Civil Liberties Groups and Internet Companies Demand an End to NSA Spying
eff.org
eff.org
> "reports based on information provided by a career intelligence officer"
That's clearly factually incorrect. Snowden wasn't a career man, and also wasn't an officer. He was an IT infrastructure analyst. He's a support guy.
Reading posts like this make the distinction (even w/in the intel world) very clear: http://qz.com/92509/edward-snowdens-lesson-to-both-businesse...
I agree they were probably contacted, but still I'd like to know, in any case, what was the procedure behind selecting those (and not other) companies.
But you're right, I would've thought Google and the others would be the first to start a major lobbying campaign against NSA's surveillance powers. So maybe they don't really care about user privacy that much, or don't think this story will damage them too much in US or abroad, and that they don't really need to do anything to fix the broken trust relationship they have with their users now.
Bottom line - snooping is part and parcel of the business plan, they won't go against it, nor will they give it up.
But before jumping to conclusions, we'd have to be sure they were contacted for this? Maybe the authors of the letter assumed these companies wouldn't sign?
It would be telling if they refused to participate.
This plays out as: The NSA etc. claim "Okay, we've stopped spying!" right up until they get caught again.
Then the cycle starts over.
--
There is no technically feasible way of ensuring that you're not being snooped on. Thus: you will always be snooped on.
There will be brief outcry, some half-hearted claims by a few in charge that they will look into it, and after the next shooting or terrorist attack it will be on the second page, soon to drop off the radar completely.
At least that's what I'd put my money on. They won't even be bothered to lie about it.
Now is the time for Silicon Valley to step up.
but it seems like a good opportunity to really send a message.
But most people do care about Freedom and civil liberties, on a less "abstract" level. They just don't quite see the connection yet.
And then it's our responsibility to inform those who don't care of the reality of what's happening and what is at stake --freedom of speech, democracy. Before it's to late to do it.
It is not that people fear, or care more about the governmental power to intercept our electronic communications than the reality that citizenry might be killed without right to trial - they feel the loss of civil liberty in one instance is more likely to affect them personally, that is why it is important to remember "injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere." - MLK Jr.
As we move further into the 21st century and the world government's seek to expand their power, this strategy is seeing even greater success. This complements Orwell's 1984 very well, specifically because it matches Alduous Huxley's 'Brave New World' quite well.
if HN isnt looking after the internet... who is ?
Maybe its up to us to do our part [ along with reddit, 4chan, Anons, RMS/EFF ] so normal people can feel like the internet is their space ?
They have been turned into sheep over the last 6 decades by the media.
"you need to attack corporations bottom line for political reasons and make it very clear that's what you are doing"
For example: I wonder how much of their secrecy is really about protecting American citizens. After the Boston bombings (and 9/11 for that matter) there seemed to be no secrecy about the bombers. All types of information came out: that Russian intelligence had warned them about these guys, that one of them had already been investigated by the FBI for something else. All the information coming out had this open, non-secret feel. Same for 9/11: we suddenly knew about the movements and actions of the terrorists for months prior to the World Trade acts. How they trained, how they hijacked the planes, how Bin Laden had engineering insight and knew that hitting the towers at a certain height would make them collapse.
PRISM seems murky as shit compared to that. It's almost like it's dealing in a completely different type of information altogether. This is what makes me wonder about what percentage of PRISM-type surveillance is really about locating some band of terrorists training in some desert camp. The secrecy around it seems much more likely to protect the spies than the American people.
I do refuse to believe that the NSA employees are merciless warmongers looking to secretly destabilize nations and install puppet regimes while somehow profiting off of the anarchy that ensues (although a lot of US history is precisely that). I think most of them genuinely believe that they are doing good work that makes the world a safer place. But the personality of the organization they work for doesn't fit the rest of the picture and I just wonder what it is they are told in order to feel that the secrecy is justified.
More probable is renaming PRISM and (if the political heat [sorry] warrants it) splitting it into smaller entities, and then re-mount [ok, I'll stop now] the business-as-usual bike, as though nothing had ever happened.
I know what you mean though. My point is that you need the political will, and politicians are way too scared of a bomb going off, and the people forgetting that they demanded privacy, asking why the NSA didn't magically know of it in advance.
I do think the people need to once and for all decide on what they want, and once decided, be reminded of it every year or so.
My opinion is that Im happy to take more risk of being killed in a terror attack and keeping freedoms. Since one is about 1000 times more likely to be killed in a car crash, I reckon we can have some freedom back.
Many of them will be cringing at Abu Graib ... its about real oversight and balance of power and correct policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_for_NSA_spying
It has also been suggested that the insider trading charge were trumped up as retribution, in that the CEO was accused of purchasing shares with 'insider' knowledge of government contacts, but that he was prohibited by law from publicly disclosing those contracts.