
Reform Government Surveillance - raldi
http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/
======
pg
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed.

If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity,
that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for
bringing it to our attention.

The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If
Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary
confinement in some secret prison, these companies would have been at least
slightly more reluctant to issue such a statement, because it would have
seemed to be espousing the cause of someone people were hearing described on
the news as a criminal.

Snowden made his disclosures much more effective by escaping.

~~~
hooande
There is nothing more reviled by people who were born during the cold war than
a criminal who defects first to china and then to russia. No amount of tech
industry pr can facilitate a comeback from that. Almost half of the people in
this country will always see Snowden as a traitor.

Government surveillance has become a political wedge issue, similar to
abortion. No one likes it or encourages it but people have strong emotions on
both sides. Snowden is deserving of credit, he may have helped to spark
another enduring and polarizing american social debate. It's unfortunate that
he won't be around for the resulting legal process.

It's worth noting that the modern surveillance state didn't begin when Edward
Snowden stepped in front of a camera for the first time. Where were these
responsible tech giants five or ten years ago? When everyone in the country
was flipping the heck out over 9/11, some of these companies went along with
the crowd and gave the government access to everything. Their points are very
valid, more government transparency and accountability is always good. But
courage is about doing the thing when it's hard, not when it's easy. It's good
to see movement in the right direction but it would have been nice if things
had gotten to this point sooner. Then maybe Snowden would still be sleeping in
his own bed.

~~~
veidr
> _There is nothing more reviled by people who were born during the cold war
> than a criminal who defects first to china and then to russia._

I was born during the Cold War and I don't see it that way. In fact, I think
you have it precisely backwards.

I remember being alive when the USSR and East Germany were going concerns, and
those countries seemed so horrible -- the USA really was on what any sane
person (by my definition) would describe as the _right_ side of that struggle.

Living under constant surveillance, scared to speak out even in private,
corruption and bad pretense in place of the rule of law? Those things were
horrible, and living under such a regime sounded unimaginably awful.

Fast forward some decades and here comes Snowden. That shit really _resonated_
with me and virtually all friends of my age (39).

America is _becoming_ that kind of place. Most of us had a creepy feeling that
was happening after the G. W. Bush debacle, but Snowden _proved_ it.

It's the _same fucking fight_ , man: the fight for _freedom_. The fight for
_human rights_ and a _non-dystopian future for our children_.

The Cold War resonates, but in exactly the opposite of what you describe.
We've got all that shit now: hyper-surveillance, secret and therefore
meaningless 'laws', kidnapping, torture, America has fucking _gulags_ now. The
difference between us and East Germany is now mainly a matter of scale. But as
Snowden showed, we were scaling up pretty fucking fast.

Snowden blew the lid off of it, he exposed the massive scale of it, and then
he was literally _running for his fucking life_ like some kind of Jason Bourne
figure. He had a massive, ruthless security apparatus chasing him, willing do
who knows what, and if they caught him it meant he was going to be _tortured
in solitary confinement for the rest of his life_ like Bradley Manning.

Nobody in their right mind would begrudge him from going any fucking place he
had to in order to escape that.

And to my Cold War-shaped mind, it is impossible to think of him as anything
other than a whistleblower that this country badly, badly needed.

~~~
samstave
I am 39 also, and I have also been following "Conspiracy Theory" topics since
the late 80s. I have been aware of, and decrying, this sort of thing for two
solid decades now.

The GP's question is predicated on the assumption that people have not been
paying attention to the creep toward tyranny that these programs have brought
for years... but the fact is that not only have people been paying attention;
there has been a decades long effort to shield mainstream awareness of this.
Media has been more than just complicit in MISO (PSyOP) activities to
marginalize anyone who has been discussing these topics.

Christ, Hollywood has been out-right guilty of running PR for the MIC bastards
for 30 years now.

There is a very clear crew responsible for this as well.

The CIA built by GHW Bush and his cabal of war/drug profiteers.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDFHd5eEzw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDFHd5eEzw)

You owe it to yourself to watch that 39 minutes.

------
pacala
This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single
breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of
stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first?

1\. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information

Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect
and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited
circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in
the Internet. In addition, corporations should limit surveillance to specific,
known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection
of Internet communications.

2 Oversight and Accountability

Corporations seeking to collect or compel the production of information should
do so under a clear legal framework in which corporations are subject to
strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include
an adversarial process, and corporations should allow important rulings of law
to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an
informed citizenry.

3 Transparency About Corporations collecting practices

Transparency is essential to a debate over corporations’ surveillance powers
and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers.
Corporations should publish the number and nature of collected user
information.

4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information

The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a
robust 21st century global economy. Corporations should not collect user
information in other countries with the intent of circumventing the local laws
that limit user data collection.

