Hacker News Reader

I understand. You have so much to lose if you do something. But here is what you can lose if you do nothing.

I was born and grew up in communist Czechoslovakia. We lived close to Austria but obviously we could not go there until after the revolution. But after the Iron Curtain fell I went to Vienna with one of my brothers and my parents. To this day I remember the shock after we returned back from that short visit - everything just looked grey... grey buildings, grey people, everything looked dead and falling apart... one of the most depressing moments of my life.

The problem with authoritarian state is not that it is easy to personally get into trouble. The real problem is that the fear spreads and kills those fragile things needed to move the society forward - communication, cooperation, creativity. Incentives that drive people are perverted. In every society there are people who are pathological, cold, selfish, hypocritical, cowardly. Authoritarian states are wired in such way that it's favourable to those people - they get to the top and gain control over the society. Yes, it takes years, even decades. But so many lives are ruined in the process... and at the end the society is just broken beyond repair, you cannot trust even your closest relatives and everything starts to fall apart (and I mean that - at the end of the regime many buildings were not repaired for decades and they literally started to fall apart and sometimes you could not get hands on even the most basic stuff like toilet paper).

And don't forget... living in fear is going to cost you. Even when you are careful and you never do anything that would put you on their radar it still affects your life deeply... somehow it kills human spirit. You step back a little, start thinking about what you can or cannot say, you rationalize it... and pretty soon you don't even know who you really are any more. I remember Pavel Kohout (Czech writer and disident) talking about some of his colleagues, other writers, talented and promising... who compromised, changed their books out of fear... and never wrote anything decent again. Creativity needs freedom.

I also remember that after the revolution I went to some movie festival and there were some women - political prisoners talking about their experiences. Most of them were really old ladies and some of them spent more than twenty years in prison just for saying what they wanted to say. Some of them were tortured. But they were incredible, not bitter at all, without hate or vindictiveness, so strong, vital, they were even joking about it (really black humour) with charisma just squirting out of them. They decided to live their lives on their terms, not defeated by fear. They paid horrible price for that... and each of them said they feel it was worth it, they do not regret anything and that they are happy in life.

To be really happy, you need to be happy with yourself. And when you live in fear you kill that... each time you do something that's not really yours and is motivated by fear you kill little part or yourself. I am not judging. I totally understand that many people rather give up their freedom of expression or even collaborate with the regime so the regime would not ruin their or their children's future. I would probably give up under pressure. I am just talking about stuff that people from countries which have not experienced authoritarian regime yet might not realize.

"The real problem is that the fear spreads and kills those fragile things needed to move the society forward - communication, cooperation, creativity."

One of the problems is that this is precisely what many people want. Many people are afraid of change. They'd prefer stasis. Totalitarianism sells itself partly by playing to that.

That is exactly how criminal bullying succeeds whether it is organized crime moving into a neighborhood, or an authoritarian government rising to power.

There are plenty of people along the way who can put their foot down and say "NO" but all they have to do is threaten them and many people say, "I'd rather not get involved," or, "It's not my problem." But every person who turns a blind eye, emboldens the despot, bully, or mob boss.

Not saying every little 4-man start up should take the nuclear option when facing the NSA. But there are certainly many companies with clout who could easily turn the tide in public opinion against the rapidly expanding surveillance state. If Google or Yahoo or another big player stook a stand I think it could start to turn the tide.

I just feeli like if Ladar Levison can take a stand, I'd like to think there are others who believe strongly enough in what America stands for to do the same. America is worth it.

It sounds like you've gone all-in with the US government, and now you can't criticise it without risking everything.

It is possible to internationalize yourself and your assets in such a way that no one government can threaten you with taking everything away. I suggest taking a look at these internationalization resources:

http://www.internationalman.com/ http://www.sovereignman.com/ http://nomadcapitalist.com/

Once you internationalize yourself, your fear of government will be substantially reduced and you can be free to take a stand.

Unless you're living off bitcoins there is no such thing as protected offshore savings. They bribe low level workers to leak supposedly secret info and you wind up in jail. Remember the leaked bvi docs? Swiss and Liechtenstein dvds full of depositor info? Almost every country bends over to sign tax treaties with the US. Swiss numbered accounts are meaningless since the war on terrorderp. They (gov thugs) also specialize in blackmail, your finances aren't their only target

I don't think you'll be hiding assets, but putting it in another country so you don't get caught by surprise that something like Argentina's capital controls that happened nearly overnight.

I am living off bitcoins.

How?

Mostly by converting them to dollars when I need.

So... you're actually living off dollars.

