Thanks for the update! Looks like the bill's poor verbiage is to blame; hopefully Clark will issue a ruling as to its constitutionality as well -- as she alluded to doing.
8,660 karma · joined March 7, 2011
My take on both examples: it's up to the rest of the electorate to raise the political stakes on said issues. At least to the point where two presidential candidates can't fight over who's more pro-coal. Or to the point where the rest of Louisiana (or even out-of-staters) can call bullshit on 11th hour text-swapping of bills immediately before they hit the floor -- that was just remarkable. Actions such as these should provide enough ammunition for a meaningful and sustained public opposition. Or, at the very least, actions such as these should haunt the "Jindal"s of our country in their pursuit for higher office (the presidency). Certainly raising the political stakes by that measure is possible, but it is also why the "Right to be Forgetten" policies in Europe are so disturbing (there is bound to be more to that story).
To that end, as an alternative to "Rising Tide" by John Barry (from the linked article): I highly recommend reading (as did Aaron Swartz)[0][1] "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York". It is a brilliant, Pulitzer-prize-winning case study of the forces at play in broken/corrupt governments (and how opaque the processes which formulate and execute the policies of governance truly are).
In Aaron's own words: "For nearly forty years, Robert Moses controlled New York. Controlled it almost absolutely, overruling every mayor, governor, president, and public pressure group. He did it all without anyone ever knowing: the press, when it did cover him, covered him only in the most glowing, reverent terms. He did it all without winning a single election: the two times he did dare run for office, he was defeated so soundly as to become a joke.
"_The Power Broker_ is the story of how our "democracy" really works. How men gain power and how it corrupts them. How cities get built and how real people suffer for it. How we became a nation desperately dependent on the car."
I will add that Robert Moses was the pioneer of eminent domain (a massive blow to the philosophical underpinnings of property rights in the USA) and modern public authorities (highly insular entities which are hybrids bodies corporate & politic -- receiving money from the public with zero effective accountability to taxpayers -- hard to summarize implications, but they have been enormous).
[0] - http://www.amazon.com/review/RXOVNQ3JLY6GF
[1] - https://zolabooks.com/list/aaron-swartz-reading-list/1
[2] - for those who'd prefer to listen, an excellent narration is available on Audible -- http://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs/The-Power-Broker-Audi...
Next I'd consider: "Hacking Politics" (about SOPA/PIPA) or "Understanding Power" - a collection of talks by Noam Chomsky -- not for his ideological insights but for his manner of making observations and thought-provoking perspectives.
[1] http://www.dslreports.com/news/129745 [2] http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/17/5913291/level-3-verizon-co...
Ghostery is great but lacking in some respects, check out the https://www.eff.org/privacybadger project
How should all organizations which happen to open-source code automatically be "for profit" just because some other companies might use such code for commercial purposes? The two examples are very similar but the NFL is non-profit. If the precedent is set, the damage to the FLOSS movement would be real and lasting.
On another note, I wonder how many dissenting voices are present behind the doors of the NSA given the Snowden revelations // what the state of the workplace culture is.
> Becoming part of Project Galileo is quick. On average, participants are up and running within a couple of hours; however, set up time ranges from 15 minutes to a couple of days.
> CloudFlare does not cap its DDoS mitigation service. CloudFlare has experience defending against some of the largest DDoS attacks on record. We will keep your website online.
The web is fragile in so many ways... But it's worse: the perpetrators of online attacks are (as good as) anonymous -- so this charitable initiative should be lauded for the load it's carrying.
Pun intended.
What makes it (not just dramatic but also) interesting is that it highlights the danger of "solving" the internet's identity problem, as it oftentimes comes at the expense of freedom of speech.
In case you haven't made the time yet -- ACLU's interview of Snowden at SXSW was excellent and dives into the implications of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIhS9aB-qgU
On another (ironic) note this PSA from the US government is about 2 years late: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26985818
This story is a corollary argument for why identity on the web is important -- and why it should not be solved by government (as it has been in places like South Korea). Because, who can trust a government with representing identities, if they are known to mock identities under any circumstances?
The capacity to "change the conversation" on a societal level (in this remarkably nefarious manner) represents a tool of which there is ostensibly no oversight -- at least no oversight the People of any democracy should trust.
IMHO, there is great naiveté in the assumption that these tools (which are immensely powerful) will continue to be used in an ethical (or legal) manner (without proper oversight).
So how can there be proper oversight of a program such as this without ruining its efficacy? It seems impossible--here we have a catch-22 -- one that draws parallels to the lawsuits filed against metadata collection which couldn't proceed because of the lack of legal standing. In this case, we have an enormously powerful program that can't have proper oversight, because then: "how does the government wreck everybody's shit?" That's power trip logic, but it seems to be the leading rationale in the justification of policy, as well as its advocation. That. Is. Some. Scary. Shit. Hopefully, in light of the Snowden revelations, the public is more suspicious of the way programs like this will be spun/argued-for.
