
Groklaw legal site shuts over fears of NSA email snooping - tehmaco
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/20/groklaw-shuts-nsa-surveillance
======
alan_cx
I hope those who treated me with scorn for suggesting the politicians and
business people are effectively blackmailed by the mere existence of NSA type
spying can now see it for real.

No direct threat, not conversation, no deals. Just the fear of the knowledge
that one is being comprehensively watched, and what "they" might have. This
fear is enough to alter behavior, to conform.

Again, at what stage can we describe the US and UK, and their co-conspirators
as fascist, police state, oppressive, and so on?

Or, do we have micro targeted oppression? Is that the modern way?

~~~
anologwintermut
While the NSA stuff is really bad, what Groklaw is doing is absurd and should
be called such.HN seems happy to point out that more people die from furniture
than terrorism, but yet unwilling to correct people with similarly misguided
opinions when it comes to this.

1)Groklaw doesnt' depend on anonymous tips. The site could simply put up a
huge disclosure statement on a web form that THE NSA might get what you say.
Or not accept tips except via public comments but still operate.

2)Most of the people Groklaw corresponds with don't need anonymity either.
Those that do presumably know it and hence, will not correspond with them
absent secure means (once made aware of the need for them)

3) Groklaw isn't an email service provider, it's a legal blog/online magazine.
As such, likely none of the NSA's mechanisms for getting information from
email providers apply. Compelling individuals to hand over their own
correspondence is, as far as we know, hard. It can get worse with freedom of
the press issues.

So post a PGP key and say, if you really want anonymity, use this.(Edit) and
use a mixnet or Pond, or something to send the message. PGP encrypted email
from a new account just deals with the NSA's email intercept capability. If
you are worried about their other abilities, you need something stronger then
Tor since it fails for global passive adversary.

Of course, that wouldn't get them publicity

~~~
samstave
> __ _HN seems happy to point out that more people die from furniture than
> terrorism, but yet unwilling to correct people with similarly misguided
> opinions when it comes to this._ __

This logic is broken.

While more people may ___die_ __from furniture than terrorism, what the NSA is
doing is ensure that __ _ZERO_ __people are free. Period. You are not __
_free_ __when you simpl cannot communicate with another human being via
electronic means without the government 's ability to actually be party to
that comm.

While I cannot comment on any of these decisions to shut down their businesses
- the fact that they are doing so shows that we are in a really really REALLY
bad place with respect to any level of trust in the government.

America is dead.

So where do we live? Every single thing that the US stood for has literally
been murdered in the last 13 years.

We are not the land of the free. We are not a home for the brave. We have zero
moral standing on any issue. We are 100% completely corrupt and destroyed as
any nation we were raised to believe in.

I believe this all leads to one place. A world war - but not between nations.
Between humans and their governments.

The systems of control will be stamping out any resistance to their control in
the next few years. It doesnt get better from here.

~~~
rayiner
> You are not free when you simpl cannot communicate with another human being
> via electronic means without the government's ability to actually be party
> to that comm.

That's reading a whole lot into the definition of "free." Were people "free"
in 1950? If so, how do they become "not free" by introducing a new form of
communication (created by the military, mind you) that is monitored more
heavily than the ones they used to use?

~~~
cleaver
Warrantless surveillance certainly happened in 1950, but there did not exist
the means by which data about almost everyone could be vacuumed up and
correlated. It's entirely feasible to have an intelligence file on the
majority of US citizens. In 1950, you would have to be in some way exceptional
to have a file with the FBI.

Aside from the technology aspect, there was no Patriot Act and it would at the
very least be difficult to detain citizens long term without charges. Sounds
less free to me.

------
toyg
This is a tragedy.

We need to reboot email. Encrypt everything, including metadata -- given
current hardware, the client can easily bruteforce it from a list of known
keys. Build some sort of easy key distribution tool (connecting via p2p, dns,
whatever, just build a goddamn UI). Ask existing transports to relax their
restrictions enough to let fully-encrypted mail through, and build some
intelligent webmail interface for this (Mailpile, currently being kickstarted,
is trying to do smt like that).

