Slashdot Mirror
Defending Against Surveillance?
Extrudedaluminiu asks: "With the recent news about domestic spying by the NSA, American citizens are put in a very difficult situation. Citizens in other countries, around the globe, also find themselves in situations where their lives can be examined by government agencies or other groups of questionable ethics. What can people in this kind of world do to defend themselves? Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale? What technologies can people use to hold on to their freedoms, in a difficult world?"
There's a super secret high-tech black box invented by the ancient g(r)eeks that is designed to protect your freedoms. It's regular, educated use will prevent survellience. I suggest everyone learn to use one.
It's called a "ballot box."
You trust the system of a country with cameras on every corner, and a government that wants to hold you for 90 days so they have enough evidence to charge you with something?
Our judicial system on this side of the pond may have once been similar to yours, but you guys seem to be going down the 1984 route a lot faster than we are.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
OK, I'll start. I believe the following people have been acting suspiciously, and may represent a serious danger to our fundamental way of life here in the UK. I suggest that they be arrested and put on trial as soon as possible.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.
Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!
What do you suggest if:
* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.
You can disagree with me whether the first two are true or not; that's okay. This is a theoretical discussion which ultimately lands square on the third one. The fourth is provided for clarity.
~Rebecca
You trust the system of a country with cameras on every corner, and a government that wants to hold you for 90 days so they have enough evidence to charge you with something?
The government doesn't want to hold us for 90 days before charging us. They voted on it, they don't want it. The prime minister wanted it. He couldn't convince the rest of the government that it was a good idea.
Our judicial system on this side of the pond may have once been similar to yours, but you guys seem to be going down the 1984 route a lot faster than we are.
Not really. We've had terrorist detentions since the 80s, which was part of the response to the IRA. We've had cameras on the streets for as long as I can remember. Things aren't getting rapidly worse, despite recent terrorist attacks, our laws are remaining quite stable.
You know what? There isn't massive abuse. Sure, there's one or two incidents where somebody fucked up, but we don't have secret police, we have privacy (in fact, we have laws protecting our privacy, which is more than can be said for you guys), we have free association, and all those things that are antithetical to 1984.
Compare that with you holding files on peaceful protestors, with you actually having terrorist detentions that are demonstrably wrong, with you torturing your prisoners... it seems that you are much further along than the UK. Seriously, you held UK citizens as terrorists for years, and when we finally had them released to us, we responded by saying "Huh? There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that these guys are terrorists", and promptly let them go. Are you really so convinced that we are further along than you? Because of a few cameras and a failed attempt at passing a stupid law?
What if you want to do something that's not wrong, but it is illegal? What if a future government introduced laws similar to those of Nazi Germany in the 1930's? Maybe it becomes illegal to shelter Muslims. You're saying you'd not do that because it's illegal? Or you've convinced yourself that "that couldn't happen here"?
Yeah, it looks like a bunch of terrorists are getting off on legal technicalities.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
And what shall I do while I'm spending all of my free time trying to educate a population who is rather uninterested with invasions of privacy? How can I protect myself until enough elections pass to get a critical mass of responsible Congressmen elected?
What's wrong with me? What's wrong is that I realize that when push comes to shove, I have to be able to defend myself, no matter what idiot gets elected (unfortunately, I do not control the entire electorate... yet).
You can't just dismiss the question. That's nearly as bad as accepting the situation. You're obviously opposed to the invasions of privaciy and destruction of liberties. Tell me, how much time to you devote to getting freedom-protecting people elected? How much do you donate to the ACLU? Did you vote for crappy presidential candidate #1 or crappy presidential candidate #2 in the last election (forgive my assumption that you're an American; it's really just rhetorical here).
It doesn't say "You have these rights, as long as you devote all your time to politics" in the Constitution. What's wrong with using legal means as well as reasonable political means to protect one's freedoms and privacy?