The 'will' has always existed in government (in fact its pursuit is ubiquitous) to control the public conversation for political purposes--purposes sometimes tangential to the best interests of the democracy. What happens when entities have access to tools which can be used to propagandize? They find ways to use them. History is bound to repeat itself.
Take the Red Peril or Red Scare (McCarthyism/J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI) -- periods spanning several years of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt where the 'societal narrative' was affected by state propaganda. One of the greatest casualties of the two periods was: Freedom of Speech--strangely, the same cross which is carried by the fighters for an open and uncensored internet.
However - these are just the most well known periods of propaganda -- I encourage you read up on Edward Bernays [0], if you're interested in the topic. This US government has a long (and official) interest in changing the course of the public conversation through unabashed deceit -- from Woodrow Wilson's plight to overcome Isolationism to the pro-Vietnam war-statistics propaganda, and literally countless other incidents.
Moral of the story: the desire for state propaganda has shown to be ever-present in the United States, at least over the course of the past century.
Is it wise to simply hope to avoid "bad apple" (McCarthy, J Edgar Hoover) scenarios in the NSA/GHCQ/ETC? Can we risk having such powerful programs operating in complete secrecy.... in perpetuity?
"The greatest instrument used in the societal tragedies of the last century has (undoubtedly) been state delivered propaganda." - The first line of my most upvoted comment on HN. State propaganda of any kind is the most dangerous medium known to the survival of the enlightened man.
Another note on 'capacity': while I was not surprised by the 'will' of intelligence communities to have tools such as these -- the very nature of its operational status (and future development) sheds more light on the vast scope of the programs which have been "realized."
Edward Bernays - his Wikipedia article is enlightening in and of itself. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
http://www.netfamilynews.org/online-id-verification-in-south...
On "The Power Broker," Swartz says:
"I cannot possibly say enough good things about this book. Go read it. Right now. Yes, I know it’s long, but trust me, you’ll wish it was longer. I think it may be simply the best nonfiction book."
[0] - https://zolabooks.com/list/aaron-swartz-reading-list/1
Japan (Empire of the Rising Sun), Nazi Germany, Maoism (and the following Cultural Revolution), in America: Red Scare (age of McCarthyism, ending as a consequence of JMc.'s untimely death), the Red Peril (the predecessor of the Red Scare) -- the list goes on. The efficacy of those at the top to wield their power would have been far less without propaganda. Their ability to acquire it -- even less still.
Consider current-day North Korea, Venezuela, or numerous Middle-Eastern countries (which regulate education as well as the internet); consider the intellectually subdued population of China and the unconscionable acts which have been silently taking place in Tibet (and elsewhere) behind the Great Firewall. All of these nations are suffering from handicapped/censored versions of the internet -- while simultaneously being subjected to propaganda.
Russia can now officially be added to that club. I can't help but extrapolate -- applying this trend to other nations.
An Uncensored and Open Internet* is crucial to the subversion of tyrannical governments' propaganda efforts.
* - (I prefer this to "Free and Open" because 'free' is so easily misunderstood by baby boomers)
~ ~
We are witnessing (again [0]) a complete lack of attempted narrative on the part of the US/UK mainstream press. There isn't the slightest reason to not give this story ample coverage -- it is anti-Putin/Russia (which, we can all agree is the current fetish in the media), and it is absolutely newsworthy -- even by their standards (they covered when the Russia Today anchors quit and spoke-out). SO WHAT GIVES? This is the dereliction of duty in "journalism." Shame. And it is greatly affecting the movement for an Uncensored and Open Internet.
"Coverage" is different from "being reported." This needs to reach baby boomers in the form of a headline. They don't appreciate the internet because they can't connect the dots.
I've snapshoted cnn.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, bbc.com - at 8:51pm CST at web.archive.org . I'm the crackpot that believes there are ulterior motives in this pattern of institutional ignorance/behavior.
~ ~
When it comes to the marketing of high stakes legislation - know that the true motives are often-times blended with an actual public desire, with the bill being a means to another end entirely. As mike_esspe points out: this action being taken is through the passage of Russia's "anti-child pornography" bill. For those that missed it, here's what happening in the UK on the same front of misdirection. [0]
If you care about making a difference, beyond "liking" and "upvoting" -- I highly recommend (as did Aaron Swartz) reading "The Power Broker," and you will have a greater appreciation of the forces at play and how opaque the processes which deliver and execute the policies of governance really are.
