Here's the thing about US citizens who are paranoid that the US government is spying on them when they make international phone calls:
Any government could be spying on you. The CIA has various rules about the restricted circumstances under which it can spy on US citizens, but MI5 doesn't, nor does ASIS or CSIS or the DGSE or whatever the KGB is called nowadays or whatever the Chinese equivalent is or... well, any other damn spy service in the world. If you're a US citizen then there's dozens of countries which could be spying on you at any given time, and one that can only do so under certain circumstances.
Think it's unlikely that the French secret service want to spy on you? Think they probably have better things to do? Yeah, so does the CIA.
Oh, and let's not forget that the police and FBI could be spying on you too. Sure, they need a warrant. But convincing a judge that you need a warrant is surely no more effort than convincing your superiors at the CIA that it's worth devoting effort to spying on this random dude.
In conclusion, this guy has weird, single-target paranoia.
edit: Also, afaik, none of the stuff he's talking about is actually in the Patriot Act. That's why it was controversial when the warrantless wiretapping scheme was revealed, because it was both secret and not specifically authorized by any law.
How many governments have a direct line to his local network exchange and an automated data gathering system that operates on that data?
> "convincing a judge that you need a warrant is surely no more effort than convincing your superiors at the CIA that it's worth devoting effort to spying on this random dude."
If the CIA's data mining project went through bureaucratic layers to enable the tracing, if that step was proactive and required effort, you would have a point. But all accounts suggest it's 100% automated.
He may well be inconsistent in his paranoia. But you seem to be judging that based on an either overly generous/naive faith in official government statements, or an ignorance of what the CIA and the Patriot Act really do.
This guys is an American. The FSB (what the KGB turned into) can't do much to him without an elaborate process (either a diplomatic one, or inserting agents onto American soil.)
The FBI, however, can have him hauled away with a minimal amount of effort.
This is like saying that you shouldn't worry about your neighbor being a peeping tom, since anyone could just buy a gigantic telescope or a surveillance satellite!
This guys is an American. The FSB (what the KGB turned into) can't do much to him without an elaborate process (either a diplomatic one, or inserting agents onto American soil.)
For the actual circumstances he's talking about (international phone calls and transfers) there's always at least one other country involved, so their secret service is at least as likely as the US's to be monitoring it.
The FBI, however, can have him hauled away with a minimal amount of effort.
Uhh, the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror... that's what the FBI is designed to do.
there's always at least one other country involved
You seem to be arguing that everyone's personal security should be set at the level of the lowest possible endpoint - a race to the bottom for security. We should be arguing for improving the security on the other side, not lowering ourselves to that level.
the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror
False, in two important ways. First, it used to be that suspicion was insufficient: the required standard was probable cause. Second, the required standard today, thanks to PATRIOT, is far lower. There's no requirement that there be any suspicion of a crime, or indeed that there be any crime at all. If they don't like you, you're done for.
The point is that if you put anyone under the microscope, they are probably violating at least one or two Federal laws. There have been numerous articles written about this. The Patriot Act is all about making 'putting someone under the microscope' as frictionless as possible, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Right. And this idea that spying on international communications is something new is ludicrous.
We pushed to have the first United Nations conference in San Francisco specifically so that we could intercept outbound telegraph messages, and have the upper hand in negotiations.
Not to mention, if what you've got going on is so interesting that other governments want to spy on you, does it make sense for your own government to be the only one that doesn't know what's going on?
If the French secret service really wants to know what I have to say to my relatives overseas, maybe I really want my government to know too?
You don't explain how it actually affects your business. As far as I can tell from reading the piece, the government hasn't actually done anything at all to you. You just point out (correctly) that international calls may be monitored, and then express your outrage over this. Although I agree with the sentiment, this is almost pure politics with a strained business hook. It's not really relevant to Hacker News and I don't see how it could accomplish anything beyond inciting political debate.
It's not just that international calls may be monitored. It's the fact that international calls to (and other business dealings with) certain places or groups of people are significantly more likely to be monitored, and this creates an incentive to avoid contact with those groups, assuming one wishes to avoid government surveillance. And what matters more is really the perception that dealing with these groups will attract government attention, even if it's not actually true.
Racism may not be the right term, but the point is that the possibility of government spying incentivizes businesses to share in that government's (perceived) prejudices.
Someone that lives in another country isn't necessarily of a different race. If races were defined by country, then you couldn't call discrimination (by Americans of European descent) against African Americans racism as they would be both of the same 'race.'
From the post, it doesn't sound like it stopped him from doing business this time, so that just seems like a very forced segue into the political rant.
And even if he did, that would just be his personal choice, not something the government is actually doing to his business. As I said, it's a tenuous connection. I personally agree with his politics, but until the government actually does something to interfere with his business, I don't see how it's strongly related.
I think a better word would be "prejudiced", although in his case what he describes would not be a "judgment" of inherent value but more a "judgment" of a heightened likelihood of undesired side-effects.
There's a good point in this blog post -- "it's unfortunate that dealing with certain types of clients puts my civil liberties at risk" -- but it's buried in a bunch of sensationalist drivel.
Lines like "it makes me racist" or "it could even affect your kids" or "Osama Bin Laden won after all" do nothing for intelligent discourse of the issue. The author could have easily made the same points without using such counterproductive emotional appeals.
Wait. It could affect his kids. His civil liberties are at risk, and this involves a fear that he, who supports his children, could get in trouble: putting the dependents at risk.
Furthermore, in more than one sense, Bin Laden has won a victory here. He's inflamed Americans against middle easterners, his goal, and he's gotten lucky enough to have government protocols that protract the inflammation.
It isn't fair to call what can be a writer's honest feelings emotional appeals. They may be appeals to emotion, but you're trying to claim that the author was somehow dishonest in your context.
People use emotional appeals because they work. What's worse, those who oppose your ideas are frequently using emotional appeals of their own, creating a sort of communications arms race, where you have employ a little fiery rhetoric or a few logical fallacies just to get anyone to listen to you at all.
Granted, this is the internet, and we can theoretically hold each other to a higher standard of discourse. Just wanted to play a little devil's advocate.
I highly doubt that people paying high consulting rates for web design are the same ones that are flagged as 'high risk' in the NSA systems.
Higher risk than a farmer from Kansas, undoubtedly, but nothing that would make the government assign people to actively monitor your international communications.
Actually, I think there is great risk. Money laundering is key to the operations of terror networks and protecting those who finance them - services rendered like web design can be a conduit for large money where no physical asset needs to change hands. It would not be out of the ordinary for a company to pay tens of thousands and even up to a hundred thousand for a site design.
I have done work in money laundering detection systems and I can tell you the means and lengths bad people will go to conceal and protect financial sources is mind boggling and it is quite often an excellent lead in finding said bad people, as they say - follow the money.
BUT - all that said I do hate most parts of the patriot act.
It's the people that inflate their own importance and think the government would actually monitor their every move. Sure, you do business with someone from the ME they might check up on you but once they figure out you're just a web developer they're going to move on to bigger fish.
"And I bring it up and write about it because everyone seems to think that the Patriot Act is some far off - "doesn't really affect me" kind of thing."
I've never thought that, and I've never met anyone who talked about it like that. It's always been very clear that they are taking our rights from us in order to 'protect' us, whether we like it or not. I've never found anyone who said otherwise... Or even tried to justify it.
Any government could be spying on you. The CIA has various rules about the restricted circumstances under which it can spy on US citizens, but MI5 doesn't, nor does ASIS or CSIS or the DGSE or whatever the KGB is called nowadays or whatever the Chinese equivalent is or... well, any other damn spy service in the world. If you're a US citizen then there's dozens of countries which could be spying on you at any given time, and one that can only do so under certain circumstances.
Think it's unlikely that the French secret service want to spy on you? Think they probably have better things to do? Yeah, so does the CIA.
Oh, and let's not forget that the police and FBI could be spying on you too. Sure, they need a warrant. But convincing a judge that you need a warrant is surely no more effort than convincing your superiors at the CIA that it's worth devoting effort to spying on this random dude.
In conclusion, this guy has weird, single-target paranoia.
edit: Also, afaik, none of the stuff he's talking about is actually in the Patriot Act. That's why it was controversial when the warrantless wiretapping scheme was revealed, because it was both secret and not specifically authorized by any law.