> How about just not doing anything wrong in the first place and putting some belife in the judicial system, im not sure about you yanks, but i know that i generally trust the judicial system over here in the good ol' UK.
Yeah, the worst they'll do if you're innocent is chase you through the subways and shoot you six times in the head.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You don't want to go around talking like that, special branch and MI5 will be at you door before you know it. Our only hope is to vote Monster Raving Looney. At least then we'll have honest politicians ;p
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Encryption isn't a sure-fire solution for all privacy problems. Its an easy word to throw around, but the question that is more important is what to encrypt and how to handle the infrastructure around that.
For example, I could encrypt all my email, ever. But then who would be able to read it? A lot less people than now. I could encrypt or hide all traffic to/from my computer (Tor, stunnel, etc.), but those won't solve everything.
Also, what about getting data from organizations? Like asking universities, bookstore, online data vendors, phone companies, and more? Dropping off the "grid" entirely is a difficult option. But those services could hold enough data about you to drive massive holes through any comprehensive privacy policy.
Bzzztttt!
Appeal to Fear.
Well known logical fallacy.
You lose. Try again.
Other examples:
"You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
"I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"
"You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell."
"You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it."
Recommended order: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
Speak truth to power.
You missed one, the first and most important one.
*- How do you convince a large enough percentage of the populace that freedom is worth dying for, and especially more than that new Celine Dion CD, and their SUV?
"Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy
The problem with that theory is, there's no credible indication that we've captured any terrorists to get address books from in the first place. Instead (from related reports) it seems more likely that they're going after administration critics, anti-war protesters, and others who they would be hard pressed to come up with probably cause for.
--MarkusQ
P.S. Another hole in the theory ("The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause" that the person is themselves a foreign agent or terrorist.") is that the problem isn't that they asked for permission, were denied, and went ahead anyway. They never asked in the first place, which makes it look a lot like they knew they were in the wrong from the very start.
It's conceivable that there are cases in which there is a legitimate reason for surveilance but in which the courts would not under current law issue a warrant. However, I think that it is important to note that NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE by the Bush Administration. They haven't outlined any such situations much less described any actual cases in which this problem has arisen. There is not a shred of evidence that the requirement for a warrant has been, or would have been had Bush not authorized warrantless interception, an impediment. Bush et al. just don't like having anyone keeping them in check. Its part of their general contempt for the rule of law.
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
t 531lur0bgnzZzDa O9ZjULk4fiexn/c 61gIFWIcKFYQYD /0tPqWl5gbUELf/p3fpNE+4KmwjjSg1a6ogM5haEOFWzPj2d8t X9RqWMXYPKXHtWk Pcgy/O2vd+mI1u/ mYaw0ZpvZjfLcuq 681JnQjr907Wj8k xUiiWB+yKSR3Y+
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
hQEOAwrqJsAYQX3cEAP+KR6M0Ty7ETedwnNyg+B6eNpsOKEnm
VsTSZlC+XHGkmdnIRGl8Ux1Spk4yC5+SnExYDdZpfFSnUYSuU
F3Df3qrN8rdW14ok9zEbX4BzflMs70D75rM5yqic2rIUeMoRu
auC73kpn+BixXt5W+mScIV390XZBBxidj2UqkTvcxcqafi9ud
BwwWvLwlrN2nxFWV0ijBDK/vjCyjPrLX6z/UTSh2Fwsl0n8BK
PLKP5Hy2JwlRAH8Ci4SvpOdDjy+0wa5HIBbSLheLD0AK4Olnt
d5VuiAjjirRjcDqiVsFARKve7kzSNBSRfXQozDdUC4y95lfc2
X4xV/MX0g3e3JI6X/2/DquON
=wGEZ
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
That depends on your oppressors having a conscience. Not applicable to the U.S.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
If the majority of your populace is more interested in Celine Dion and an SUV than "being oppressed" then by definition THEY AREN'T UNDER OPPRESSION. but thats just MHO
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed