
Stop Watching Us - sethbannon
https://optin.stopwatching.us/
======
rosser
If you really want to signal your feelings on this to your congresscritter,
don't write, don't email, and don't sign a petition. _Call them_. Speak with a
human being in their office, and make sure that person understands that you're
a voter, in his or her district, and that you're willing not only to vote, but
to donate to _or against_ a candidate and campaign on the basis of this issue.

Source: my cousin and his wife were both Senate staffers for several years.

~~~
graycat
Nice!

------
throwit1979
Thank god for this. If there's one thing that really gets despotic police
states to change their ways, it's online letters.

~~~
noelwelsh
Criticism is easy. Rather than heckling from the peanut gallery, suggest
something more useful.

~~~
snitko
Bitcoin is more useful, because by using it you're not actually sponsoring NSA
and you're doing it not in some hypothetical utopian future where politicians
actually serve their people, but right here right now.

~~~
pionar
> you're doing it not in some hypothetical utopian future

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I really hope it is.

~~~
snitko
So are you saying that the US is an example of how government serves its
people and that there's every chance in the world it's heading towards a
bright future not far away from today?

------
comrade_ogilvy
I encourage people who are concerned about this to voice their opinion. I am
not greatly concerned myself, however...

I am more concerned about the Bigger Issue. If Congress obliterated the FISA
court, it would not matter. The NSA would eventually find means to convince
large corporations to "voluntarily" offer selected bits of their corporate-
owned data for gov't inspection. We have no legal standing to complain about
such things, because corporate-owned data is not ours, even if it happens to
reveal everything about our habits and activities.

The NSA is playing catch up here. The coming wave of corporate controlled data
mining is going to blow away the value of a simple Call Detail Records
database.

What we need to do is spell out our privacy rights, in a manner that is
understandable and enforceable in the modern age. Any less is just a band-aid.

------
bpellin
If you are asking someone to sign a letter, shouldn't the text of the letter
be present by default before the field to sign?

Blind signing is a reason why petition results aren't treated as strong
signals.

------
cryptoz
"Please watch us extra carefully."

~~~
StavrosK
Aaaand, there we go. Now we're (rightly) afraid to sign petitions. Land of the
etc.

~~~
djim
Yup. I hesitated despite my strong belief that this is wrong, for fear of the
backlash down the road. I can come up with some scenarios where the government
could hold this against me. Fuck it. We must stand up for our rights. I
signed.

~~~
chatmasta
Don't you think you're being a tad bit dramatic?

~~~
omni
You don't think something like this, if known to the government, would make it
harder to get security clearance? That's necessary for a lot of government
positions, as well as private sector jobs that contract to the government.

Additionally, if you run for office against me and I'm a law-and-order
conservative, you can bet your ass I'll be running "djim doesn't want to give
law enforcement the tools it needs to stop terrorists" ads if I find out about
it.

~~~
mindcrime
A possible response for djim:

 _" We gave law enforcement everything they asked for, and they abused their
power. You know how when you give your teenager the keys to your car, and they
abuse that by going somewhere they weren't supposed to go? And you take the
keys away? Well, that's what we're doing... we're taking the keys away, since
they have shown that they can't be trusted with those keys."_

------
zmanian
I'm thinking hard about what the next steps should be on driving policy
change.

The basic mechanism needs to stripping policy makers of legitimacy because
they have undermined democratic norms.

One approach might a recall campaign against Diane Feinstein.

------
graycat
Does sending letters to members of Congress affect legislation significantly?

Definitely yes.

Example 1: PIPA and SOPA. Both bills were about to pass; voters got up on
their hind legs against the bills, and both bills went down in flames.

Why? Because most elections are decided closer than 60-40. So, for a person in
elected office to totally torque off 10% of his constituents is a good path to
another job. Even 5% of constituents can be influential. Actually, even 1% can
be influential because the member of Congress can easily understand that if
torque off 1% here, another 1% there, and have that 1+% talking to others, the
results can really add up.

That's why members of Congress are good at smiling, kissing babies, shaking
hands, speaking in generalities with platitudes and cliches, etc.: Find ways
to please or sooth voters, ways that don't torque off even 1%.

Members of Congress are good at counting votes and letters from constituents.
They can also count campaign dollars, but dollars don't actually vote, and
constituents can and, when motivated, do.

Not everyone in Congress really 'gets it' on these points, but nearly all
members of Congress who have won more than one election do.

For a little more, just think: Take just the Verizon data. With that data, can
pick a Verizon customer and know where they were at each phone call. So,
really, can track their movements. Also know who they they called. So, if
there are any 'secret romantic connections' going on (and is there any doubt
about that?), then have a good shot at detecting some of them. Presto:
Blackmail, shakedown, extortion, recruit as an informer or a mole, etc. So,
now a large fraction of all the Verizon customers are torqued. So, in any
congressional district or state with a lot of Verizon customers, the relevant
member of Congress needs to be quite concerned.

