Comment by dylangs1030
13 years ago
I don't mean to be cynical, but a mere petition is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is a government agency that is commiting widespread breach of privacy. A petition will not be respected. It's an OK start, but it will be essentially meaningless.
If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace.
The ease of an action corresponds to what it can achieve. Do you want change? Show the government how badly you want it. Fight for your rights. Don't just click a link.
They've demonstrated they don't care for the voice of the people. So change the domain to something they do care about.
A more effective list of tactics (for the long term):
1. poison databases; feed bogus information to surveillance systems at all levels, do this as a matter of course, make it pop culture.
2. build darknets: for instance wifi nodes disconnected from the internet that multiple communities use as a dropbox and rendezvous point ( a linux box, a solar cell, some git magic (or UUCP/Usenet for the old school feel ), and you have something that exists beyond the knowledge of the network ) for extra kicks confine it to only a few locations and times. Or build entire networks air-gapped from the internet; wire your neighborhood and make your own media.
3. If everybody's an informant, make a game of it. Rat out your enemies to the authorities, better yet rat out the informants as rabble rousers...
4. Get serious; break into secret databases, copy them and spread them around.
5. Identify effective advocates of the national security state and neutralize them. But only the effective ones. If you're doing the job right the 10 people within the NSA who are politically adept and technically competent should be in jail for child pornography by this time next year. Any mid-level member of the intelligence community who isn't regularly getting hit with bogus charges and stupid anonymous pranks is probably grossly incompetent.
6. If you know anyone who works in the intelligence community, shame them socially; ask them why they are making the USA into East Germany.
7. Occupy
8. Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
Good idea. Overwhelm the system with the keywords they're flagging.
i.e., bomb. pentagon. drop-point. fertilizer. sarah jessica parker.
What (jihad) are you (allah) talking (semtex) talking about (thermite) dude? That is the worst (white house ) plot or plan I've ever heard in my (uranium) life. I can C4 myself that this plot is not "the bomb", as they say. This needs to bake, or should I say "pressure cooker" a little bit longer before we explode it on people. If we (hack secure systems) find useful (enriched) data and share it (hack the planet) with the people who really need it( secure, classified, NOFORN) we won't let them trash our rights. Trust your techolust.
Their systems are probably smarter than grep, by now.
1 reply →
This didn't help with the phone logging system.
I suggest everyone get a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and read it. It's a fun read, and is a really good basic outline for how to dismantle a tyrannical regime from the ground up.
How to dismantle a tyrannical regime if you have the support of an omnipresent computer system they trust with absolutely everything.
1 reply →
Just curious, how old are you?
I think I know what point you are trying to make and I just have to say that it is very sad that passion and the belief that we can change something is associated with youthful naivete
1 reply →
If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace.
Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?
You know, Tunisia went on a relatively peaceful revolution and now we have less freedom and more problems/unemployment. It's even worse for countries where the revolution is violent.
Having lived that experience, I'll be against rioting/civil disobedience any time and for any cause.
Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.
As another example, the U.S. is actually on its second government, not its first.
After the American Revolution we setup a government under the "Articles of Confederation". To put it bluntly, this new government sucked and was useless.
A convention was held to suggest improvements for the Articles; they decided instead to do it over again and propose a government that could actually stand the test of time.
The framers of this new Constitution then had to convince the rest of the country to adopt this different form of government. In the process of this debate and feedback it was decided to further specify Amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights to satisfy some reluctant states.
All of this happened peacefully.
The United States of America peacefully transitioned to its second form of government on March 4, 1789.
It hasn't been all peaceful, all the time, after ratification, but it should be in my opinion. We've managed to achieve so much as a nation with non-violent resistance and protest, there's no reason not to do that here to push for transparency.
Some political scientists would say we're actually on our third or fourth.
The third U.S. republic was created after the Civil War, with the passage of Constitutional amendments that made the Federal government unambiguously superior in power to the governments of the states.
The fourth U.S. republic was created during the Progressive Era, with the creation of the "regulatory state" in which significant authority over economic matters was delegated from Congress and the courts to regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch. This system evolved gradually over the years (with the biggest changes coming through Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society) into the system we live in today.
The changes wrought by the Civil War were unfortunately quite violent, but all the other changes have been peaceful, as you note. Our ability to reinvent our democracy in this fashion is a big part of why the Constitution has survived so long -- we can change how we govern ourselves in big ways without having to tear it up and start anew.
Ain't going to happen, because PRISM simply doesn't make the lives of 99+% people significantly worse. People riot when there's high unemployment, because that has a big impact on their daily lives. We don't have enough info about PRISM to correctly evaluate what impact does it have on our lives.
