The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership | Hacker News Reader

The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership

schneier.com

38 pointsz_4 comments

Without hyperbole, [CISPA's] been called the death of the 4th Amendment

He could have written "CISPA has been called the death of the 4th Amendment" and been correct, but here he's decided to go out on a limb and demonstrate that he understands neither CISPA nor the 4th Amendment (or, to be fair, that he doesn't understand what hyperbole is), for no apparent rhetorical benefit.

We are awash in serious 4th Amendment and surveillance/privacy issues. National Security Letters were/are one of them. And if Schneier had the stones to call them out, the "network security" products that enable large-scale surveillance and are sold continuously to corrupt foreign governments would be another one. But if privacy activists want to be taken seriously, they need to stop hyperventilating over fake issues.

What we need to do is to get a standard cease and desist letter that tells service providers that selling our personal information without notification, auditing powers and compensation is not permitted, and is a violation of our right of publicity and image rights, copyrights and other rights. Get a few hundred thousand people to send them to the the major telecommunications providers and ad networks and then assemble the team for a class action.

This is a perfectly valid tactic to use against private interests that are violating peoples 4th, 5th and 1st amendment rights.

And to forestall some of the objections; it is a tactic that is uncertain of success and that will in the short term most likely cause the passage of unconstitutional legislation protecting service providers against the public ( like the blanket amnesty for wrongdoing granted to phone companies in 2008 as part of FISA ). Having several thousand plaintiffs trying to get certified as a class, and overcome the additional hurdles that will be thrown in the way will force the issue into the light; and let's be honest do you think that most people think the government needs to know exactly where they sleep each night?

>We're willingly giving it to a vast network of for-profit data collectors, and they're more than happy to pass it on to the government without our knowledge or consent.

This reads like a typical "doom and gloom" article and I never understood the point of those. Where is the call to action? Even a half-hearted plea to reach out to your Senators would appear to be more productive than this.

Never read me wrong - I'm just trying to see the forest for the trees. My understanding is that people who care about privacy already know all this, and people to whom we really need to reach out neither read The Atlantic nor Shneiner's blog.

P.S. Does anyone have any credible links for RFID-embedded clothing? Specifically, why destroying these chips would be a problem?

"When you walk into a store, they'll already know who you are. When you interact with a policeman, she'll already have your personal information displayed on her Internet-enabled glasses."

That makes it sound really useful, and terrific for society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com