
Block NSA funding for collecting the call records of all Americans - sinak
http://DefundTheNSA.com/
======
mcherm
Important point:

(This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments
suggest that not everyone understood it.)

The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This
is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such
a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea
anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting
records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much
more reasonable position.

~~~
mwsherman
Also important: money is fungible. To block funding for a particular activity
is to say that Congress appropriates money per activity. I don’t think that’s
the case, but would happily be corrected.

So a law that states ‘here’s your money, but you’re not allowed to use it for
x’ seems toothless in the extreme. It’s words on a page.

Keep in mind also that the NSA is close to lawless, so any room for
interpretation will gut the intent. If it’s words on a page, it’s room for
interpretation.

The only actual solution is to actually reduce the NSA’s budget,
substantially. Is that in this bill?

~~~
dllthomas
I don't know. If we say "Here is your money; you can't use it for X" and the
next whistleblower shows that they are nonetheless using it for X means
they're misappropriating government funds, and people can go to jail for that.

------
nakedrobot2
This is something real, tangible, and valuable that we can all actually do.
All of this month I have felt powerless. This is something within everyone's
power to do, and it can definitely help start the ball rolling back the way it
came.

It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a short window of time in which
this information can be disseminated. I can imagine if there were a bit more
time, this could really spread over the whole Web, as the SOPA outroar did.
Anyway, we have to do the best we can, with the time we have.

~~~
oleganza
I disagree, it is not something real or tangible. I'm all for defunding NSA,
but it's not like a regular business which you can boycott by not giving them
money. You have to go and ask permission from the government to not give the
money (which they previously extracted from you by force for the "good of
society") to some of the government agencies. It's pretty much like going to
NSA itself and ask them to defund themselves. Voting is just a suggestion,
it's not binding. Presidential candidates promise stuff, get votes and then
are not obliged to deliver what was promised. It works the same way in every
country today.

Real and tangible way to defund NSA is this:

1\. Withhold your taxes.

2\. Protect yourself against the police and the military who will try to
extract them by force (possibly by having crowdfunded guards).

3\. Switch from using US Dollar as most of the money government generates
comes from inflation (gov sells "bonds" that it will never repay in exchange
for new money). Since all national currencies are inflationary and controlled
by similar institutions all over the world, only Bitcoin is a good
alternative. Or gold, if we can protect the vaults properly and build trust in
a company that keeps it (but history shows it doesn't work).

4\. Pay only what you think is fair and where you think it's fair. E.g. if you
like social security, pay there directly as much as you want.

Only voluntary payments will guarantee that people who you don't like get as
much money as someone is willing to give them explicitly and voluntarily. You
should not ask for permission to not participate in what you don't approve.

~~~
chernevik
If you make this a choice between the surveillance super state and anarchy,
you'll get the super state. Everyone knows we need some kind of government.

It's definitely hard to imagine the NSA being defunded, but that is rooted in
a culture that is less concerned with government compliance with law and more
with "reasonable" outcomes. The inability to control institutions, and the
establishment of those institutions as powers in their own right, is the
logical consequence.

~~~
snitko
_Everyone knows we need some kind of government_

I don't. Many people I know don't either. So what if we don't really need any
kind of government?

~~~
positr0n
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

~~~
oleganza
So violence in Somalia is not acceptable to you, but allowing your government
a lot of violence is acceptable? If people in Somalia cannot find out a way to
avoid violence it does not mean it's not possible in principle, or that
government is somehow "good".

~~~
rayiner
Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.

I love white people who are satiated by the blessings of good government that
they can talk, without irony, about how they don't need government. I don't
meet many anarchists from my part of the world...

The state of human nature is lawlessness and violence. The only thing keeping
society from collapsing into the _hell_ that people in those countries live
with is the collective force of the majority asserted through government.

Anarchy sounds dandy until a bunch of people realize that in the absence of
the overwhelming power of the state, all it takes is a gang of a dozen people
to terrorize their neighbors, taking from them whatever they want. Morality
doesn't prevent that. The only thing that prevents that is a bigger group of
men, with guns. At first those groups of men were warlords, who eventually
became kings, and ultimately we decided we should be able to vote for them.
History of civilization in a nutshell.

~~~
chernevik
It takes considerably more than "government". It takes a society, with culture
and virtues and churches and economy and civic institutions and traditions.
There many places in the world that have actual elections were those elections
are used by some factions to abuse others. There are still more where decent
democracies ultimately collapsed.

Democratic government, government by discourse and persuasion, is a remarkable
achievement of a society. It is maintained and supported and continued by that
society. There is nothing inevitable about it.