You're not making an attempt to understand the conversation, just being pedantic. He said he was keeping his money in bitcoins to make it so that his money was harder to seize. Yes, he is spending dollars, but the savings is in bitcoins.

It's not being pedantic, it's crucial to the problem of Bitcoin. If I'm trying to live outside of government meddling, and yet I'm spending in dollars, then I may as well keep my savings in monopoly money. Why? Because converting to dollars (outside of a guy handing you cash in a shady park) requires a bank account, which in turn requires government involvement--and that's exactly the problem the OP is trying to avoid.

You think keeping Bitcoins prevents the government from seizing your assets? Well if you trade in dollars, then they don't HAVE to seize your Bitcoin assets. They can just stop you from converting to dollars, and effectively achieve the same result. All the Bitcoins in the world are worthless if you trade in dollars and can't convert Bitcoins to dollars. And if you think MtGox is going to stand up for you when the government comes knocking on their door and demands they stop honoring withdraw requests for your account, then you're wrong.

Bitcoins are cool, they're useful today, and they have potential. But until you can buy a sack of flour from the corner store with Bitcoins, they're not an effective way of evading government meddling. They're just a proxy currency for people who don't understand better.

You've now expanded your argument a lot further than original. I'm not a bitcoin hoarder so I won't try to defend that approach. Your original comment said that he was living off dollars, as though they are equivalent, which I don't think they are. You are right that until bitcoins can be spent directly for goods you are limited. Dollars are not the only thing you can trade them for. If you piss off the US government, they have to work very hard to shut down every exchange in every country in the world. I don't think it's a rock solid plan, but it's not just "living off dollars".

They would not just have to stop you from converting to dollars, including face to face with people you trust, but also stop you from converting to any currency or commodity that is readily convertible to dollars with a small enough loss.

That requires a vastly wider reach.

How do you deal with this without a %1-%3 international transaction 'tax' in the form of currency exchange or bank wiring / card processing transfer fees being levied every time you want to transfer money between borders? For example, I can't find anything like Schwab's %0 currency exchange fee debit card in Canada, and I don't have $100k to just have sitting around in a bank account to get HSBC Premier with it's %0 international fees. You also get the significantly more complicated tax returns and accountant fees you will occur? Have you done this yourself?

I'm currently living in the USA too.

I'm not sure it's as easy to do as you suggest. Moving large amounts of money internationally is difficult to do depending on the receiving country, and impossible to do without having it tracked. If you fly, you have to declare cash amounts > $10,000 and that puts you at the caprice of customs officials.

One could create shell corporations and try arranging some kind of complex loophole-based scheme, but that's not only difficult, but also traceable in most cases. There's a reason druglords deal in warehouses full of cash--because if the government wants you bad enough, there's no scheme you can arrange to escape, and even moreso with the NSA watching and storing all of your past and future online activity.

Is this really a viable option short of "internationalizing" yourself to a country like Russia, China or Iran? I've seen very little evidence that any of the countries you would normally want to be an American ex-pat in won't bend over for the US government when push comes to shove (especially when it comes to protecting someone who is an American to begin with and not a native citizen), and plenty of evidence that they will.

If you feel you can not take the risks yourself, there still are things you can do.

1) Skip the vacation this year, give every spare dime you've got to the EFF and the ACLU. Push to have your company make charitable donations to those organizations too. Think of it as outsourcing the fix.

2) Talk about it as much as you can to as many people as you can - be unabashed and vocal in your support of people who do take the risks that come with fighting back.

The worst thing you can do is nothing.

The EFF's focus is too broad and I haven't seen them go after an election. We need an no-compromise organization with one focus that scares the hell out of a politician on election day. Like them or hate them, the NRA should be our template.

Don't let the fact that such an organization does not exist stop you from supporting the EFF today.

The enemy of the good is the perfect.

Given adammil's comment, they cannot currently do effective election lobbying.

+1 "the NRA should be our template"

EFF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is not allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates. (I work there.)

Then they are definitely not the answer to what we need. Sadly, fear drives elections and tech doesn't scare anyone.

That doesnt stop you from promoting "issues" and highlighting a stance a candidate has on those issues, you simply cannot use the magic words [1]. This is a fairly strange defense because 501(c)(3) organizations are almost synonymous with this type of lobbying.

1: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections...

Elections are not the only place to drive change. I donate to the EFF monthly because I was impressed to see them actively challenging things in court, which in my opinion is far more effective at driving change long term.

No, but it saves a lot of time in court if the law is what you want in the first place.

I'd say we need a "tea party" for privacy. If there is real representation in congress for privacy, then things can really change.