We've been dicking around with PGP since the 90s without making any real
progress, we've traded security for convenience (GMail, Facebook), it's time
somebody reverts the trend.

~~~
random42
I disagree. This is a political fight. Technical means can drag the resistance
longer, which is helpful, but the political system needs to be put in checks
and balances against becoming a police state. There is no substitute of
"taking roads and doing peaceful protests" as out of comfort zone they might
be.

We sometimes fall in love with our methods because that is what _we_ are good
at, not what is necessarily the best course of action.

Again, I am not discounting the importance of improving technical measures, I
am just cautioning against losing the sight of the forest for a tree.

I repeat, This is a political fight!

Edit - Added explanation.

~~~
DennisP
The two fights don't conflict. In fact, they complement each other.

When all email is getting stored in plaintext on NSA computers, it's going to
be hard to get the government to give up all that juicy data. Reduce the value
of the data they're getting, and it's easier to reach a point where the
political heat just isn't worth it to them.

At the same time, the political effort helps prevent new laws that make the
technical solutions more difficult. And it helps encourage people to actually
use our fancy technical solutions. If ever there were a time when we can get
people on board with using crypto, it's now.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
I think it's not the value of data should be reduced, it's the cost of access
to the data should be increased. If it would be too expensive to watch
everyone, they would naturally stop doing that.

~~~
jlgreco
They would just find more contractors eager to bill the increased expenses.

~~~
dobbsbob
Or they would force even more backdoors into proprietary hardware than they do
already. For all we know Intel and AMD could have microcode to sabotage RNG
and they can already decrypt anything with ease using a skeleton key to
predict the randomness.

~~~
jlgreco
I've always (probably very naively) hoped that competition keeps chip makers
honest. If anyone does something naughty then their competitors would probably
discover it while reverse engineering the other's product.

Now that I say that, it sounds even more naive than I previously thought. All
bets are probably off.

------
itsallbs
We are at an interesting juncture of history. It seems like Snowden has
accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and
bring about positive change. Initial fears after the NSA leaks seemed to be
that the public would become outraged and then forget about it. Clearly, this
is not happening. A more secure Internet is needed, and instances like this
highlight that necessity.

~~~
mhurron
The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became
outraged before they forgot it. This and Lavabit and basically preaching to
the choir.

The only difference between this and me saying I'm going to stop using email
and drop off the internet would be that my statement won't generate several
threads on HN. It would, however, have the same effect. Those that already
know will ask why, and the rest of the world will go on oblivious.

~~~
dalek_cannes
Considering that Snowden's first revelation was just this June, I think a lot
has happened in a few short months. Public opinion takes time to build. This
is not a one-time event to be forgotten. This is a crack in the very
foundation of our er... society, or whatever. The bill to reign in the NSA
almost passed remember? That's just after a few months from the initial
revelation. I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very
different.

~~~
mhurron
> I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different.

I'll take you up on that bet, assuming you believe it's going to get better. I
believe the only way you'll win it is if you mean looking very different to
include worse instead of the implied better you wrote.

The majority don't care. Of the minority that even pay attention to it, most
of them support it to catch the evil terrorists.

------
danso
Huh? I just don't follow. Groklaw is not a site that depends on anonymous
tips. The last few stories posted on Groklaw were on Apple vs Samsung and did
not appear to require privileged confidential information.

How is it that other groups that do directly go against the government, such
as the ACLU and the EFF, continue to do so without a paralyzingly fear that
they can't keep their communications secret? The logical implication from
Pamela's opinion is that these groups, by continuing to operate, are little
more than a honeypot to be used against their clients.

That seems a bit overboard in defeatism.

~~~
cgshaw
It doesn't depend on anonymous tips, but encourages them.

PJ is basically saying she wants to prevent folks from sending her honest
questions about things they have done or are involved from admitting guilt to
law enforcement who can read everything.

~~~
danso
Make sense, but I still think it's an overreaction. My original question still
stands (is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with
an online mailbox?), and I would also argue that PJ could mitigate this by
simply removing any contact form or information from her site. Yes, people who
know her email can still contact her anyway but obviously, _that means they
can already do that after the site is shut down_. Groklaw could continue to
operate as an outspoken advocate for legal freedom...perhaps Glenn Greenwald
will find himself in a similar position, in which all communication to him is
expected to be compromised, but I'd still think he'd continue to do his
reporting and writing even if his sourcing was scarce.

~~~
toyg
_> is it irresponsible for the EFF/ACLU/etc to continue to operate with an
online mailbox?_

It's actually fairly dangerous, knowing what we know now.

There is a reason the powers that be are so rattled by these revelations: the
tactical advantage they're currently enjoying is huge.

------
fsckin
Why not use DeadDrop[0] for leads/sources? The New Yorker[1] seems to be the
only notable publication using it.

PJ has shutdown before, I'm sure she'll be back again.

[0]
[https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop](https://github.com/deaddrop/deaddrop)
[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/](http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/)

------
tehmaco
PJ's (final) entry explaining why:

[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175)

EDIT: Turns out there's another thread here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242569)

------
lnanek2
This is kind of silly. Just move the site offshore, and if you really have to
get rid of email, have an SSL message form. Although I think there are good
solutions for PGP and whatnot with email that encrypts it client side anyway.

I think this person is just technically illiterate and doesn't understand.
Pretty strange. I have a wife from China who hates tech, but she knows very
well how to use an encrypted VPN to protect her communications and says it is
common knowledge there.

This person seems to be lacking even US level common knowledge about
protecting your information.

~~~
vor_
You seem to have missed the point. One shouldn't have to do those things to
protect themselves from their own government.

------
frank_boyd
Something to keep in mind:

 _Privacy International criticised the climate that had led to Jones 's
decision. "The closing of Groklaw demonstrates how central the right to
privacy is to free expression. The mere threat of surveillance is enough to
[make people] self-censor", it said in a statement._

------
ascendantlogic
Now more than ever is when we need sites like this. This all plays right into
the government's hands. They may as well keep it up because people are self-
censoring and that makes their jobs easier.

~~~
adjwilli
If one person does it, it's self-censorship. If a group of people do it's a
non-violent collective action protest.

~~~
powertower
These are in no way a "protest". Once a site shuts down, that's it, there is
no message / discussion / fight, and it just blends into the background
radiation a day later.

Continuing the site would benefit the "protest" infinitely more. And the
operators probably know this on some level.

And that's the real story here -

These sites are shutting down because 1) it was unprofitable, 2) it was a
time-sink, and 3) now there is an excuse to get out and move on with their
lives and businesses.

*I'm not blaming them - and I'm not saying it's anything above the subconscious level. I'd probably do the same.

------
kghose
I have a counter-current question (and I feel that this should be a legitimate
site for asking such questions, because we are all hackers here).

Were lavabit, groklaw profitable and/or widely popular?

Is it possible that these are sites that are not profitable and would have
been shutdown anyway but which are now using privacy as an excuse for shutting
down?

This does not excuse the misuse of governmental powers, but if it is true, it
is a distraction (and a cynical manipulation of our views).

~~~
makomk
Groklaw was widely popular a few years ago; this is the most attention they've
got in years. Since they've basically never covered anything secret in their
entire existence, and PJ has apparently done ethically questionable things in
the past to keep attention on herself, pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious about
this. (For example, she supposedly shadowbanned not just commenters who
disagreed with her, but supporters who were becoming popular and effective
enough to compete with her, along with anyone who mentioned this.)

~~~
thoughtsimple
While I'm not a fan of the recent direction of Groklaw (probably irrelevant
now), I think it is a stretch to claim that PJ has done ethically questionable
things without some citations. What things?

------
aneth4
I call bullshit.