~~~
rayiner
You're right that it does take more than government. The western world enjoys
not just (relatively) good government, but a virtuous culture and people. But
government by itself can be better than culture by itself. I'd imagine a lot
of Iraqis miss the strong but dictatorial government under Saddam as compared
to the weak but democratic government they have now. Basic security is a
higher need (in the Maslovian sense) than self determination. That is the
history of the world, after all. People embraced the kings that saved them
from the petty warlords and criminals long before they instituted democratic
government.

------
sinak
Just a quick note to add that this was built over the course of 5 hours by
four developers as part of [http://taskforce.is](http://taskforce.is), which
was pretty much assembled here on Hacker News.

Please take a few minutes to call. It's amazing how low conversion rates are
on calling campaigns like this one - a factor of 100 lower than email asks -
but this is really critical. We only have one day to make this happen.

If you're interested in helping with campaigns like this in the future, you
can sign up here: [http://sina.is/rritf.html](http://sina.is/rritf.html)

A big thanks to Thomas Davis, Jens Nockert, and Beau Gunderson for building
the site.

~~~
triplepoint217
I just called.

A feature that would be really nice: A way for me to give them my email
address and zip code and then get an email when vote results are posted with
how my Representative voted.

~~~
Hario
That's a really good idea.

------
DanielBMarkham
No, no, a thousand times no. Hey, I'm the biggest fan of anonymity and privacy
you can find. This is not an answer. It's an emotional over-reaction.

Countries need intelligence agencies -- they are the best way NOT to fight
future wars. SIGINT is a useful function when used against foreign leaders.
It's just a terrible idea when used against the population as a whole.
Separate the parts that work and are useful from the parts that are destroying
the country. Just don't lump it all together.

Unilaterally disarming is not a way forward. The only thing you accomplish by
doing that is allowing dozens of other countries to spy on you without your
knowledge. How is that a solution? These movements are in real danger of
becoming "useful idiots" for others who wish us harm [1]

The only solution here is parity, i.e., whatever blanket surveillance is going
on by corporations and the government regarding every citizen should be
available to all citizens. This policy would naturally severely limit these
kinds of operations without asking us to make broad decisions about delicate
matters.

If you insist on defunding something, de-fund and kill the TSA. Then eliminate
DHS and have the work go back to the separate agencies. But don't take a
flamethrower to something which has a useful, important purpose because the
politicians changed their mission to something terrible.

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

~~~
andyakb
Read the website. Despite the name, it is not about defunding the entire nsa,
but instead about removing the authorization and funding for blanket data
collection

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You understand that my argument was not against all blanket data collection by
the NSA, right? In many cases it might still work. That's the entire point:
this issue does not reduce to simple answers, only shared values that can then
discuss depending on the particular situation.

Address-to-address SIGiNT, two hops out, with only the address and time? I
_might_ could get behind that -- as long as I had that data also.

This discussion is not about surveillance. We are going to have that anyway.
All this does is give it to every other country but us. This discussion is
about _priviledge_ \-- who gets access to what?

Apologies for reaction to the link bait title, but that doesn't change the
point I'm making.

------
johnpowell
We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every
week before the election. It never seemed to go down. But it always managed to
go up to red every week.

I think we have hit the point that you can't really roll anything back. If you
do and 9/11 v.2.0 happens you are politically screwed. And, unfortunately, it
is all about the next election and soccer moms.

~~~
falk
"We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every
week before the election."

You hit the nail right on the head. The problem in America isn't the
politicians, it's the people.

~~~
Ackley
If Obama would do what he promised he would do, we would be in a better
situation right now (about the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, etc..)

~~~
johnpowell
I do honestly believe that he wanted to do the right thing. But once he got
more info he had to change his mind. For all I know they prevent 1 attack per
week. I have no clue. So I think we need to have the security verses privacy
debate. If the country is like my sister she thinks she doesn't do anything
and will pick security every time. She has three kids that love soccer.

------
brown9-2
Instead of voting to block funding for programs, why not repeal the laws that
enable those programs in the first place? I don't understand this logic.

~~~
mcherm
The laws do NOT enable the programs. The laws had specific clauses stating
that they could not be used for this sort of widespread surveillance of
innocent citizens. But the administration has an "interpretation" of the laws
which apparently is at odds with the plain text of the law. I can't say HOW
they came by this interpretation, because the interpretation of the law is
secret. (Yeah... really.)

So maybe the power of the purse will still be effective. We can hope.

~~~
brown9-2
Or Congress could pass new laws that remove any ambiguity that allows for a
different "interpretation" than what was intended.

~~~
siddboots
Even so, they are doing it this way because it is a late amendment to the
directly related Defense Appropriations Bill. They can hardly stick
clarifications to the Patriot Act on to it. It _would_ be great to "treat the
cause, not the symptoms", but they didn't have the immediate opportunity to do
that.

------
clicks
Looks good, is to the point, very convenient -- tells you what to say, who to
say it to.

Wonderful job guys. I think this is going to be a pretty effective grassroots
campaign.

------
s_q_b
This won't work. Even if they defund the existing programs, the IC will just
change the codenames and move them around between departments, as they did
with TIA. The technology will live on.

The only way to really end these programs would be a full public debate
followed by a statute that outright bans them. Anything less is a PR move.

~~~
abecedarius
In politics, partial victories can snowball. And vice versa: repeated loss
teaches helplessness. The direct real effect of this would be small, but I'd
expect it to be much more useful than a loss.

Added: If you read about Watergate, the scandal wasn't any one event or one
reaction: it took over two years from the break-in to the resignation, and
people weren't sitting still. Some of the important action was in Congress.
(Admittedly it was a different country then.)

~~~
s_q_b
This isn't Watergate. There isn't widespread public outrage. If you want to
change the policies, you'll need to generate or simulate that outrage first.

~~~
abecedarius
Watergate made barely a ripple at first, according to Woodward and Bernstein's
book. It built up over time.

~~~
hga
I was politically aware at the time, it was more than a ripple---burglary of
the DNC headquarters meant _something_ \---but it wasn't big for a long time,
and even longer before it became bipartisan.

This is _the very first (recorded) vote_ on the issue; even if it were 100%
symbolic, which way it goes, how many votes for it will make a difference
going forward. And this is bipartisan from the beginning: in a Republican
House, an heretofore obscure Republican is the sponsor with the very prominent
Democrat John Conyers as the leading co-sponsor.

~~~
abecedarius
Thanks for the correction. I agree about the significance.

------
sebkomianos
Do we really believe that "a vote" can change such things? Do we really
believe that we can avoid such situations (= non-transparent governments)
within the current system?

I mean, when did you actually vote FOR the NSA funding in the first place so
that you can now believe that you can defund it by voting against?

------
grabhive
Nearly everything that the NSA does is Top Secret, so can we claim to know
anything about its activities? Why do we believe that we have the power to
defund it, when we don't actually know where it gets its money, or how much it
receives? Are posters here aware that the CIA has long been accused of being
involved in the global drug trade, as a means of self-financing and leveraging
power?

Despite the recent revelations having vindicated the world's tin-foil-hats, we
still seem to collectively lack the stomach for darker conspiratorial notions.
To be in step with reality, it may be important to build up a bit of
tolerance. I'm not making any claims (because I just don't know), but I see
absolutely no reason to assume that democratic process applies to these
agencies. They may have gone rogue; they may have always been rogue. Their
global network may be the actual, de-facto world government. Would it really
surprise anyone at this point if a convincing leak exposed such notions? What
would we do then?

Let's stop imagining that Law will take care of this problem so we can at
least assume a proper direction for our efforts. Which is to say, let's
dispense with some of our convenience and fashions and start writing software
the right way -- the paranoid way.

To quote the eternal R. Buckminster Fuller:

"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change
the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

------
rb2e
The NSA is the heart of the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US
Military Industrial Complex. Like it or not, this bill will pass either
tomorrow or another day, tacked on to another bill. It is strategic to the
military and the country.

There is no way in hell, this bill will not pass. You can scream, occupy the
streets, protest, do whatever but it will not change a thing. It will go
through.

The US military Industrial Complex is vast. It lobby’s hard. To vote against
it is to be called “un-American”- you know its BS but the talking heads will
say it. Its powerful but that isn’t the point of this post.

Truthfully, our governments have been spying on us for a long time. My
country, the UK was reading the mail and telegrams long before the US. Then it
was listening and recording phone calls. This is just a step up. As technology
increased capabilities, the net has grown wider. From ECHELON to this.

Civil liberties does not mean anything to them as the mindset has stayed the
same no matter how much you may scream or complain, realistically it will not
change a thing because at the end of the day, the country will have enemies
and it needs an intelligence gathering capability. It won’t give a damn about
our rights as it tries to secure itself.

~~~
infinity0
Your post accomplishes nothing except to persuade people to give up the fight
for civil liberties. You propose no solution or do you give any additional
insight into developing a solution.

Regardless of your actual intentions, you _might as well_ be performing
psychological propaganda. It's not helpful.