First you say this:
Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?
Then you say this:
Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.
Your teachers must have omitted teaching you about the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests. And those are only two examples where protesting and rioting actually made a huge difference.
The Civil Rights movement used peace tactics, non-violence and Ghandian ethics. The Vietnam war protests were largely peaceful, except when e.g. government soldiers attacked college students at Kent State. @csomar is correct that changing peoples minds and following nonviolent tactics can effect change-- although not always matching everyone's expectations
1 reply →
Indeed much of the violence in Vietnam war protests turns out to have been instigated by FBI agent provocateurs. Most of the violence of the era was perpetrated by the forces against change.
1 reply →
Revolution in France in 1789. We don't learn history in school for nothing I hope.
While I agree, these are merely the exceptions. Sure, things can go great and well (after a long period of time). However, the following needs to be taken into account
1. The fatalities and economic losses
2. The high possibility that the power goes to the wrong hand.
3. The good possibility that the power doesn't change hands and we are stuck with even less freedom.
4. Revolutions make the country very vulnerable which is an opportunity for enemies.
Small and secure changes are better in my opinion. Revolutions have a high risk of going wrong.
If you asked me 3 years later, you'll get a different response. Having lived through this so-called Arab spring, I have now a very conservative view for revolution.
1 reply →
Wasn't that the one that introduced Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, and then later another despot? Sure, Napoleon was talented and introduced the civil code, but it was still another example of the guy with the biggest stick making the rules.
9 replies →
And a few years later they made Napoleon an emperor and he went on a spree of military conquest across the whole of Europe. Great example.
2 replies →
That made change.
Not necessarily the DESIRED change, but it certainly changed things!
4 replies →
Pretty much every place that ever one it's independence did so through violence or the threat of violence (yes, India very much included).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unre...
Boston Tea Party?
This is foolish. Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law, Gandhi did the same and freed India from the British empire. And today we're much more networked and able to communicate directly, P2P, without the media or government as message passer. Our system works remarkably well, considering how poorly it works ;) Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- these government agencies can be reined in, they live on government budgets every year just like the rest of government. It is the End of privacy, and that's okay.. But as an aside, I reckon surveillance equipment should also gaze back at the Police State itself. Google glass and Steve Mann's ideas about "sousveillance" will hopefully continue to evolve, they're all much smarter people than me. Every gov official should be under 24-7 video and email surveillance ;). i think a good rule is, the more power you have the more you have to be spied on constantly by the people.
Civil disobedience is a subset of nonviolent protest. The point is you actually have to do something that forces the state's hand. Not sit at home and sign a petition.
For example shutting down a city's infrastructure indefinitely via mass-scale physical sit ins is likely to be much more effective than signing an internet petition. Labor strikes en masse are likely to be much more effective than signing an internet petition. _INSERT_REAL-WORLD_ACTION_HERE_ is likely to be much more effective than signing an internet petition.
If the state knows that it can violate its subjects with the worst backlash being an internet petition, guess what -- the state will continue violating its subjects indefinitely.
I think non-violent protests only work when the state (or entity you are protesting against) is forced to negotiate. By that I mean all these non violent protests occured at a time during violent protests. Martin Luther King Jnr was given negotiating power because the State preferred a non violent entity over the black panthers and other militaristic groups.
If there is no threat of repercussion, why would any entity bother negotiating with you?
Because non-violent protesters can be a pain in the neck, too. You don't need to hit someone to really piss him of.
In some cases, just following the rules to the letter can be annoying enough to make the powers that be change things.
But yes, having some real threat as a backup has tremendous benefits. 'Nice government you have here; it would be a pity of something happened to it' works better of you have that.
Actually, the national security budgets are remarkably insulated from the rest of the government, and there is plenty of evidence that the CIA at the very least, has not been shy about creating other sources of income to fund it's off the books activities.
But yes, transparency should go up as well as down.
I didn't realize that NSA funding was harder to nil out! I guess because the Pentagon gets their budget and then can do what they want with it? I'm sure strings could be attached to the Pentagon's budget though.
Upvoting your comment here too, though. Thank you.
> Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law
The was Malcolm X though. The threat of militant and violent backlash was there and served like a booster for the non-violent factions. Otherwise look at Occupy movement. How many bankers are in jail? None. There _has_ to be a background and credible threat to the system so it would consider the peaceful alternative as a pretty good deal.
In all fairness, the Occupy movement didn't have direction, leaders, an agreed set of goals.. - in short any of the things needed to turn that energy into change.