[0] - A recent example of the mainstream press giving essentially no coverage came with GHCQ webcam revelations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7315743 The loose connection between the (casually addressed) problems of pictures obtained of minors' nudity in the webcam program and the governments' attempts to censor the internet on the back of the serious child pornography issue is worth noting, for its hypocrisy.
[1] - http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zhd6i/david_came... ~~
For the inevitable Godwin's Law comebacks. People too often focus on Hitler's 1936-39 rise to global prominence: what is often overlooked is the unabated role of the party's propaganda-machine from 1921 to 1932 to gain popular support and 1932 to ~1936 to brainwash the remaining populace.
Yet again, doublespeak in crazy town.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/obama-nominates-former...
"Section 8 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) permits GCHQ to perform indiscriminate trawls of external data"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-insists-op...
Here's an eloquent description on Reddit of how this could be the largest case of child pornography distribution on record: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...
We must make it our business that heads roll. Troll call-in shows of our (US) cable media--ask them why they aren't giving it its weight. Despite it being the GCHQ (not the NSA), this seems like the greatest evidence given to reformists to date of the overreaching post 9-11 mandates. And it's the unspoken duty of journalists to cover important stories and inform the tens of millions that don't check Reddit, HN, the Guardian, (believe it or not, the Drudge Report), etc.
I imagine this would piss me off if I were a Rachael-Maddow-watching soccer mom. Show anchors are hired for their ability to work up their viewers. Taking pics of me in my underwear is a softball. Notice rasz_pl's comment below -- any producer worth a damn sees the potential in this scandal. So why is Brian Williams not leading off with it on the Nightly News as he did with the snoopware-webcam story from over a year ago? Who the fuck can tell me that? Open your fucking eyes man, and start asking your own questions.
As for "this only pertains to UK citizens" - this program wasn't limited to the UK. In many ways, the UK spying on the US is more sensational. Furthermore, the NSA and GCHQ have blurred the lines between jurisdictions. As for "only netizens would care" -- most people use the Internet. Yahoo is an everyman portal. This is an egregious invasion of privacy. Who cares if you're a netizen on this story? The story's content is not to blame either; general viewership can be enraged about esoteric things too (a great ex. the "bridge to nowhere" - just think about it).
The US would care if the baby-boomer/mainstream media tried to cover it, at all.
I just wanted to point out that (from their mobile sites) I couldn't find a single story about this on CNN, FoxNews or MSNBC. (4:36pm CST)
Last time I made a fuss about the media I had Godwin's law and Occam's Razor cited in replies/counters as why bias in the press is purely organic in nature. As this story has 1800+ comments on the Guardian, reached the top of Reddit (before it was removed) and is here at the top of HN, I would say that the fact that there is barely (or 'no') coverage of this story points to an invisible hand. To clarify: I didn't say "reporting" I said "coverage."
To not milk what is the most sensational story of the year is against the very link-baity nature of these companies. While I don't watch cable news - I might be VERY wrong in that arena, but something tells me I'm not. I can't attempt to understand the forces at play, but they are there.
In other related (under-covered) news: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/what-was-fcc-news...
'This clearly violates both EU and British law.
It's simple: Parliament and the CPS can no longer ignore GCHQ's abuses and the entirely inadequate 'oversight' regime of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Brooks et al. go on trial for allegedly hacking celebrities' voicemail messages, but Cabinet ministers walk free after approving secret suspicion-less dragnet recording of millions of webcam chats? This precedent can't stand. It's time we demand prison sentences for everyone who knew about this and did nothing to stop it.
Relevant British law is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, Part II, Section 32 -- "Authorisation of Intrusive Surveillance":
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/32
(2)Neither the Secretary of State nor any senior authorising officer shall grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance unless he believes—
(a)that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and (b)that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
GCHQ's position was that, "...the general principle applied would be that if the accuracy of the algorithm was such that it was useful to the analyst (ie, [if] the number of spurious results was low, then it was likely to be proportionate)".
But the entire point of requiring 'proportionality' is to exclude activities which are useful, but too intrusive for the benefits gained. GCHQ's reasoning that usefulness implies proportionality is clearly false. Time for a few ministers to see the inside of a courtroom.'
--
Without being an expert on the law (and ~99.999% of the people reading this fall into the same bucket) -- I/we can assume that other clauses exist to 'defang'/'neuter' the clauses cited, the ones which were purportedly violated. And this highlights another BIG issue: a law's true intent is oftentimes indecipherable or outright deceitful.
Groundbreaking precedents have been set due to laws which were passed on false pretenses (for ex., look up the genesis story of "eminent domain") - or simply marketed as something misleading (ex. Sen. Feinstein's "FISA Improvements Act"). To me, that is the greatest form corruption in a democracy -- lawmaking with surreptitious intent.