~~~
rb2e
No offence is taken. I've been reading and studying Intelligence/espionage for
a long time. Not the fancy James Bond stuff, just the boring average, mundane
stuff of the past 100 years.

I offer no solution because quite frankly, there isn't one. Unless you want to
shut down the US military's and civilian intelligence gathering capabilities,
it's not going to happen. There will always be reading your mail and listening
in to your phonecalls. It is not going to stop.

I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will
happen, regardless of any action taken.

~~~
infinity0
You're repeating yourself, and so I'll repeat myself: it's not helpful.

Unless you are prepared to give a mathematical proof of your claims, you ought
to doubt them yourself. A priori, there is "no reason" (to mirror your
argument) that life ought to have evolved 5 billion years ago on this planet.

Likewise, there are lots of tech projects aimed at countering this sort of
thing; saying they won't succeed only makes the participants more determined.
:) Propaganda is a double-edged sword.

------
mtgx
In theory it sounds nice, but how many black ops and secret budgets already
exist? "Defunding the NSA", will just mean its "official" budget will be cut,
and under everyone's noses, they will keep being funded through secret
budgets.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - eventually - but first the priority
should be to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and end the
secret FISA Court, or at least overhaul it in such a way that it's public,
judges get elected in a much more democratic way than simply having one person
naming them, as it is right now, and allow adversarial hearings, and for
people to be able to use FOIA against this sort of spying.

If it's done on an American citizen (under a _proper_ warrant - and not en
masse), then that citizen should be able to request a FOIA for it, and get an
almost completely unredacted document. If there's an investigation done on him
currently, then at most he can get a few months delay, to a year. After that
everyone should be able to use FOIA to get these documents.

------
Yuioup
I have a question.

It's pretty much a safe bet that the NSA runs Open Source Software. You can't
do anything on the internet these days without using FLOSS.

I'm not an expert in software licenses but can't GNU, Linus, Mozilla and all
other Open Source contributers revoke the NSA's license to use their software?

Surely Open Source licenses, just like any other license, can be revoked?

~~~
gpcz
Clause 6 of the Open Source Definition ( [http://opensource.org/osd-
annotated](http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) ) states that open source
software licenses cannot discriminate against fields of endeavor. That is, you
can't state in your license that an abortion clinic / anti-abortion activists
can't use the software and still call it open source.

~~~
declan
Right. Because "open source" no longer fits, you'd need a new name for
software released under the anti-surveillance license. "Freedom Software"
instead of "Free Software" has a nice ring to it. :)

------
spaznode
Makes sense hn would too vote such a stupid idea. If it didn't exist already
something like it would have to be created.

~~~
Zigurd
The Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. Why do we still have a
mechanism that was built to target a closed totalitarian system armed with 20
megaton hydrogen bombs? The NSA is out of date and out of place.

~~~
spaznode
=) This assumes you have correctly defined what"it" is and does? Or what
current is? Current isn't on tv.

------
culshaw
Remove the funding and they will get it from elsewhere; that 50 years worth of
data just became market research.

------
ndesaulniers
Just called my representative! I spoke the receptionist, who was very nice. I
told her repeatedly to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397.
She requested my full name, zip code, and email address. Happy to help, from
Restore the Fourth San Francisco!

~~~
mnemonik
When I called in the first time, I got a busy line. When I called in a second
time, I was directed to Nancy Pelosi's voice mail.

Hopefully, this means we are flooding the lines!

------
vaadu
"The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA
surveillance."

Why does it take money to defund an operation? Doesn't "defund" mean to not
allocate money for.

Obama says he will veto. So what? If no money is allocated for said programs
where is the budget for them coming from?

These NSA programs are only the tip of the iceberg of intrusions. <a href="The
[http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-
de...](http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-defends-data-
collecting/62730/">Consumer) Credit Bureau</a> collects all financial data on
US citizens and obamacare will be collecting and sharing everything medical
with numerous federal agencies.

------
dfc
Didn't congress say no to funding the stealth MH-60 SOF variant and later see
tail rotor of a stealth MH-60 SOF variant in someone's backyard in Abbottabad?

~~~
mpyne
I think you're thinking of the Comanche helo. There's absolutely zero chance
IMHO that Congress actually went out of their way to de-fund a fancy SOF toy.

~~~
dfc
I am almost positive it was the MH60. If my memory is correct: Congress did
not defund it, they just did not authorize the funds to go forward with the
plans to build a stealth MH60 SOF. Upon hearing the news the CIA said fuck it
we have some black budget money we will pay for it. The next time congress
heard about the program was news reports about a tail rotor from a stealth
chopper in some guys yard in Abbottabad.