~~~
ekianjo
On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key
difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ?
Use Linux systems. And so on.

The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your
mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot _opt out_.

~~~
lambda
You have very little choice to avoid Google Analytics (or one of a handful of
other major analytics companies). Almost every site on the internet uses it.
None of them reveal in an obvious way if they do, or give you any choice (or
they just pop up a generic "we use cookies, if you continue using this site
you agree").

Or beyond that, there's all the sharing buttons, Google Web Fonts, hosted
JavaScript libraries, and the like. If I wanted to prevent Google from being
able to track me at all, I would have to avoid the vast majority of the web.

You can apply more and more extensions and filter rules to block this sort of
thing. I have a variety enabled; they make it a quite a pain to surf the web,
as they wind up breaking a variety of sites by blocking a little too much, and
I have to sit there and selectively disable them until I find what allows the
site to work.

So, effectively, you cannot opt out of corporate tracking either. If you want
to, just like avoiding government surveillance, your best bet is to just
disconnect from the net entirely.

~~~
pavs
>You have very little choice to avoid Google Analytics.

[https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout](https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout)
Its been around for a looooong time.

------
kevinalexbrown
Regardless of your opinion on the leaks, this marks something really
interesting in the course of history.

Communications is one of the few services that governments co-opt indirectly.
Lockheed Martin knows it's building war jets. But here, the signatories didn't
set out to build government surveillance engines, it was required of them
after it became clear how useful they could be. Their response could set the
tone for future actions in years to come.

It's interesting that other communications groups (e.g. cellphone co's) have
not reacted in the same way, Qwest aside. You don't have to believe that each
CEO is doing this on principle if you're cynically inclined, but it seems
clear at least that many of their employees are in favor of it. I'm curious if
it's a internet/tech/silicon valley thing, or something else.

~~~
adventured
It's pretty clear why companies like Verizon and AT&T will never stand up and
put their names on a list like this.

Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the
protection racket that keeps competition out. They're one step away from being
state enterprises.

Those closest to being utilities are the last entities that will want to push
back against the government (eg Level3). They're the most dependent on
government mood swings. These types of companies often require government
permission for every action they take in terms of expanding their business.

~~~
rayiner
> Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the
> protection racket that keeps competition out.

Verizon and AT&T are government regulated, and they are a duopoly, but its not
regulation that keeps competition out. The natural state of communications
networks are to converge on a state of monopoly. There is infinite economics
of scale in telecom, and a "winner takes all" return on capital investment.
Government regulation is the only thing keeping the industry from
consolidating to one carrier even faster than it's already doing.

------
molecule
It seems peculiar that Apple is a signatory:

> Sincerely,

> AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo

and their logo appears in the listing @ the end of the page, but their logo
isn't in the beginning of the page, and they don't provide a quote from their
CEO nor legal counsel, per the other signing companies.

Last-minute change of heart, lukewarm support...?

~~~
adventured
I was hoping to see Amazon.com signed on to this as well, given their
substantial position in cloud computing, and their likely future influence
being even greater.

~~~
olalonde
The fact that the CIA is one of their largest AWS customer might be playing a
role. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-
capitula...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/29/ibm-capitulates-
amazon-gains-cia-contract/)

~~~
adventured
Yeah that's a suspicion on my part as well. Same reason we'll never see Oracle
on a list like this. In the recent interview with Charlie Rose, Ellison
wouldn't even remotely come close to challenging what the NSA was doing (he
also pulled a cheap dodge by saying the great thing about living in a
democracy is the people can do something about it if they want to).

------
sklivvz1971
Honestly this makes me a little upset. While I am happy that these
corporations are taking a stand against surveillance, I am not convinced of
their intentions:

* This summer's hailstorm was about NSA but also about _them_. This site obviously ignores this and shows these corps as innocent victims, which they are not.

* It's clearly too little! "Governments should reform themselves". How should they do that? There are absolutely _no proposals on how to fix this_ on this site.

* It's clearly too late. This should have happened _before_ Snoweden, not six months after.

This is just "let's go back to normal" propaganda, "damage control" PR.
Nothing will change because of this.

~~~
scrrr
They quote Zuckerberg on that site: "Reports about government surveillance
have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how
governments collect information."

So what about limits on how businesses collect information?

~~~
crazypyro
There is a huge difference between companies collecting data on their
customers and a govt collecting on their entire population...

~~~
Joeboy
There is a smaller difference when it's a business collecting data on the
entire population.

~~~
betterunix
Businesses cannot lock people in prison or send teams of soldiers in to arrest
people. Businesses cannot (legally) send people or robots to assassinate
others. I think there is a very big difference between businesses collecting
information and governments collecting information -- because governments can
do substantially more damage.

(Full disclosure: I currently work for one of the companies on the list.)

~~~
001sky
The counter argument is (1) private companies can provide this information to
whomevere they choose...including the government or a subset therof; and (2)
once it is amassed, the government can compel access via the courts quite
easliy.

------
tkellogg
I find it interesting how the concept of countries and nationalities seems to
becoming less important. Now (as opposed to a hundred years ago) we
communicate with people in foreign countries on a daily basis - even countries
whose governments have hostile relationships with.

This is definitely a CYA (cover your ass) maneuver designed to mitigate the
political hit these companies are taking. At the same time, these companies
are acting like countries. They've formed an alliance and they're attempting
to make a treaty with the governments that they happen to fall into. It will
be interesting to watch the societal change as the importance of countries and
nationalities decreases over the next hundred years.

~~~
Debugreality
I agree, virtual worlds, offshore workers, telepresence and many other new
technologies are creating a new global culture that is already beginning to
clash with the concepts of countries and governments.

Perhaps a starting point may be the rise of global political parties that can
work together across multiple countries?

------
anoncowherd
_Reform_ government surveillance, huh? So we just need _better_ government
surveillance then? With _checks and balances_ and all, but how well have those
worked in the past?

Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? _" -But.. but.. checks.. and
balances!"_.. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers?

If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he _himself_ behaves
well, what can you expect to happen? What about politicians in a democracy?
Will/can they watch their peers, or is it more likely they'll just collude in
corruption?

~~~
zymhan
> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers?

The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the
people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly
aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

~~~
anoncowherd
>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon)

So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly
the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US
is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong
constitution, but then.. an Empire happened.

>> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't
work all that well either. Neither does voting.

~~~
zymhan
> So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves?

No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you
think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince
you.

~~~
anoncowherd
The system is working fine, it's just not to _our_ benefit.

~~~
zymhan
But it _does_ work to our benefit. Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed
(and even executed), which is a travesty beyond words. But overall the system
works, and throwing your hands up in defeat instead of trying to influence the
system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in
online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They
really do read them, and respond to them.

~~~
anoncowherd
>> But it _does_ work to our benefit.

No it doesn't. It works to the benefit of the ruling class, which,
coincidentally, is the group of people who set the system up in the first
place, and still control it today. Sure, its members come and go, but the
power structure stays in place.

>> Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed

Mistakenly? -Rarely, if ever. Most of the time they know exactly what they're
doing.

>> But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in _defeat_

What defeat? I thought you just said the system "works"? -Where's the defeat
if it's working properly and thus, everything is fine?

>> instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't
start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try
writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them

Wow, you're so naive. Check out the other reply to my comment above, where
someone said he's figured that it doesn't work. When Obama or whoever gets
elected through receiving and using millions/billions of dollars of campaign
contributions (ie. "bribes"), who exactly do you think he _represents_?

------
dmix
This is a good start. Hopefully some telecom and ISP companies sign-up.
They've been exceptionally quiet regarding recent leaks despite being a
greater threat to privacy than most of these consumer web services.

------
pwang
> we are focused on keeping user’s data secure

ARGH! Close to a trillion dollars of net corporate value, and they can't
afford a decent grammarian when they write an open letter to the President?!

(Hint: It should be "users'".)

~~~
raldi
Good catch! I passed your comment on to Google's liaison to R.G.S., and she's
working to get it fixed.

Let's see how long it takes from here. :)

~~~
pwang
Great!

While we're at it, though:

\- The clause "deploying the latest encryption technology" should actually be
prefaced by "by", to balance the "by pushing back..."

\- "We urge the US" could be made stronger by actually spelling out the full
name: "We urge the United States..."

Nice site, otherwise.

------
aragot
This is an extremely talented commercial suggestion: On one side, as a
European, I would NOT support it; and on the other, it looks like a very, very
legitimate bill ("why would anyone oppose!?"). Good job for the PR people
behind that move! Here's why:

* It says "Governments" (plural). That means because US security agencies have thoroughly breached the borders of acceptable privacy, now all governments should diminish their control. I'm aware Eu agencies do the same, but they don't build as big datacenters as the NSA does. By not having the same budgets, Eu agencies don't overreach as much as the NSA does.

* As a European, the best protection I see against all-spying programs is to have competitive European web services. For example I would support a Eu decision to require a European email address for communication with governments, or similar rules designed to make sure Europeans communicate through safe channels with their governments. It is also EU's role to make sure we have enough competitors so that citizens can use local providers (competitors to Fb, etc) to store their data in Europe, if those consumers trust European spying agencies. As a desired side effect, it is a way to grow our economy.

The Reform Government Surveillance would prevent us from passing reforms to
locate European citizen data in Europe. Therefore, it's a very talented move
from those 7 companies, and comes right at the right time.

------
Zigurd
How about instead of asking the government to make this problem go away, as if
it could, you offer products that thwart surveillance?

I'll write you a check to cover the value of those "One weird trick to lose
belly fat" ads.

~~~
grey-area
What makes you think government couldn't make this problem go away?

~~~
Zigurd
Several reasons: Although the US government sets the pace, it isn't the only
government that is snooping. Secondly, many governments will always consider
some level of spying legitimate.

Therefore it is up to technology and service providers to secure their
customers against any and all snooping.

The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic.

~~~
grey-area
_The idea that surveillance can be "reformed" is unworkable, unrealistic._

I disagree and feel this is a dangerous abdication of responsibility. I
wouldn't believe politicians' reassurances about any reform, but clearly
budgets could be cut, and strict safeguards put in place. We should expect
nothing less from our governments, while working to protect ourselves as well.

------
sinak
A bit surprised by some of the errors on the site.

\- Tweet button doesn't have a link

\- G+ share button isn't working

\- Opengraph tags point to a missing image-url, so Facebook shares don't have
an image associated.

I think maybe this hit HN before they were quite ready for launch - I'm
guessing these'll be fixed pretty quickly.

Excellent move by the companies involved though. A lot of advocacy
organizations have been pushing these companies to come out publicly
meaningful surveillance law reform, and this is a great start.

~~~
wrs
The og: tags point to a misspelled hostname (reformgovernmentsurv _ie_
llance.com) -- but it now seems to redirect to the correct one.

------
phryk
So, the US' biggest data collectors are coming together to fight _government_
surveillance?

I'm not the only one thinking this is a tad hypocritical, am I? It just makes
me think that somewhere, some powerful dude went "They are trying to cut in on
_our_ action?!?" and decided not to accept projected financial losses by
something as petty as a government.

But obviously, this might be the first voice governments actually listen to.
Not because what they propose is the right thing to do, but because money.

Apparently _this_ is the best the system currently allows. Capitalism
depresses me.

------
tareqak
A website is a good start, but a live press conference attended by all the
CEOs and members of mainstream media would be far, far better.

For most people, if it doesn't happen on TV, it doesn't happen at all.

------
znowi
I feel a bit uneasy that the undersigned are all PRISM companies. All 8 of
them. They seem to stick together and not mix with outsiders.

Note that there's already a similar initiative launched by Mozilla called
_Stop Watching Us_ [1]. None of the PRISM companies signed it.

Instead, they filed a petition (of little value, but with a big pomp) to allow
for full FISA order statistics be published. Which was denied, incidentally.

[1] [https://stopwatching.us/](https://stopwatching.us/)

~~~
kogarou
Not Twitter. Unless you have a source?

------
BIackSwan
Is this officially supported by the companies listed on the page? I dont see
references to/from the page to the official blogs/announcement.

~~~
packetslave
Yes. The press release is here: [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-
company-coaliti...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tech-company-
coalition-supports-global-surveillance-principles-calls-on-us-to-lead-reform-
efforts-234997071.html)

------
phaed
Good god, they can't even get their open graph tags right. Tried to share this
on facebook: [http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png](http://i.imgur.com/HDtqrcS.png)

~~~
dewitt
The site just went live at 9:00 PM PST, so that's what FB had cached from the
placeholder site beforehand. G+ had the same problem. Mostly this demonstrates
a need to be able force a recrawl when generating the thumbnail.

~~~
phaed
They should have passed the url through Facebook's Open Graph Object Debugger
to invalidate the cache before launching the site. FB 101...

------
rebel
This has to be the first article I've seen where they actually excluded Apple
from the title

edit: Not sure why Apple is included at the bottom but seems to be the only
company there that isn't listed in the top set of logos. Not sure if that has
any significance or is an oversight or..

------
zenocon
“Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for
greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The
US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make
things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

------
ed_blackburn
Eventually the penny drops. If there's no trust in the internet, then these
companies business model will be affected. Over time I can see this lobbying
working to an extent in the US.

What I can't see happening is the other Five Eyes partners or their
governments changing. The UK political classes in the main appear bullishly,
unrepentant, aggressive towards descent and hawkishly pursuing dissidents
including newspaper editors.

------
apu
Hmm, only seeing a "default parallels" page:
[http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png](http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png)

(midnight PST)

~~~
scythe
Indeed. The website previously contained this:

:Reform Government Surveillance

:Global Government Surveillance Reform

The undersigned companies believe that it is time for the world’s governments
to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of
individuals and access to their information.

While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take
action to protect their citizens’ safety and security, we strongly believe
that current laws and practices need to be reformed.

Consistent with established global norms of free expression and privacy and
with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence
efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to
oversight, we hereby call on governments to endorse the following principles
and enact reforms that would put these principles into action.

:The Principles

:1 Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information

Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel
service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data
in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact
on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance
to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk
data collection of Internet communications.

:2 Oversight and Accountability

Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of
information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive
powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be
independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow
important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the
courts are accountable to an informed citizenry.

:3 Transparency About Government Demands

Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers
and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers.
Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of
government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also
promptly disclose this data publicly.

:4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information

The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a
robust 21st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of
data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully
available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments
should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a
country’s borders or operate locally.

:5 Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments

In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and
transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions,
such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where
the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is
incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.

:Voices For Reform

“AOL is committed to preserving the privacy of our customers’ information,
while respecting the right of governments to request information on specific
users for lawful purposes. AOL is proud to unite with other leading Internet
companies to advocate on behalf of our consumers.” —Tim Armstrong, Chairman
and CEO, AOL

“Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for
greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The
US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make
things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

“The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much
in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for
information. This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data,
in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the
world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.”
—Larry Page, CEO, Google

“These principles embody LinkedIn’s fundamental commitment to transparency and
ensuring appropriate government practices that are respectful of our members’
expectations.” —Erika Rottenberg, General Counsel, LinkedIn [when LinkedIn
criticizes your privacy policy you know something's wrong]

“People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust
at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General
Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft

“Twitter is committed to defending and protecting the voice of our users.
Unchecked, undisclosed government surveillance inhibits the free flow of
information and restricts their voice. The principles we advance today would
reform the current system to appropriately balance the needs of security and
privacy while safeguarding the essential human right of free expression.”
—Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter

“Protecting the privacy of our users is incredibly important to Yahoo. Recent
revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of
our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore
the confidence of citizens around the world. Today we join our colleagues in
the tech industry calling on the United States Congress to change surveillance
laws in order to ensure transparency and accountability for government
actions.” —Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo

:An open letter to Washington

Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress,

We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this
summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government
surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too
far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights
that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all
cherish. It’s time for a change.

For our part, we are focused on keeping user’s data secure — deploying the
latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our
networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are
legal and reasonable in scope.

We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government
surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the
risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set
of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com

Sincerely,

AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo

------
ekianjo
Any idea why Mozilla is not in that list ? Is it because it's all from for-
profit organizations this time ?

~~~
ozten
My personal guess is that this is an initiative from companies that have
provided significant streams of information to the NSA.

It's my understanding that Mozilla doesn't have significant "skin in the game"
compared to the services these companies are providing.

Again my opinion, not speaking for Mozilla officially.

------
jimmytucson
These companies want to limit the amount of data the government can collect on
me. That's wonderful. While we're at it, can the government limit the amount
of data these companies can collect on me?

------
rcsorensen
Statement from Microsoft:
[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/12/08/reforming-
government-surveillance.aspx)

------
ronaldx
In order to reform government surveillance, we also need to reform commercial
surveillance.

------
salient
I knew making corporations _hurt_ over their cooperation with NSA willingly or
unwillingly (by not having proper security) is going to play a major part in
turning this around, although it's still early days, so I'm cautiously
optimistic right now, but also very skeptical at the same time, because I'm
not going to believe the first time the government says "That's it everyone -
we reformed the NSA. You can all relax now". It's going to take serious
reforms and transparency to make me believe it's truly "over".

------
yc-kjh
Laws don't need to be reformed. The Constitution needs to be enforced.

------
robomartin
As the repercussions of what Snowden helped uncover become more public I hope
people gain a better understanding of the man himself and his motivations. Try
as I might, I can't find any word other than "hero" to describe him.

I imagine him at work and subject to a constant stream of information showing
what our own government is doing to us. I imagine him repeatedly thinking this
is wrong. And I imagine him looking deep inside his sole to decide whether his
convictions and belief system required him to act or not. Of course, that
decision had to come with the full understanding that he would be at the
receiving end of the full wrath of the US intelligence, law enforcement and
military machinery. At best he'd have to live on the run his entire life. At
worst he'd end-up dead or in a dark cell, completely disconnected from
humanity.

With that reality in front of him this man decided he needed to stand up for
those of us who could not. He decided to, effectively, sacrifice his life in
order to attempt to right a massive wrong being perpetrated on the people of
the US and the world. That's right up there with a fireman running into a
burning building or a soldier taking a bullet to protect your way of life.

This man is a hero. I hope this administration or the next comes to realize
how much of a patriot a man has to be in order to risk it all to protect
others. With that realization the only thing that remains is to bring the man
home with open arms and have him be a big part of making things right for all
of us.

That's what needs to happen next.

------
arca_vorago
Let's cut to the chase: surveillance is a symptom of a larger root issue.
These major companies aren't attacking the government surveillance problem out
of concern of their users, my guess is that they are getting ready to make a
data power-play against the government.

So essentially, the privacy concerns of people are being used as a ball
between players, but the people are still going to get kicked around.

Until we address the almost complete corruption of the institutional
structures that we consider to be foundational of this country... well, I
don't know what's going to happen, but I'm pretty sure it won't be pretty for
the serfs ahem I mean citizens.

The checks and balances system is almost non-existent. The executive has power
over the other two branches, and the supra-national corporations have power
over all three. The justice system is a farce, the SCOTUS are likely
compromised, and oversight of intelligence agencies is almost non-existent.
Resource wars loom on the horizon, what I call the shadow players like
Zbigniew Brzezinski are encouraging a return to the tripolar world, and all
this as wealth disparity increases amazingly fast.

Surveillance is not about security, it's about control. The question no one is
asking is, "Why?".

------
mindslight
And what would the net effect of these reforms be for individual users, even
if governments actually kept their word? A five year reprieve until emailing
the wrong person causes your mandatory insurance premiums to double?
Centralized data silos are the root cause of broken privacy, and the goal of
this lobbying is to make you ignore this glaring truth and perpetuate the
extremely profitable mining-your-data industry.

------
1337biz
They need to NRA that thing up!

Get people to sign up and pledge their support, organize local chapters,
organize, organize, organize.

Am I the only one missing here the call to action?

------
joshfraser
> whois reformgovernmentsurveillance.com

Really, they bought the domain 5 days ago from GoDaddy?!

