Hacker News Reader

Comment by bkurtz13 | Hacker News Reader

I really want to believe this could become reality. But the past surrounding this issue, as well as seemingly widespread apathy about our loss of civil liberties, leaves me cynical.

Nearly every time I fly, I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience, as they somehow feel safer. Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less.

I really don't have much hope for this bill. But I really wish I could believe in it as much as my younger self would have.

View on HN

People value 'feeling safer' far more than 'being safer' or 'having rights'. This is the classical problem of not appreciating what you have until it's gone.

For an example of this, in GA last year a bill was passed that allowed people with weapons carry licenses (who have to be fingerprinted, background checked, etc.) to carry weapons into unsecured government buildings. Immediately local governments began complaining about now having to install metal detectors and have police officers to screen people for weapons before entering their buildings.

Local government officials said they didn't "feel safe" with the new law, even though by virtue of being an unsecured building, nothing prevented a person with illegal intentions from entering with a weapon before or after the law. The law just exposed the faulty thinking that a "no guns" sticker on the front door would keep bad guys out.

Is that surprising in any way? Not saying it's right kr desirable but we've understood this phenomenon to exist in many contexts.

We buy expensive wines over better cheaper ones for the sake of feeling better. It's a life of interpreted experience not cold logic. Life would be too complicated to think of the actuality of everything.

It's got commonality with say a concept like pervasive direct democracy. Imagine having to make a decision a d vote on every single government act., even if only local. Most people would become exhausted of the process of this indefinite mobilization mindset.

So feeling more secure is easier than actually being statistically more secure. Peace of mind is important.

Look at insurance. You could probably run numbers and find other ways to minimize loss in the event of something catastrophic, but most of us just buy into external public insurance policies.

> I really don't have much hope for this bill.

It's hard to know. Of course the cards are stacked against any chance to the surveillance state, especially in the Senate, but then again this is happening within the context of several clauses of the Patriot Act (including section 215) sunsetting unless Congress extends it by June. And this bill has been crafted with an eye to getting transpartisan support; it's huge that there's a Republican co-sponsor, and how many other things do Freedom Works and Demand Progress work together on?

Also, portions of this bill were actually passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization last June, with a surprisingly large majority. So, we shall see.

Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less.

It's possible they don't believe the Snowden revelations represent a loss of civil liberties. I actually find this to be a pretty rational belief: There's much talk about NSA data harvesting efforts as a "machinery of totalitarianism", but precious little (any?) evidence it's actually been employed that way. Real harm, not just the potential for harm, is what will motivate American citizens and their political leaders.

After all, we have an election every four years giving one of us the potential power to kill millions and end civilization as we know it; that he or she also has the power to authorize computer systems that trawl through domestic phone records looking for connections to foreign bad guys doesn't seem that alarming in comparison.

I think that most people don't fully appreciate the complex relationship between the government and the governed. What we've had in the past and are missing now is oversight. This comes in multiple forms: congressional oversight, regulatory oversight, judicial oversight, etc. Ultimately, if those methods failed, we always had the media to provide oversight - which is why until the last 20 years or so, freedom of the press was considered sacred.

Real harm is happening today; it's just hard to prove. The entire reason there is no evidence that the NSA machine has been used for nefarious purposes is because they've designed the programs to avoid congressional oversight. The NSA/CIA deliberately and consistently lied to congress and the judiciary about the scope and legality of its programs. When the media stepped in because other oversight had failed, they were treated as traitors and threatened with jail.

The reason for all this oversight is because totalitarianism is what creeps in when you have no oversight: in the absence of a watchdog, government will naturally work to make the task of governance more efficient. The most efficient method of government is totalitarianism, so their efforts will converge to this. This is absolutely the slippery slope argument: once oversight is removed, the government can do whatever it wants and threaten anyone who disagrees with treason.

