Hacker News Reader

Comment by rainforest | Hacker News Reader

IIRC some of the Snowden leaks alleged that (at least at the time) domestic traffic couldn't be surveilled (but this was solved by mutual assistance across the Atlantic - the British would spy on US citizens and vice versa[1]).

VPNs seem useful to guarantee that your traffic is designated as foreign, so this might be a net gain for the intelligence services rather than a loss - the mandatory collection of ICRs only relates to IP addresses and time of access.

[1]:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/edward-snowden-leaks-uk-o...

View on HN

the British would spy on US citizens and vice versa[1]).

Five eyes has been a known thing, to everyone I knew (friends, parents, teachers, everywone) even in the 80s. This is not much of a revelation.

(Back then, it was phone calls, letters, and even foreign friendly spies operating domestically etc)

What you're describing as "known" was not known. If you remember, the ACLU attempted to take the government to court over the Presidential Surveillance Program several years before the Snowden Revalations. They lost because they didn't have evidence.

The government had classified evidence of their crimes making possessing evidence of them breaking the law illegal. SCOTUS ruled that they couldn't charge the government of a crime without possessing that evidence.

Snowden gave us that evidence allowing citizens to, once again, bring charges against the government in 2013 and winning the case in 2017.

Some rumors are true. Some rumors are false. Rumors do not a court case make. The Snowden Revalations do.

I had thought this was about the NSA spying on US citizens, not about five eyes' actions, which is still ongoing I thought.

Note: re rumours, there are rumours, and then there are facts widely known.

No one I knew had even a shred of doubt re:five eyes, it was not "tinfoil hat" stuff, merely "this is how this works".

Even now, I do not see how five eyes is even remotely illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com