~~~
joshfraser
Whatever, I'm just glad they're doing it.

------
A1kmm
Point 4 (in particular, the part about allowing data transfer overseas) could
be construed to mean letting big companies work around the privacy laws of one
country by copying private data to another country with weaker privacy laws.

I think that sneaking points like this in weakens the effect of the whole
thing.

------
f3llowtraveler
Why doesn't this web page mention Snowden at all? For example, the fact that
he was right, and is a hero, and deserves to have all charges dropped?

Weren't all these people collaborating with authorities at the expense of our
liberties -- and aren't they still?

------
wrongc0ntinent
Anyone with definite proof it's real?

~~~
packetslave
[http://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08co...](http://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/press/2013/dec13/12-08companycoalitionpr.aspx)

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
Thanks.

------
atmosx
Hm, I wonder why I see no Cisco and Amazon on logos, there. After all the
money Cisco is loosing are they still reluctant to go against the USA gov, who
knows what kind of contracts were made...

------
d0ugie
You'd think Google, or any of the companies, would host such a thing
themselves, rather than sub it out to Godaddy, using a PTR of the domain name
relevant to the site -- and, especially in the spirit of things, a properly-
configured SSL certificate that doesn't set off warnings, pointing where it
ought to (like the IP's PTR), with HSTS and PFS in place and so forth.

What indication is there that this is not a hoax?

------
Cakez0r
This seems a bit toothless to me. I can't help but feel this is more about PR.
There aren't any calls to action! Just a page of opinions.

------
salient
I don't know if these things make a difference or not, but there are 1/3 votes
needed for ECPA reform, with 3 days to go:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-
tell-g...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-
government-get-warrant/nq258dxk)

------
nfoz
I guess it's nice when companies are politically active on behalf of things
that serve both my interests and theirs. But I wish the U.S. government was
responsive to the demands of its actual citizens and not these private
entities, whose views regarding _privacy law_ are so often antagonistic to my
own.

------
laurencerowe
Anyone else seeing the "Default Parallels Plesk Panel Page" instead of the
content? Google cache still works:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Arefor...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Areformgovernmentsurveillance.com)

------
vjvj
What a feeble attempt at reform.

In particular, the sentence copied below makes it sound like just another
summer new story that will soon fade into insignificance:

"But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform
government surveillance practices worldwide"

------
veidr
Mildly interesting (from a branding/style perspective) how Apple, and only
Apple, chose not to feature their logo at the top, but to add it to the bottom
where only people who read (or at least scrolled) the whole thing could see
it.

------
shank8
The website was taken down!!??

------
billirvine
It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and
the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an
official Silicon Valley Alliance.

~~~
sp332
The DNS has been changed to point to another server on the same network. The
original is still running at [http://97.74.205.113/](http://97.74.205.113/)
but the domain now points to [http://97.74.205.82/](http://97.74.205.82/)
Strange
[https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.c...](https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/reformgovernmentsurveillance.com)

------
bippi
I like the idea, but these were the principles they were supposed to be
following in the first place but weren't. What makes anyone think that any
amount of laws passed will be respected?

------
bonjourmr
Damage control

------
downandout
Site is down.

------
skyshine
This is all well and good, but it only really matters if they start lobbying
heavily for this change. Words are cheap, it is actions that matter.

------
jspc
I do wish they had sorted SSL properly for this. Its a bit bad when talking
about security and surveillance they miss the fundamentals.

------
superpatosainz
"Dear Government. You've pissed off $1.4 trillion of the market. You might
want to review your recent behavior."

------
codeulike
I like how they put AOL first on the list. Like, if there's flak coming,
they'll take it first or something.

------
wyclif
They really need to look again at how they implemented sharing to Twitter, G+
or LinkedIn; it's a mess.

------
sergiotapia
I thought Facebook had CIA backing?

------
nroose
Why is Apple at the bottom but not at the top?

------
known
power corrupts people and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

powerful people should volunteer themselves to 24x7 surveillance.

------
antocv
Its a good thing they define "government surveillence" because corporate
surveillence is what they do best.

------
clubhi
Which company doesn't belong?

~~~
maaku
I don't know. What's your point?

