Hacker News Reader

> "But what has really changed?"

The major change that I am seeing is that cases previously dismissed due to "national security" or other factors due to classification are now being heard in public courts. This allows the judicial system to perform its job properly and for Americans to bring their grievances formally to effect change. This is a big move forward, and will catalyze a great deal of change as court rulings can sometimes move faster than legislation.

> "This is a big move forward, and will catalyze a great deal of change as court rulings can sometimes move faster than legislation."

Please let's not confuse the responsibilities of the courts and the responsibilities of the legislature. They're different for very good reason.

There's little to legislate here, anyway. What Snowden's revelations are targeted to doing is bringing the Government's actual behavior in line with the law, (in this case the 4th amendment of the Constitution). That's strictly the purview of the courts.

The bits that will require legislation (like "Data collected by the GCHQ on Americans should be treated the same as if it were collected on american soil") are loopholes in the wording of the law that the Government has exploited to do whatever it wanted to do. Closing technical loopholes like that may require legislation.

Agreed - they definitely have different roles, however if something is legislated and cannot be argued against in court as constitutional that complicates matters. I was thinking more along the lines of PATRIOT Act rewrites coming up in the next year and the awareness of oversight bodies in the legislature such as the intelligence committee that would be providing guidance and funding to agencies.

And it's when change doesn't happen with court rulings, or are hidden further, and then found out to be still true - then when does shit hit the fan? I could see this cycle occurring many times.

There have actually been positive developments recently. Last week a federal judge found that the NSA's phone surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment. Also last week the Obama administration issued a report that was more critical of the NSA than anyone expected and recommended ending direct government oversight of surveillance data. And there will be more revelations fueling public outrage (Greenwald has said that the worst is yet to come). So nothing conclusive but momentum is on the side of some kind of major change.

Political change isn't fast. There is also a legal process underway as well. Both are very slow moving, but can bring a lot of changes.

Unless something happens to ramp up the fear again, like some kind of attack.

Yes, apparently that is the go-to sales pitch.

I highly recommend the book "Crisis and Leviathan", by Robert Higgs.

Everyone knows that government has continually grown in size and scope during this past century, but how and why has it done so? Is this growth inherent in the nature of government or because of some greater social needs, or are there other causes? In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs shows that the main reason lies in government’s responses to national “crises” (real or imagined), including economic upheavals (e.g., the Great Depression) and especially war (e.g., World Wars I and II, Cold War, etc.). The result is ever increasing government power which endures long after each crisis has passed, impinging on both civil and economic liberties and fostering extensive corporate welfare and pork. As government power grows, writes Higgs, it achieves a form of autonomy, making it ever more difficult to decrease its size and scope, and to resist its further efforts to increase its reach, so long as the citizenry remain uninformed of its true effects. One of the most important books ever written on the nature of government power, Crisis and Leviathan is a potent book whose message becomes more trenchant with every passing day. -- http://www.onpower.org/about.html

Yes, this is the problem -- but how can we solve it? Does the book have any insights on that?

The only way to "solve" the problem is to spread awareness of it. Political authority is the idea that a small group of people "has the right" to impose their will on everyone else.

In reality though, they obviously do not. Everyone has the exact same rights (and they don't include coercing other people), and you can't delegate rights you do not have. But the belief in political authority is the root cause of practically all problems in today's world. Once the "Authority Religion" unravels, so does mankind's enslavement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

And there aren't ways to ramp up that fear? I'm not going to venture into conspiracy land here but I believe it's safe to say that there are ways to manipulate or stimulate certain means in order to accomplish goals (the ends).

It'll take about 5 years I'm guessing. My experience is that's how long it takes for the general population to get the information filtered through to them and realize what it means. (And have that translate to pressure on politicians.)

* But what has really changed?*

I would say being aware of the problem and its scale is a massive achievement. Awareness of the nature and scale of problem is the first step towards solution.

Yes, this is really huge! People who have been in denial or assumed they would never be able to pull this off (like me) are now aware. Naivety is no longer an option.

"There's nothing a leader wants more than a highly visible enemy to unite his or her people."

This is a fair point. Though does that mean US citizens are now highly visible enemies that unite the US military?

A friend of mine participated in a GoRuck challenge in Portland. The team my friend participated in were mostly military or former military, trudging along in one of the most liberal, anti-military cities around. There were folks throwing out taunts (weirdly, most of them were on the top floors of buildings and other relatively inaccessible places). She said it was the first time she felt like kind of resentment and hate the military feels from civilians. She watched her teammates bear with it stoically, focusing on the mission. It was a sort of honor and duty servicemen feel when they stake their lives and sacrifice their innocence, dirty their hands to protect folks back home, even when those same folks don't appreciate it, can't understand it.

There's honor in that. Sadly, there are often agendas that abuses this. And there's always that nagging bit, that maybe all the stuff you've seen and done was for nothing.

The real change, I think, isn't a reform of the NSA. It's a greater and greater openness and awareness of the insanity of war and conflict. The root of the problem here isn't that the NSA are spying on ordinary people, it's that we've created enmity and now we're having trouble getting disengaging from conflicts. It comes from ordinary people demanding security, it's not something that can be pinned exclusively on the military.

"The root of the problem here isn't that the NSA are spying on ordinary people,"

what? no, that is exactly the problem. isn't it?

No, it isn't.

Why is the NSA spying on ordinary people?

There might be a few bad actors, but all in all, folks in the NSA, and the military in general, actually think they are defending America from enemies. They are not far from wrong. There are actually some significant conflicts around the world, a lot more dirty stuff than what you hear from the Snowden disclosures. We American civilians are generally pretty sheltered from all of that. We actually think we're the good guys.