I don't buy the idea that oversight is profoundly lacking. The FISA court has ruled on many of these programs, Congressional intelligence committees and the leadership have been briefed (funding has to come from somewhere!), and as I said, we have an election every four years to pick a guy or gal who can call the head of the NSA or CIA into the Oval and demand whatever changes they'd like. That's one of the reasons elections matter.

Anyway, this is way off topic from the Patriot Act, which of course happens more or less in full public view.

After Hoover died it became clear the level of actual corruption and control he had over Presidential elections, and how the FBI had been suborned to serve his personal and political beliefs. So there was a secret police period, except it was years ago and it didn't result in a totalitarian system. That did include the mass interception of mail and telephone calls, without the pesky need for warrants.

What has happened is a relatively short period of time in which technically inclined Americans had access to a mass communication medium which was extremely difficult to intercept. Apart from that period of time it has always been the case that if the Government wanted to get you it could and would intercept your communications. The general public have probably just always operated on the assumption that their lives just aren't important enough to become the centre of attention.

It's weird public discourse has gone from "Na, the NSA couldn't possibly be that widespread and invasive" to "Na, they're not doing anything bad with it..." It's like some collective denial of what the next step could be, apparently we have a lot more faith in government than a lot of people let on...

Oh, everyone assumed the government knows anything anyway, long before Snowden.

I remember after the Boston Bombings, people were complaining, saying things like "How could the government be so incompetent as to not stop this before it happened? They monitor everything on the Internet, so they should have known!". This was before Snowden.

Years before that, I remember people were casually talking about Room 641A. This would be about 2005 or so.

Everyone assumed the government snarfs all Internet data long before Snowden, and almost nobody cared.

Hasn't the existence of Echelon been common knowledge for years? The concept was popularised in Enemy of the State in 1998. Before that you had Clinton and the Clipper chip which could easily lead the poorly technically informed to assume all their internet traffic was already capable of being monitored.

Yeah, that too.

And I heard about Carnivore in the '90s -- though most people vastly overstated what it was capable of (people tended to ascribe Echelon's capabilities to Carnivore).

Perhaps I'm conflating indifference with dismissal as conspiracy theory.

I don't remember that Pollyanna public discourse. What would you consider the most shocking Snowden disclosure? None that I'm aware of were that surprising. It was an open secret at the phone companies that TLA folk of one sort or another have been (only sometimes with direct cooperation) plugging mysterious gear into the network for decades. Really astounding that their methods are now targeted at Gmail and Facebook?

There is a huge difference between "carnivore", a box the FBI could put on a single network somewhere, and room 641A, six rooms hooked directly into AT&T backbones sniffing all data. There is also a huge difference between passive monitoring at specific points with some sort of criminal investigation, and actively infiltrating US companies and breaking their security to be able to monitor its traffic unimpeded.

It's funny how I was a conspiracy nut when I told people this stuff was happening, and now I have people gaslighting me that everybody knew it was happening all along.

Room 641A was well known, as fact, years before Snowden and nobody gave a shit.

I remember people talking about it circa 2006. It was in the context of "if the government wanted to ban something and actively enforce it, they have the ability to do that because they've got a room where they grab a beam off all of AT&T's fiber optics"

Everybody knew, nobody cared.

The firmware exploits that were being talked about a few weeks ago are probably the most surprising to me. But IIRC a lot of the stuff that Snowden revealed was previously considered the realm of tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Taping phones of foreign politicians

Intercepting shipments to plant back doors

Sabotaging cryptography efforts to so everyone has weak encryption.

Lying to congress.

Are a few shocking revelations from Snowden disclosure my bad memory recalls.

I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience

They could be govt stooges (field agents) implanted to distort public opinion and create a false narrative that the general public is happy with these draconian procedures and that they're very popular (peer pressure) to advance their agenda and support the status-quo.

This would have to be pretty massive in scale, and the people standing around doing this all day are probably not well qualified or paid. If this was happening there would be people talking about it.

It doesn't need to be on a massive scale or not pro-bono. It's enough to some people in the govt to volunteer and go on a disinformation field trip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com