that power over someone. It certainly shouldn't be
consolidated into the hands' of any group of people, either.

~~~
Zigurd
> _People have a blind faith in the watch guards_

People have an explicitly cultivated faith in the watch guards. Cop shows on
TV promote an image of competency and good will. That's not what it's like in
the real world, but even in this forum, you find people being way too
deferential.

~~~
noir_lord
I'm in the UK and by and large we have reasonable policing (by the standards
of many countries we have excellent policing).

That said, I have absolutely no deference to the police here either, it's a
public sector job the same as any other staffed by people largely no better or
worse than any other industry with the crucial difference they are sworn to
uphold the law and have powers granted to them to that end.

They deserve the exact same respect as any other member of our society, we
largely don't go in for all the "men in blue" stuff either - they weren't
conscripted they chose to join as rational thinking adults.

------
cordite
Do we have a svn blame for parts of bills? Who keeps putting these in? Are
they aware that they are, or are they just copying from what others with other
interest give them?

~~~
Rayearth
The mental image of members of Congress themselves committing to an official
US federal law Github repo is kind of amusing. It would make being on a
"committee" take on a whole new meaning...

------
wahsd
I know some people don't want to even think about it, but just as a thought
exercise; where does the limit lie?

How much and how long does society go on nicely asking the government to stop
thrusting itself down the slope? Do we just keep asking and asking while
things get worse and worse and the next generation that is born into blanket
state surveillance sees nothing wrong with the situation?

I get that there are civil remedies like the subject one, along with judicial
methods, and even electoral ones. But it also seems that there is a distinct
process in place that effectively shields and converts, or generally simply
disconnects legislative representation from the will of the people. How much
does it matter that those who oppose blanket surveillance make up an
inconsequential minority among the established legislators that have political
or financial reasons to oppose what society wants, or simply have been scared
by boogiemen that various agencies heavily lean on in order to justify their
existence and funding.

Also, what happens when the will of the people, for whatever reason lacks the
foresight to prevent unintended consequences of irreversible actions or
decisions by, e.g., constantly electing people that will only perpetuate the
surveillance state we currently live in?

I'm simply asking the question of anyone, where they think the line currently
is or will be drawn? It seems that examples in human history abound of
philosophical boundaries constantly being pushed back, all the while the
position becomes ever increasingly overbearing and draconian and
authoritarian.

Have there been any efforts to establish what it is that the founders of this
country would have established as the final line in the sand? I don't know,
and maybe it's just a misinterpretation, but it seems that the very most
fundamental and core concepts of our country and society were violated a long
enough time ago to have reasonably expected remediation by now.

~~~
snowwrestler
If you want to understand why the Congress does what it does, you have to
first accept that they are addressing the desires of large portions of the
population.

When it seems like they are not, it's because many of the desires of the
population are directly conflicting.

For example, people want very low-cost energy, but people also want a clean
environment and to fight global warming. Or, people want the freedom to own
their own guns, but they are horrified by mass shootings like Sandy Hook
Elementary. Or, people want planes to never ever crash for any reason, but
people also hate any security inconvenience at airports.

In the case of privacy, people want their data to be secure, and they want to
keep the bad guys out of our companies. Even here on HN, look at the reactions
to news of major hacks. The reaction is 100% negative. No one says "eh, that
company was probably doing everything right, and just got unlucky." No, the
prevailing opinion is "those idiots need to get better at security."

The thing is, there is no possible way for a company to get better at security
without transacting information in some way. Cutting-edge exploits must be
shared to be understood and mitigated. You can't do that without sharing
information.

The EFF does not even discuss this, which is fine, because that's not really
their job. Their job is to fight against a bad bill. But we should not make
the mistake of thinking that no one wants the government to help with
cybersecurity. Actually most companies DO want that, and indirectly, their
customers and employees do too.

------
justcommenting
Some historical context for considering why bills proposing to compel greater
collaboration or coordination or cooperation from companies storing private
communications might be problematic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung)

------
late2part
xnull2guest and others make good points. Most of the information our
government can't get from us; they get from other governments on us. This
needs to stop. Support the EFF and more importantly, help our elected
representatives understand that they need to stop this and comply with the
constitution. Vote them out if they don't.

------
actionscripted
Congress to EFF: screw you, pay me.

~~~
coldcode
They already get money, just "screw you".

------
travjones
I <3 EFF.