It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is
outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed.
Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down,
people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go
live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom
terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's
counterproductive.

If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to
go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank
her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the
grandstanding defeatism.

------
bluecalm
One of the Internet's very best :( At this point I hope more follow. If
anything that's one way to make a stand. We just need one country/countries to
make a stand and allow security friendly regulation and start-ups will flock.
Unfortunately it seems no country at this point could guarantee it and be
strong enough to not succumb to pressure.

------
dragonwriter
I just want to say that everytime a site like Groklaw -- whose main work was
revealing how broken the _status quo_ is (mostly with regard to tech IP law,
in Groklaw's case) and thereby creating pressure or exchange among interested
parties to fix it -- shuts down, for whatever reason, the powers-that-be win.

~~~
mbreese
Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was
revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system. In
the SCO vs. IBM case, I'd say that the system worked pretty well. Coverage of
which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential sources.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Groklaw's main work wasn't revealing how broken tech IP law was, it was
> revealing how stupid one company was for trying to manipulate the system.

That was its founding purpose, to be sure, but its main work had moved on from
the "how stupid one company was" thing for quite some time.

> Coverage of which didn't really include much (any?) help from confidential
> sources.

I'm not sure why this is in your response to my comment, since it is
completely irrelevant to it.

~~~
mbreese
I haven't visited Groklaw in a long time, and I suspect that many other have
the same habits. After SCO, I wonder what their readership numbers have been.
They will always be associated with that trial.

The reason why their lack of confidential sources is relevant is that closing
up Groklaw because of the NSA doesn't make sense. Their sources were largely
from law filings and (very good) analysis. Closing up shop because their email
could be snooped just doesn't make sense.

There could be other, valid, reasons, but this just doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps PJ wants to get off the Internet because of the NSA, and I'd buy that.
But it just didn't seem like protecting the email of confidential sources was
that central to their operation.

Also, it doesn't seem like the NYT or other major newspapers are closing up
shop. There are other ways to get confidential information other than email,
if you are truly concerned by the NSA.

------
mrt0mat0
well, if this keeps up, the NSA won't have much internet to snoop. I think
that these politicians need to stop taking months off and get some shit done.

~~~
ihsw
The masses will always use the internet, and they're the real targets. Google,
Facebook, Apple, and Twitter won't be shutting down anytime soon.

------
carl_banks
Given the current furore I think it not unlikely that pj is under a national
security letter and dare not talk about it for fear of arrest.

She is probably gambling that they will not threaten to arrest her for closing
her site if she makes no statement.

She always seemed pretty ballsy and I think she still is.

Or maybe she just doesn't want to be a journalist in America any more.

What do whistleblowers seek ? A journalist to leak to.

Imagine receiving a leak in America right now.

It would certainly be a BIG commitment and having received it, it might be too
late to undo that action.

At the very least this is pre-emptive censorship - a chilling effect, but
important in the Manufacturing of Consent.

What do you think would happern to Glen Greenwald if he were to step into a
transit lounge right now ?

Nice of the White House to deny it.

Consent for what ? Well one might wonder...

------
clueless123
I am very sad about Groklaw closing, but I understand perfectly how pj feels.

This is a sad day.

------
jodrellblank
Hmm. A lot of people supposedly operated under the belief that an omnipotent,
judgmental entity was watching their every move, in its own interests, to
decide their eternal fate.

Turns out, a nearly omnipotent judgmental entity is watching a big handful of
things, working in your interest, only looking for terrorism and national
threats.

Suddenly faced with this kind of thing as a _reality_ instead of just paying
lip service to the idea, a lot of people... don't like it.

------
noenzyme
Here is a simple idea. Make it known that our top election issue is removing
the NSA's (and others) tentacles from our daily lives. In addition we, the
tech elite, will freely help candidates who share point of view and refuse to
work with those that don't.

The last election showed how important IT systems are. And while it may take a
few election cycles we can certainly use that to our advantage.

Thoughts?

------
thex86
The chilling effects of the surveillance state.

------
mindstab
So how we we achieve political change? As Charlie Stross points out, some very
wrong has hijacked our political system:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/12/invaders...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html)

------
djpressplay
I think this might be part of a long term legal strategy to gain standing in
order to sue. I'm sure a bright lawyer will be able to raise 1st and 4th
Amendment issues and maybe even some takings claims. Lavabit and Groklaw would
make great plaintiffs in a federal court case. Here's hoping.

------
pinaceae
will this also lead to a mass exodus in HN users? given the ferocious posting
in these threads will all those now also go offline?

will yc now only finance startups that deal with encryption and freedom rather
than the next social/local/sticker thing? will elon musk create the hyperloop
for freedom?

------
supercanuck
We need a whistleblower law.

A good one, like one that is embedded in the consitution that protects people
from speaking out.