There were things here and there that many seemed to agree on - but it was not nearly focused enough to matter. I think if it were accompanied by any kind of violent protests, the people in general would have completely turned on it - and without legitimate goals, I think rightly so.
Its not comparable to Civil Rights, imho. That was a moral imperative with clear, legitimate, practically implementable goals. There was moral high-ground, general sympathy among the people, and a roadmap (e.g. extend the rights to us that are extended to everyone else). I'd love to see something similar for the modern age of privacy violation or holding gov't officials accountable - but I haven't seen it yet.
3 replies →
>This is foolish. Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law, Gandhi did the same and freed India from the British empire.
What ridiculous nonsense. King would have gone nowhere had it not been for the Black Panthers blowing shit up (he even mentioned "the blast heard round the world" in one of his speeches, so he knew this). Likewise Gandhi would have just been ignored or killed had it not been for courageous revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.
The truth is, a proper revolution requires violence (or the threat of it) and a peaceful side. The violent part is requires to force actual change and the peaceful side is needed so the targeted party have someone to give the power over too. The British empire would never have handed the reigns to someone like Bhagat Singh. But once Singh and co had made holding onto India simply not worth it, they gladly stepped back and claimed it was because of Gandhi. This way, the next time they're doing some awful the people will hopefully think they can be like Gandhi and they would be free to just ignore/kill them.
Governments don't want people to understand just how effective violence actually is (if violence isn't effective why do governments use it so much and try to maintain a monopoly on it?) because they don't like to lose.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean we should be violent. I specifically said civil disobedience because I meant non-violent protest.
Just to be clear, which law was it that you think they broke?
I'd happily agree what the NSA did was just as wrong as, say, making it to easy to get mortgages. But the law and morality don't always agree.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
20 replies →
Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.
Playing Devil's advocate here.
The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.
2 replies →
That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second.
First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping.
Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.
1 reply →
"In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program." [1]
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
That is a good argument. However, the NSA isn't breaking the law until the supreme court strikes down the FISA amendments, right?
I don't understand exactly what happens when a law is found unconstitutional. I can't imagine an analyst at the NSA would be retroactively charged with a crime, would they?
1 reply →
Taxation without representation.
Personally, I think that anyone against this should show a civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes.
Exactly. The FISA court probably ok'd it, which makes it legal (as far as that goes).
This is false. The FISC found the NSA spying to be unconstitonal.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
A FISA court stamp doesn't give them some magical ability to suddenly ignore the 4th amendment.
I'd understand if you wanted to do additional actions that can help.
But signing this petition takes 30 seconds and is useful. I urge you to consider it.
Citation needed that it's even remotely useful because I've only ever seen evidence to the contrary.
> If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience.
How do you define "to riot", and "civil disobedience". They sound mutually exclusive to me.
The 'civil' in 'civil disobedience' refers to disobeying the civil government, not disobeying politely.
And "to riot"?
A riot where you obey the authorities isn't much of a riot.
> The ease of an action corresponds to what it can achieve.
Well put.
There is a survivorship bias when looking at the history of activism.
It looks like it takes extremely high effort to achieve anything worthwhile: look at what the labor and civil rights movements had to endure, for instance.
But, there are plenty of examples of other change that was achieved at lower cost. The environmental movement, for instance, generally did not face levels of institutional rejection and physical violence that labor and civil rights did. Why? Because they had a message that a broad swath of Americans could believe in. Regardless of party, ideology, or race, no one wants their kids to get sick from pollution.
So, the first steps in activism should be the easiest steps. They might work! And if they don't, having tried them creates the moral authority for more aggressive tactics.
Movements that jump straight to civic unrest are typically rejected by the broader American culture. Most people highly value law and order, and are only willing to tolerate departures when they think it's absolutely necessary.
If you want results, riot in the streets.
Talk is cheap. What sort of riot do you plan on participating in? The sort where you surround a government building, or the kind where you just trash whatever comes to hand?
There is certainly more you can do, specifically non-violent ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k http://beautifultrouble.org/
True, but let us give them the chance to ignore yet another petition and truly prove to us that we as citizens have little say in the status quo in the government that is supposed to represent all its people. More fuel for the fire couldn't hurt eh?
Besides it's summer time…
How many more times do they need to prove this to us? "Well, I know he punched me in the face, kicked me in the balls and raped my girlfriend in front of me but I'm still not convinced he wants trouble".
I don't know, but is it better than just getting up and leaving, since that doesn't really address the reach of the issues that confront the world today?
2 replies →
Don't just click a link, but still click the link!
They are cunning and you should be above it.
Or use Bitcoin exclusively instead of the USD.