Well, yes and a lot of the people in the Tea Party wanted the government to get out of their lives and pocketbooks and this would fit.

but....

Any loosely organized group of people, be it the Tea Party or Occupy has a serious problem these days. Your opponents can define you by your edges and they will. The media loves attacking people that don't fit the politics of their network or newspaper. These media then search for the most misguided hanger-on at the edges and make them the face of your movement. Many incidents are misreported to fit their narrative. It minimizes the damage these groups can do and makes them feel bad when they get home and see totally different reporting than what occurred. My favorite is to show a tight shot of the counter-protest making it out to be the same size when it is only 10 to 20 people or show garbage left from another protest as if it came from the one they don't like.

Not to say they cannot be successful. A number of Tea Party folks got elected, and the fight at the 2012 Republican Convention showed who was actually scarred. In the long term movements do win, but we need short term solutions.

Now, you can demonize the NRA, but it has moneys and knows how to motivate its members. It scares officials during and election and can target races. The funny thing is the money in tech dwarfs the money in guns, but the 2nd is better defended than the 4th or 5th.

Your opponents can define you by your edges and they will...Many incidents are misreported to fit their narrative

People frequently do the same thing when complaining about the government about the government of course - like the OP's article implying people are being herded into camps: 'At best our government considers us meaningless sheep to be herded/slaughtered at will,'

This is based on the shooting of an old man who shot his gun at police. Now, I'm not a fan of SWAT teams or the militarization of police, but I can't help noting that the police were called to the residence after he had threatened to shoot his roommate/host and his daughter, and that police spent time trying to negotiate with him after he had shot at officers. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/09/arkansa...

I'd study a lot of right-wing organizations including the NRA. The left sometimes wins the intellectual battle, but the right always wins on logistics.

> The problem is that we all have so much to lose

The Silicon Valley mythology is largely based around the idea of founders/early employees who do what they do because they have nothing to lose. I don't know whether that was ever actually true, but you're right: we all have a lot to lose now, and that affects how we act. Not just in terms of standing up to the government, but every time we face a risky decision.

Any thoughts on what we can do to make up for that?

Vote. Vote, and volunteer for the politicians who will do right by you. Convince others to vote for said politician. If you can, donate to their campaigns.

You can ratchet it up even more. Move your 401k money into funds that invest in very specific companies, companies who align with your morals. Convince your friends and family to do the same. Get involved in your local community and government to raise awareness of what you consider evil.

It's really not terribly hard to get started, if you feel so strongly about these issues to call them "evil".

Here's what really stood out about your post: you are writing it earnestly--as in expressing a genuine fear on your part.

And many who read it (like myself), will likely find your concerns to be at least somewhat reasonable.

So, what does it say about how far we've come that we are so afraid of speaking out when we believe that our government is wrong? And it's not just wrong, it's among the worst wrongs a government can commit: violating the rights of the citizenry it is sworn to protect.

I don't want to start a left vs right debate, but just imagine how much harder this would be if say half of the adult population was employed by the government. That's why the communist countries tended to be some of the most totalitarian and oppressed, and perhaps more importantly - the longest lasting.

People don't want to speak against the government especially when they're working for it, and there are not many job alternatives around. In the end, the revolutions happened when the economy was doing very poorly, and people had nothing to eat, so they didn't have much to lose.

Hopefully, Americans are smarter than to wait until that happens, and should revolt, or at least protest before most of the damage has already been done, and you have "nothing to lose".

There's a left handed sock puppet and a right handed sock puppet. There's one puppeteer: the military-industrial-intelligence-academic complex and its vast revolving door apparatus. It's ultimately about power, oligarchy, control, and big big money... taxpayer money and access to it.

> the military-industrial-intelligence-academic complex

It's a huge conspiracy! So huge that everyone is in on it... except for you!!!

It's not a conspiracy in the closed-door pre-planned sense. It's a power network, an oligarchy, an "old boy network" in the classical sense.

I never said the word conspiracy, did I? Labeling any criticism of power "conspiracy theory" is a straw man tactic for discouraging real discussion.

> I don't want to start a left vs right debate, but just imagine how much harder this would be if say half of the adult population was employed by the government. That's why the communist countries tended to be some of the most totalitarian and oppressed, and perhaps more importantly - the longest lasting.

That's nonsense. In these countries whether or not you were employed by the government had exactly 0 influence on how dangerous it was for you to speak out against the government.

Meanwhile, in many European countries, 1/3 or more of the population works directly or indirectly for the government, yet you won't find many that are the slightest afraid of speaking out against the government - in fact in many of them you have a steady stream of government employed people who are actively involved in political opposition to whichever party is currently in power.