~~~
lyndonh
It would never work. No whistleblower was ever thanked or benefitted from
their actions.

The only way to survive as a whistleblower is to be anonymous, cover your
tracks, leave the organisation, leak credible information with evidence to the
right people who will do the right thing with it. Protect your identity at all
times.

------
hosh
Fear. Shame. Doubt. These are the means by which the few control the many. ﻿

~~~
hosh
To be truly free, one first shed fear and shame. To free yourself from the
powers of the few, you first have to step away from the social control of the
many. This social control comes from peers ratting each other out. It's
conditioning designed into modern, industrial education. Since the many are
busy watching each other, the few can step back, secure in knowing that the
web of social fear and shame will keep people in line. (This web of fear and
shame is what we're building our "social networks" out of).

So the first step is free yourself from your own fears and shame.

You free yourself from fear by accepting the possibility of what you fear.
Then you tune into the experience of fear itself, and let it go. People stay
afraid because they don't want to tune into the specific emotion of fear.
Where are you experiencing fear in your body? Is it tension in your chest? Is
something sharp in your gut? Is it a tremor on your back? If it feels
uncomfortable, then you're on the right track. Truth is hidden within the
things we don't want to see.

You free yourself from shame by letting go of pride. When you have no pride,
you have no shame. When you have no shame, then you can act impeccably. This
is also called acting with integrity.

It's only when you let go of fear and shame that compassion can open up. Most
people's notion of compassion are really driven by fear, shame, and guilt.
That's not compassion, merely co-dependency. I appease your fear, and you
don't mention my shame, and we'll get along just fine. We'll even call it
being "nice."

If you want to change the world, first change yourself. Instead of fighting
for power, own the power over yourself.

Do you own your fears, or do your fears own you?﻿

------
superuser2
Why can't Groklaw use GPG?

I understand that it's too complicated for my grandparents, but this is
exactly the community that'd be willing to put up with a slight inconvenience
to gain security.

------
jpswade
It makes you wonder what people like Qmail's D. J. Bernstein, make of all
this, a self confessed cryptography expert with a hand in a widely used mail
transfer agent.

------
crb
Does that Groklaw logo on the Guardian have a CafePress watermark in the
background?

------
throw7
This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity. Two things
the surveillance state doesn't want you to have.

~~~
mcv
> This is not surprising since "pj" guards his privacy and anonymity.

"Her". Pamela is a woman.

~~~
bricestacey
On wikipedia there is a quote, "I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either
sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular." Pointing out her sex,
you're just being a jackass and for what?

------
bishop_mandible
Just out of curiosity: What interest could the NSA possibly have in Groklaw
mails?

~~~
smsm42
[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-
valley/technology/316445-d...](http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-
valley/technology/316445-doj-memo-argues-all-phone-calls-are-relevant-to-
terrorism)

The Justice Department on Friday released its legal rationale for why all U.S.
phone calls are "relevant" to terrorism investigations.

Same applies to emails. You may not know it, but USDOJ thinks your emails -
all of them, including github commit notifications - are relevant for
terrorism investigations. Because they can. Remember - "yes, we can!"? You've
been warned. Did you listen?