Combine data such as that from Verizon with IRS data and actions, and have
more opportunities for blackmail, shakedown. Could throttle opposing political
efforts, not that anyone in the Cincinnati office of the IRS would ever
actually try such a thing.

Gee, I omitted banking records! So, some big shot is paying the condo fees for
his mistress; can see that in his financial records, especially if he bought a
new BMW for his mistress for over $10,000 (is there any other kind?). Then
combine that data with phone data and location data and show that he was often
in the condo or calling the phone of the mistress. Now, have got the guy; have
him on a short leash. So, back to the movie, 'Godfather II' where the Senator
suddenly became a really big supporter of the Corleone family. It's called
blackmail, and it's one of the oldest professions. That Verizon data is a wide
open, engraved invitation to massive blackmail. Did Nixon ever consider using
IRS data? Hmm ....

Really, that Verizon data is a wide open, engraved invitation to a dirty
dictatorship.

But Verizon could use that data for such dirty stuff now?

Yes, and about the second time they tried, the effort would become public and
their brand name would be dirt and their business dead. Also Verizon doesn't
connect closely with the IRS, FBI, INS, DHS, etc. but the NSA can.

One of the best parts of the US is our Constitution. So, a big part of
protecting the US is protecting the Constitution. So, 'protecting the US'
while trashing the Constitution is destroying the US, not protecting it.

Yes, maybe trashing the Constitution would make it easier to catch loser,
wacko, nutjobs like the Boston bombers, but: (1) As we know, the NSA, CIA,
DHS, INS, FBI, and the Boston police didn't catch the Boston loser, wacko,
nutjobs even though Russia had told us that they were dangerous wackos. (2)
NSA did trash the Constitution. So, the NSA is good at trashing the
Constitution but not so good at helping catch loser, wacko, dangerous nutjobs,
even when given good hints that they are dangerous nutjobs.

The job of the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. is both (1) protect the
Constitution and (2) catch the bad guys. Both. Trashing the Constitution
destroys much of the US and, thus, necessarily cannot be part of protecting
the US.

Yes, yes, yes, we know: The NSA cooked up an excuse:

First they just collect all that data, e.g., all the Verizon data, all the
data through that AT&T building in San Francisco, all current Internet e-mail
data, etc. So, their excuse is that just collecting that data does not hurt
anyone because they have yet to look at that data or have yet to use that data
to look at any individual. Or maybe for the e-mail data they look only at the
header lines. Sure that's all they do! Trust them on that!

Second they argue that they only look at that data for one individual at a
time given a good national security reason to look at that individual. And
then they only use data that crossed a US border. Yup, Virginia, you can be
sure; you can trust your Federal Government!

Third, they claim that, thus, their actions don't use data that was only
'domestic', don't involve just any US citizens, and, thus, don't violate the
Constitution. That is, they have this huge box of chocolates, but they never
open the box.

Right, that's what they claim. And, right again, they would never let that
data, that they are keeping essentially forever in Utah, be used for anything
else. Right, and this car was driven only by a little old lady and only to
church on Sundays, and trust me on this.

To heck with the lame, contrived, tricky, delicate excuses: The NSA is not
supposed to be collecting data that is only within the US and is not supposed
to be collecting data on ordinary US citizens and certainly not on all or
nearly all US citizens. Right, anyone could use such an excuse: "I confess; I
stole the book; but that's okay because I haven't yet read it! And, yes, that
prime rib roast, I stole that too, but that's okay, too, because I haven't yet
eaten it!". So, the NSA trashed the Constitution.

The US government works for us, the US citizens; we don't work for them; we
are the ones to be trusted, not them; we are the ones presumed innocent until
proven guilty, not them.

Their job is to protect us and the Constitution, not to monitor and control us
and trash the Constitution.

Yes, if we get the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, INS, etc. back within the law and back
to respecting the Constitution, then the next pressure cooker that goes "Boom"
in a crowded place will raise the question of, can we afford the Constitution?
The answer is simple: (1) We need the Constitution; trashing the Constitution
trashes much of our country and, thus, necessarily does not protect it. (2) If
we have too many bad guys, then we need better police work, not a weaker
Constitution. (3) Police work is not perfect, and our security cannot be
perfect.

For one more, the main issues in US national security are not loser, wacko,
nutjobs with backpacks with pressure cookers. Indeed, now wackos hijacking
airplanes are no longer a main issue in US national security. Instead the main
issues, for which we need the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. are: (1) Actions by nation
states, e.g., China hacking the Internet in the US. China stealing US military
secrets. Pakistan building more nuclear weapons. Iran going nuclear. (2)
Actions by small groups, terrorists, e.g., Al Qaeda, toward a serious WMD
deployed in the US, e.g., a nuclear fission explosion in the hold of a ship in
a major US port.

At (1) and (2), we are pretty good: NSA's SIGINT and the CIA's HUMINT, etc.
can be quite good well within the Constitution. For nuclear fission devices,
must first get the materials, and that's still not so easy. We've been working
hard for decades locking down the materials.

We need to protect the US and the Constitution, not try to protect the US and
trash the Constitution.