While bills have to be massive in some circumstances (and interlinking by their very nature) -- a standardized list of simple outcomes of said law should be a requirement, and a bill should be "unit tested" the same way programs are. Actually, behaviorally tested is a better phrase. We need a tool for lawyers/lawmakers to help them express the consequences of a bill in a definitive manner. - Are there such initiatives? (please comment) Shouldn't we start one? Has the idea been floated and shot down (at EFF/Demand Progress/etc), and if so why? IMHO it would be worth the investment given the stakes (understanding the consequences of bills and laws -- even spotting excess/hidden "pork"). . I would love to read a bill as a series of behavioral test assertions, wouldn't you! :)
>>> Hopefully the stated concerns don't apply; countless suits are brought against all suspect parties (esp. high profile targets); and those responsible are served justice to the maximum extent of the law. As the hum of document shredders begins on 10 Downing Street - know that THIS is the opportunity to "make an example out of" the type of people who are responsible for the system as it exists today. It's our turn for a power play.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...
I was floored last night when Greenwald's piece on JTRIG could only be found in niche subreddits such as /r/conspiracy. When I attempted to post to /r/worldnews, it gave me the URL "already submitted" error.
Turns out Glennwald's piece had been submitted and removed twelve times -- each time it had received substantial interest (dozens of upvotes) in short amounts of time. (Check out the link)
It's hard not to don the tin-foil hat here (given the nature of the article itself). This also goes back to the "moving target" of the definition of "hacktivism." JTRIG's "pushing the envelope" of targeting beyond what we'd normally view as terrorists. The question is not "why would the NSA employ moderators with an agenda?" -- the question is "why wouldn't they?" To steal from Jerry Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy" -- the institution will act to protect itself, and in this case it sees the People's voice as a threat. If the NSA has a presence on Second Life, they have also penetrated HN and Reddit.
Often times I'll end up starting a Youtube video just to have background noise, but then end up getting too sucked up into it.
That said - I'll agree that you should have a big "Play" button on your page instead of immediately diving into the sound -- unless the page remembers your default settings. Thanks for the service!
What was to be expected? The offices of my Senators and Representatives were swamped all day with phone calls.
The author keeps paying lip-service to the comparison of this effort to SOPA/PIPA --- which was entirely different. Those bills were a direct challenge to the internet as we knew it, and everyone (including the big players) moved in to participate. That protest was about two game-changing bills with votes on the floor (all other paths for success had failed - if you're Google,Wikipedia, etc); this protest was about the status quo.
Our elected officials heard us today - from seemingly nowhere, that the status quo isn't acceptable. The verbiage directly called the kettle black on the supposed "FISA Reform Bill," reminding politicians that the powder is dry if head too far off course. And that (IMHO) makes a big statement.
I felt the post was unjustifiably negative[/defeatist] with a link bait title and lame observations. It would be great to see Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. play a larger role and "see the bigger picture"-- especially given that companies like Microsoft have officially recognized dragnet surveillance as an "advanced persistent threat." [0] Again, it would be great, but it can't be necessary. We want their help, but we cannot need it.
PS - It's defeatist to say the following: "internet protests will never change anything in Washington."
"The Powerbroker," a Pulitzer-Prize winning biography praised by Aaron Swartz [1], conveys the following two lessons with regards to affecting change in government: 1.) the only thing which matters (from the perspective of a common man) is raising the political stakes in every manner possible, forcing the issue into the court of public opinion where politicians must pick sides in a very public affair. 2.) The other things which matter are in conversations which you are not a part of. . . ... dig in. This is a minor skirmish in a long war (of attrition) against the Est..
[0] - http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/5/5177554/microsoft-plans-se... [1] - https://zolabooks.com/list/aaron-swartz-reading-list/1
The links provided thus far in this thread (of which there are very few): either a.) are reporting that Snowden was-to-have an interview (not discussing the content therein) or b.) reduced a substantial interview to an inconsequential soundbite.
The NYT Blog - a blog post 3 days late.
Major super-duper props to the AP for writing about something globally noteworthy [sarc., as it's their mission to write about everything] in an article that few mainstream sources even carried.
There has been little (if any) meaningful discourse of Snowden's interview in mainstream US media, and, despite the video copyright entanglements - the coverage has amounted to what I'd call a "black out." (The article linked to is shit - as 'rdl' and 'dogcatcher' brought to light - but the point remains clear.)
All of this, despite the fact that the topic matter of the interview concerns the future of the internet -- arguably the greatest invention in the history of man.
Print media or long-form web articles on nytimes.com, etc, shouldn't have concerned themselves with rights to video (see my response to 'nostromo').
I was unaware of the copyright/licensing issues when I made the submission.