So the root of the problem is that we have conflicts at the world stage. If there were no conflicts, there would be no need for the military or intelligence agencies. It is that simple.

That might sound outlandishly impractical. Of course everyone has conflict. That's a given, right? Fighting over limited resources. Ideology. Unending cycles of revenge. These are rooted in human nature and emotions, stuff that can change, stuff that every single human has to deal with and learn how to handle. These concerns on privacy, while disturbing, are a distraction -- at best, a stepping stone for each of us to deal with the real issue: human nature.

I am so sorry hosh. I disagree with everything you just said.

>> But what has really changed?

Not much. The only positive change here is that people are now widely aware that they're being spied on in everything they do online, so now there's less resistance to "conspiracy theories" (ie. "reality"). On the other hand, that very same awareness serves to advance "the chilling effect", so it's unclear if it's even a net positive.

Other than that, everything keeps changing for the worse, of course. The police are increasingly militarized, secret courts keep doing their thing, and people keep losing their liberties. The only possible "solution" to this insanity is spreading awareness of the fact that governments are inherently immoral. They're based on taxation, and taxation itself is based on coercion. The way it works is that people are punished for attempting to keep their property. Does it make sense to punish you for keeping your computer? No? -Okay then, does it make sense to punish you for keeping your money? .. Well no. No it doesn't. Yet, that's exactly how taxation is forced upon everyone. If you do not pay taxes, you will be punished for attempting to keep your property. Something is wrong here.

> But what has really changed?

Nothing. And that seems to be his point. He's done (more than) his part. Now, if we don't like 1984, then it's now up to us to start acting.

Nonsense. Everywhere you turn, people are now aware of the issue. Whether we force long-term change is up to us. Snowden did more than his share.

"But what has really changed?"

Now nobody cannot say they did not know. Wether you choose to care or not is your own decision.

Well IMO it's kind of silly to care about the government snooping through my data when huge corporations are the ones who actually own the fiber and can siphon all the traffic they want -- then sell it. You're basically choosing between the US government or a combination of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom.

>> "You're basically choosing between the US government or a combination of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom."

Honestly I'd be more happy with the telecom companies doing it. They can do much less harm with any data they get.

And when the companies then give their data to the government?

The only solution is for the data never to exist at all.

I'd prefer it if no one did it. I can imagine a future where your credit rating is influenced by your Facebook profile and it's not a fun one.

oh agreed -- less harm. And when the government do it, we the people pay tax to enable it. US Taxpayers are paying for these buildings, mega-data centers, and contractors.

No, a corporation will do anything to increase its profits - or more accurately, dominance of its market. Anyone that can pay will get. With an added bonus of obscurity.

As an aside, when you think of corporations try not to think about the imagery they bathe you in. Think of a serial killer sidling up next to you all smiles and compliments. That would be more accurate.

I'm assuming that you work for a corporation. That corporation is made up of you, and a heap of other folks quite similar to you.

It's true that lots of corporations do unethical things, but you also should keep in mind that at its heart, it's people like you and I that are doing it. They respond to incentives like the rest of us, they (mostly) have a conscience, and generally try to do the right thing.

They're not always successful, but I don't think that your caricature is generally accurate.

No, I do not. I did work for several in the past and only one of those would I say operated "with conscience". They were overcome - overwhelmed by more "sinister" competition (of some reknown, wildly successful still). You need to see their operations as algorithms, and put numbers to actions. Ethical behavior often has a cost - and the counter unethical behavior can yield great gains - exposure may have a risk of a cost, but that may be mitigated with proxy agents, or marketing and relationship management. Someone has this all worked out, monte carloed through the gamut, including things that you might consider to be greatly evil.

And you usually have a choice with corporations. You can see in ToS how they plan to use your data and they often let you opt out. You don't get that with government agencies. Often you don't even know your data is taken since they're monitoring as much as they can see.

No you can't choose, they might all spy on you. All you say will be used against you.

I've never been arrested by a corporation.

Do you think law enforcement aren't included in there customers? I know for a fact in the UK at least that they are.

As for being arrested by a corporation - that will change. The UK government for one are beginning a process of outsourcing some elements of front line policing.

Interesting thought, I can imagine an ad campaign on Facebook targeting marijuana growers, and then the government using the profile information of those that click through to investigate them.

This is less targeted - simply using the usage information many large commercial organisations are gathering, the stuff people are giving up without thinking.

At present it's anonymised and is being used for broad profiling of areas, but I can see that changing over time.

In the current political climate you might have to wait no longer than about a decade for that to happen. Several countries already started out-sourcing prison guards and/or other security relevant jobs to companies like G4S

Why should they arrest you when they can destroy you economically?

I'd rather be "destroyed economically" than thrown in a gulag.

Because they don't make money by destroying me economically, duh.

Well, when Google/Verizon/etc has the authority to imprison me ill be more worried. In the meantime, this is an issue that can be addressed with data protection laws.

Actually that is not true. When companies do it, laws can be passed to stop such behaviour but when government does it, you have to change governance which is more difficult. Also commercial entities cannot siphon people's data under the title of security.

The difference is in the number of entities which own it and what they can do with it.

AT&T, Verizon et al can't unilaterally decide that you're a terrorist and arrest you, but the government can.

The government should be the gatekeeper for what can be done with your data, but it should not be allowed to own that data itself.

You seem to be responding to the title of the article, which takes Snowden's statement out of context. He was talking about his mission, which was to hand over the documents to journalists.