Stop Watching Us
optin.stopwatching.us
optin.stopwatching.us
Source: my cousin and his wife were both Senate staffers for several years.
If a large enough block of organized, committed issue voters were to emerge from this event (especially a bipartisan block), that would do much to change the political landscape, and could significantly undermine the influence of money in certain elections.
Also, you kind of beg the question, don't you, when you say "They don't care about fringe voters because it's usually not a big enough group to matter"? The whole point of my comment was to point out that the people who care about this issue may now be numerous enough to matter.
Yup, that's a biggie. Let's do a little simple arithmetic: Suppose Senator/Representative A is really popular and won by 55-45 at the last election.
Now along comes "a bipartisan block" of 10% of the voters all uniformly well up on their hind legs and totally torqued over issue X. So, now at the next election politician A and their opponent politician B get to split the 90%. Assume that this 90% again splits 55-45 for politician A (here we are using the assumption that the block was bipartisan). So now we have
0.55 * 90 = 49.5
0.45 * 90 = 40.5
Then, if politician A neglects the block, politician B gets the 10% and the election is a win 50.5-49.5 for politician B.
This is simple arithmetic for a simple scenario but illustrates the main point: A politician who fails to take seriously a 10% bipartisan block is well on the way to a new career.
In some ways I think online petitions have done some societal harm because people will always take the path of least resistance. If it's between clicking a button or actually going out and banging on doors to rally support, the button wins every time.
This is why my activism site experiments with combining the two: seeking positive change by making symbolic donations to charity. The dollar amount of the donations made in a task's favor might actually help convey the weight of support. For example: http://btf.io/382 ("Pardon Edward Snowden")
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I really hope it is.
Your elected official are simply not going to help us, please understand this is a very 2-sided issue. Those in the US can try the political route, those outside, the routing route, i.e. we need to avoid our Internet traffic going through the US.
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/52547186796/radical-surve...
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.
Blind signing is a reason why petition results aren't treated as strong signals.
This is actually bad news for elected representatives. Having an electorate who are apathetic about an issue is no problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are vocal about an issue, but who are ultimately not going to do anything practical to back it up, is not much of a problem for the politicians. Having an electorate who are deliberately trying to look apathetic about a problem but who will in some cases change their vote because of it can put a politician out of a job, and because of the culture of silence they might not even see it coming.
I hesitated though too, thinking "in 5 years, will this have some serious repercusions?" Fuck it, I'm not one to trade standing up for my beliefs for comfort.
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.
"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."
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.
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."
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.
First, get the data from the NSA, IRS, Treasury, etc. Second, find someone where the data shows that they have been doing something they don't want to become public. Third, go to that person and "make them an offer they can't refuse". The offer? Sure: become an informant, become a mole, do some dirty work, say, hand over some data, get some dirt on someone else.
The "can't refuse" part? Fairly easy: The government doesn't have to release the embarrassing data directly. Instead, the government could just have someone, maybe anonymously, give some 'tips' to some local, dirty politicians or some reporters looking for a scandal and then just let them follow the person, get the data themselves, and then go public.
Or, if prominent citizen Joe is a political opponent of an Administration, then poor Joe would have to be 100% totally clean of anything embarrassing or questionable or he could get some nearly anonymous communications that he might want to cool down, back off, and get on the team of the Administration.
The blackmailing doesn't have to be for money. A big thing about blackmail is that the victim very much does not want to go public, not even after they are being blackmailed.
Blackmail is a very old game and works very well, and mostly all that is needed to have a victim is someone who has a secret they very much don't want to have made public that some potential blackmailer knows, and that situation applies to a large fraction of the population.
Remember the old exchange:
"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."
with the response
"Nearly everyone has something to hide."
With the Verizon data, IRS data, and financial record data, have a good shot at blackmailing any of a significant fraction of the whole population. As many dictatorships have shown, with such efforts, can have a large fraction of the population under the thumb of the dictatorship acting as informants, moles, etc. in the population.
It can all be close to mafia techniques: A low level mafia guy who has done something illegal then has to remain loyal to the family or face the police for his crime. So, early in a blackmail attempt, get the victim to do something illegal, and then forever threaten to turn them over to the police.
Again, it's all very old stuff, and the Verizon data, IRS data, and financial data could enable oceans of it.
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.
And there are more complications: On some 'wedge' issues, it may be that all the torqued voters really are in the other party anyway and, thus, won't change the voting at the next election.
But getting voters up on their hind legs is a crude way of saying we need an "informed citizenry". My view is that now the Internet is by a wide margin the most effective means of having such a citizenry in the history of the US.
E.g., SOPA and PIPA went down likely mostly because they had to do with the Internet, and the Internet made it easy for citizens who cared about the Internet to become informed and to make their opinions heard. E.g., it was easy for me to become informed, write letters, and send them to Congress via the FAX modem in my computer. So, with FAX I got to send a nice looking letter, and what I sent was not on paper and, thus, didn't have to suffer a big delay going through some long process in the mail room of Congress to test for biochemical poisons.
More generally, the legislative process has some motivations not to be simple or open and sometimes is neither. Still, the Internet is one heck of a nutcracker to pop open hidden work in Congress.
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......
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.
Start a PAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee). Yours would be a "non-connected" PAC, meaning it's not associated with a corporation, trade group, etc. This is just a matter of filing a form with the FEC; they even provide a toolkit (http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml#nonconnected) with the required form and instructions on how to fill it out.
Now you can start raising money. Use your SEO skills to collect donations online. PACs are restricted to raising $5,000/year from individuals, but in the world of small-dollar online donations, that's fine. Your goal is to get lots of small donations, not a few big ones.
Now you've got your pot of money; what can you do with it? First, you can give some of it directly to candidates -- up to $5,000 per cycle to each candidate. That may not sound like a lot, if you establish yourself as a "maxed out" donor to a candidate, they will be very interested in your opinions.
More interestingly, you can take that money and make what are called "independent expenditures." This means buying ads that directly urge people to vote for Candidate X or against Candidate Y. The "independent" part just means you can't "coordinate" your ad plan with any campaign; so if you're going to run ads slagging Candidate Y, you can't work with her opponent to harmonize your ad calendar or message with his.
There are no limits to how much a PAC can spend on independent expenditures, so if you can raise enough money, you can pick a candidate who's particularly bad on your issues and absolutely carpet-bomb his district with negative ads. It may not be enough to cost him the election, but you'll win either way: if you unseat him, you have a trophy you can wield to convince other candidates they should listen to you; if you don't, you'll have made it very clear to him that you're prepared to make his life difficult every two years as long as he maintains his current position. Many politicians' positions are weakly held, so he may be happy to change his stance in exchange for you carpet-bombing his district with ads saying how great he is next time around.
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.
There are a lot of big trusted names behind this project, it should be made clear who the creators are.