So, the Constitution is under attack, and we have to push back and protect and
defend the Constitution. Could this be true? Actually, not only true but
expected:

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

~~~
DEinspanjer
I've heard the blackmail angle on this whole thing as a recurring thought
experiment, but I'm not sure that it works out that well in practice.

First, while the whole data collection capability was fairly secret,
attempting any blackmail comes with a big risk that they'd pick the wrong
person, one who doesn't feel that the cost is worth it and decides to try to
make a buck spilling to the public what they are trying to do. Maybe they
could cover one or two of those up, but I have to think that after even just a
few failed blackmail attempts, they either have a large body count or enough
evidence that people decide that these reports have some fact behind them. At
that point, it seems to me to come rather quickly to two choices, public
outrage that results in repeal of those acts, or total dictatorship where the
public outrage is stifled and ignored.

It is a little different now that the secret is starting to slip out of the
bag, but the end game still seems to be pretty much the same to me. They say
it is okay because they aren't abusing the data in this manner and they won't
do it. If they try to start abusing the data and blackmailing / recruiting,
etc. Then again, the failed attempts lead to a body count or eventually
incontrovertible proof that they are abusing the power.

Please note that I'm not endorsing their collection or use of this data in any
way. I abhor it. I am just not certain that the whole blackmail of any random
person they want can really play out well.

~~~
smacktoward
Blackmail is a classic tool intelligence agencies use to "turn" people into
"assets" who will participate in their operations, precisely because it covers
itself up.

Imagine someone comes to your door and produces materials that could destroy
your life. Even if you want to call their bluff, are you really going to run
to the local TV news and tell them the story? You'd be destroying your life
just as thoroughly as the blackmailer threatened to. It takes a lot of courage
to own up to something that could wreck you; more courage than most people
have.

------
return0
You don't have to shout it, just post it on facebook, they can hear.

~~~
smacktoward
"Please speak clearly into the potted plant."

~~~
return0
but, but PRISM didn't mention anything about pot-maker companies

------
kumarski
I'll happily sign it, but is this effective?

As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible
things can I do to actually change the system/ make a dent in it?

Suggestions: 1.) Free SEO growth hacking for politicians that vehemently
oppose invasions of online privacy. 2.) Help me out......

~~~
mindcrime
_As a noob developer and someone who cares about online privacy, what tangible
things can I do to actually change the system / make a dent in it?_

1\. Cash. Cold, hard, cash. Donate it to the EFF, and/or whatever other
organizations you think stand to move public policy in a better direction, or
otherwise contribute to improving the situation. Maybe also consider the Free
Software Foundation, EPIC, the Libertarian Party, the American Civil Liberties
Union, etc.

2\. Organize people and educate them. Start a "Digital Privacy Meetup" in your
town, and invite speakers to talk about using Tor, I2P, GPG, SSL/TLS, etc. Get
some people educated on these issues and then send them out to speak at other
events.

3\. Join Toastmasters, practice giving speeches and presentations. Get really
good at it. Run for public office. Get elected (or not). In either case, your
campaign is a platform to promote a message and spread the word about
something you believe in.

4\. Give cash to the campaigns of candidates who you believe actually reflect
your values. Don't limit yourself to Democrats and Republicans either. If the
Libertarian Party candidate, or the Green Party candidate, or the Constitution
Party candidate, or the Pirate Party candidate are best in your opinion, throw
some support their way. 3rd party candidates can influence the debate, and
influence the election, even when they aren't the eventual winner. Don't
ignore the nth order effects.

------
digitalWestie
While you're at it - can you also ask them to stop watching _us_ (as in us
outside the US)?

~~~
jacobquick
Actually we can't. We specifically don't get to vote on foreign relations,
ever, and it doesn't pass through the normal bicameral legislative thing. It's
just the president draws up whatever and then the senate OKs it.

Last election they ran all the 'progressives' out of the senate, next election
there will be no anti-surveillance candidates except to the house where no one
can do anything.

------
crusso
Looks like a good way to sign up for an audit from the IRS. ;)

------
KevinEldon
Sign the form and then donate to the EFF. Your signature matters and putting
your money where you digital mouth is matters a lot (more?) too.

------
MichaelApproved
Enough with these useless petitions on HN. All they're good for is getting
your name on a marketing list to be solicited for donations.

~~~
sinak
Hey Michael, just a quick note to say that we're actually delivering emails to
Congress, not just signing a petition. The language could probably be clearer
on that.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Thanks for the reply. I had no idea this website was actually run by the names
behind it. The site looks like some opportunistic person put an email form on
a page and tried to collect email addresses. There was a hint of something
legit with the Mozilla terms but it was more confusing than reassuring.

There are a lot of big trusted names behind this project, it should be made
clear who the creators are.

------
wahsd
It is only the top shard of ice on the iceberg. If you only knew how big the
iceberg was.

------
fatjokes
On the bright side, you can rest assured the NSA has heard you at least!

------
swombat
Is there a point in signing this as a Swiss citizen living in the UK?

