Hacker News Reader

Comment by timw6n | Hacker News Reader

The fact that there's an "Is this safe" link next to the button for signing the petition is itself a telling indicator of the chilling effects of this sort of surveillance.

A couple of years ago people wouldn't even have imagined the possibility that there'd be consequences from this sort of very low-level, very legitimate, democratic participation.

View on HN

There will be absolutely no consequences.

It can be said unequivocally that the US government will not punish people for signing an online petition. Believe it or not, members of government like to see people getting involved in the political process. Even if said people are actively protesting against the current administration's policies. As they say, negative attention is better than no attention at all.

We live in a culture of political apathy. Most people understand government in terms of caricatures only. Any issue that grabs people's attention can lead to more involvement, which is generally good for everyone. Many of today's political figures, including Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hiliary Clinton got their start by protesting and signing petitions.

The biggest outcome from this NSA kerfluffle might be a new generation with a passion for politics. This could be the Vietnam of our time.

Have you read the accounts of people in Wisconsin having their signature on the "Recall Walker" petition begin retaliated against by state officials? This is the most well-known case, but not the only one.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-with...

In this case, it seems that Walker was nominating someone for a state position, and decided not to after finding that person signed a petition to recall him. That's not exactly being retaliated against by state officials, that's just politics. Of course you're going to appoint people that you like. That why, for thing that matter, we vote directly.

The organization opposing surveillance is the one putting the button there. Its pure propaganda on their part.

Honestly, if you had to bet, would you bet for or against the following hypothesis?

hypothesis: A significant amount of people nowadays think twice before writing or voting on something that could be interpreted as critical of government surveillance. They fear they will be included in some list and that this may have future negative consequences.

I don't know how you're defining "significant." I don't think its appreciably higher now than it ever was. I think the latest news just validates people who have always been paranoid.

Under Recent Signatures as it is at this moment, I count 29 signatures with names and 24 anonymous or redacted. Looks like quite a few people have concerns about signing the petition and are grateful for the anonymous/redacted options.

That doesn't necessarily mean those concerns are valid, of course, but it suggests that the organization has a good read on people's feelings at the moment.

It is about 30% redacted at the moment. We've done everything reasonable to protect signatory privacy. We hash and discard email. We don't retain log files.

But yes we think this is necessary.

Anyone involved in activism against the national security state needs to do their best to protect their comrades against threat living on the Internet Backbone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com