
Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance - eevilspock
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/the-big-costs-of-nsa-surveillance-that-no-ones-talking-about/
======
diafygi
> Economic losses to US businesses due to lost sales and declining customer
> trust.

Whenever I have a discussion with friends on this topic, this is what I focus
on.

For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However,
when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more
attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns.

This is why I don't understand Google's and Facebook's (and IBM's and Cisco's
and RSA's, for that matter) response to this thing. If they really wanted to
stop these programs, they would make a SuperPAC and run ads everywhere saying
"NSA" and "job killers" in the same sentence as many times as possible.

~~~
vonmoltke
> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy.
> However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets
> much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above
> safety concerns.

Then there are people like my wife, who thinks _disclosure_ hurt the US
politically and economically, thus rationalizing that it is Snowden's fault
for revealing all these surveillance programs, not the NSA's for having them
in the first place. I think that attitude, combined with "safety > privacy"
and "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware
people. I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals.

~~~
watwut
"I have nothing to hide" is in this context synonymous with "I am not
associated with wikileaks or any other know activist group able to anger the
powerful" and "I am not journalist about to make government angry" and "I am
not developing tor or some encryption tool" and "I am not defense layer in
important case" and "I am not involved with occupy wall street" and so on.

The spying on commission investigating NSA was already revealed. "Nothing to
hide" theory presumes NSA did it just for fun and had nothing to gain.

I have nothing to hide too. However, that is because I am not politically
significant. The privacy and protection against agencies are not that needed
for random Joe, however random Joe still benefits from fair democratic process
even if he chosen not to be active. They are needed for politically active
people not currently in power.

Or, imagine something like Petraeus scandal. Ability to see someones mails and
ability whose browsing habits are about to become public knowledge is huge.
Ability to see opposition or activists or defense lawyer plans can make huge
difference even if they are not involved in anything illegal or unethical.

------
aragot
The article uses few facts, or the facts aren't detailed. I admit doing that
when I comment sometimes, but it's wrong and I expect a journalist to prove
his point (and help us convince other people in turn). Example:

> The deterioration of internet security as a result of the NSA stockpiling
> zero-day vulnerabilities

Not quantified. It would be an awesome figure to reuse.

> Brazil reportedly scuttled a $4.5 billion fighter jet contract with Boeing

It's been criticized on HN: Most people believed blaming it on the NSA was a
PR move [4], whereas the real underlying reasons where certainly more complex
and not related.

> The CEO of the European firm reported that within a month after the first
> revelations of NSA spying went public, his company’s business jumped 45
> percent

Totally irrelevant if the company is small.

> The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has estimated that
> repercussions from the spying could cost the U.S. cloud computing industry
> some $22 to $35 billion over the next few years in lost business.

That's the best fact of the article. However I'm not sure Americans are
impressed with it. In fact the country [1] doesn't mind spending $6 trillion
for a war in Afghanistan [2], so they count those $35b as just another defense
cost. Besides, the NSA itself was reported by Snowden with a budget of $14b in
2013 [3].

[1] I'm aware that's not what most US citizen like, but as a country, US did
spend this money.

[2] [http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-
to-...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-
cost-6-trillion/5350789)

[3] [http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/29/4672414/leaked-snowden-
doc...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/29/4672414/leaked-snowden-documents-
reveal-details-of-surveillance-budget)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6931035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6931035)

~~~
coldpie
The article is summarizing the report by the New America Foundation’s Open
Technology Institute. The linked PDF contains some of the figures you ask for,
such as:

> The CEO of Artmotion, one of Switzerland’s largest offshore hosting
> providers, reported in July 2013 that his company had seen a 45 percent jump
> in revenue.

This tells us the company is large within the country, and Switzerland isn't
exactly small potatoes.

I think what you are looking for is the PDF itself, not the summary of the PDF
that is this article :)

------
smoothgrips
I've often wondered if the NSA is constitutional. Not what they're doing, but
the organization itself. The constitution, from my understanding, grants the
federal government power to do certain things. Therefore, if the constitution
doesn't specifically grant the federal government the power/ability to run,
say the NSA (or other federal department), does that not warrant the entire
thing unconstitutional?

~~~
triangleman
Technically speaking, you are correct. Practically and legally, everything
Congress does is jammed through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which
grants it the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce.

Also, what w4 said. But again if you want to get technical, the Constitution
restricts Congress's authority to provide for the common defense to having an
army or a navy, but not an Air Force, and not a National Security Agency.

~~~
tertia
and boy, does this need an amendment: when a farmer can be sued and forced to
not grow food for his own family, and the suit is found valid because of
Article I Section 8 we have a huge problem.

~~~
angersock
Eh? What's this?

~~~
anigbrowl
A mischaracterization of _Wickard v. Filburn_ , which is nonetheless one of
the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual
circumstance that obtained during WW@ and generalizing it to a fundamental
aspect of the Commerce power. However, it's sort of off-topic here. Wikipedia
has an extensive discussion of the case.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the
> worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual
> circumstance that obtained during WW@

While, the court process and decisions occurred during WW2, the law and the
acts which, under it, created the controversy occurred before US involvement
in WW2, it was more about the Great Depression/New Deal than the War.

~~~
anigbrowl
You're right, but I have always felt that the urgency of the wartime context
tilted the balance of the court's opinion towards an overbroad endorsement of
the government's side, and that that tilt has persisted via precedent.

I will go back and reread it to see whether that impression is correct or
whether I've imputed my own bias to the court's decision since I read it, but
given that I'm generally of a more statist bent than most people here I don't
think it's just personal bias.

------
Stefanrio
I love how people still make noise about NSA, while gladly using facebook.

~~~
watwut
Facebooks ability to use my kids and cat pictures is not comparable to
government ability to read political activists or journalists emails. Random
person ability to know what school I did go to is not as dangerous to justice
as governments ability to read communication of defense in high profile case.

By your logic, everyone who make noise about NSA should go underground to keep
the right to complain.

~~~
sp332
Every level of government, right down to the municipal level, can ask Facebook
to hand all that data over at any time. They don't even need a court order if
they claim it's an emergency or involves a child.
[https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/](https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/)
Facebook admits to turning over data on tens of thousands of people in the
USA.
[https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/20...](https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/2013-H2/)

~~~
watwut
Yes, but I kind of assume that political activist does not keep his super
secret emails on facebook.

~~~
sp332
Contact list and location history are scary enough, and I'm not a political
activist.