------
donohoe
I called all three of my listed representatives - the phone was answered
almost immediately.

It took less than 5 minutes of my time. It may even take you less. It was
quite pleasant.

Do it now!

~~~
jaxbot
Agreed. The people you call know exactly what to expect and make it as quick
and painless as possible. They're also very pleasant. I'm young and shy but
this was probably the easiest social interaction I've ever done. Worth a shot,
worth 30 seconds.

------
coldcode
The best way to rein in the NSA is make it difficult or impossible for it to
find and hire employees and contractors. Without people it cannot function.

------
bjeanes
Man, you should put a big "call with Twilio" button right on the page to dial
straight out to the representatives then and there.

------
miga
Not sure if this is good idea.

Their database may be worth too much on a commercial market, and what if they
may be tempted to become self-funding.

------
snsr
More info -
[http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397](http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397)

Amendment #100

------
Abundnce10
I wish there was an email option instead of having to call my congressman.

------
Ackley
Their secret budget will see an increase if this happens...

------
sauravt
I was shocked for a while, since I read it as defendthensa.

------
dsschnau
Oh snap - my rep proposed this bill. Cool!

------
Dr_chaos
LOL Fools

You know that the CIA run most of the drugs in and out of the great US. You
know that they have massive surplus cash? Like so big they don't really know
what to do with it

These 'government' bodies can and will exist without government. This is how
they fund most if not all their black ops, that way nothing needs to be on the
books.

if we stopped public money, I doubt it would even make a dent

~~~
falk
This may sound farfetched, but it's not. If you're interested in learning more
about the CIA and drugs, I recommend the following:

\- The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred
W. McCoy [1]

\- Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn [2]

\- Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and
Beyond by Martin A. Lee [3]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-
Global/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-
Global/dp/1556524838/)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-
Press/dp/185984...](http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs-
Press/dp/1859848974/)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-
Sixties/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History-
Sixties/dp/0802130623/)

------
snitko
I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom
of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you
wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money
you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and
think are important.

~~~
eksith
Meanwhile, back on Earth...

Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police
officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up
infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the
number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this
economy.

Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish
into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a
way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just
may... get off the ground.

Step 1: Earmarks are verboten. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a
bill pass congress with a whole heap of pork-barrel nonsense (subsidies to
shady companies anyone?) because some senator has to do a kickback to the
folks who paid for his/her election.

Step 2: _Every_ law that is to be passed is read out loud from front page to
end in congress by a designated reader from each party. They may take turns if
they're tired, but no one is allowed to leave, have bathroom breaks, nap, chat
or be otherwise distracted.

You actually get to bloody _know_ WTF you're passing. Someone raises a hand
and goes, "hey, that's stupid!" Everyone stops and discusses what it is that's
stupid and the thing gets amended on the spot.

Step 3: No consecutive reelections... for anything. No exceptions! The chance
that you won't be here the next term is a damn good way to ensure people
remember you for the _right_ reasons in your current term so you can come back
the term after that to finish what you started. It also takes away the
incentive to seek office as a career. No, you get to government to serve. Now
pick up a broom, damn it!

...I'm sure someone else has some bright other ideas short of throwing out
taxes, which functional societies will always have in some form until we throw
out currency altogether.

~~~
oleganza
Me and my friends will never stay in your way if you want to fund a
firefighter or NSA, or local McDonalds. It's your choice, your property. Even
if we don't like your lifestyle or disagree with your ideas. Will you give me
the same respect to disagree with you and act upon my beliefs? Since I don't
force you to pay for what I think is good, will you please allow me not to
participate in things I don't approve of? If yes, then you should be against
taxation. If no, will you employ violent action against me if I disagree with
you and try to peacefully avoid certain things you like?

~~~
mpyne
As long as you don't drink water from public infrastructure, use public Wi-Fi,
get power from public lines, drive on public roads, get healthcare at public
hospitals, ever call the public 911 line no matter how scary that burglar is,
etc. etc. then sure dude, go nuts.

~~~
oleganza
You have a logical fallacy right there.

First, see my replies to you on why government == violence.

Now imagine if I extract some money from you ("for the children") and provide
you with some "service". Service could even be valuable to you. But if at some
point you get disappointed at my actions and decide to protect yourself from
my aggression, I'd educate your children that your family is using my service
and must shut up and pay for it. How'd you like it when your child will call
the cops because daddy is against schools and public wifi? Government is
nothing different, just on a larger scale.

