Slashdot Mirror
EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance
An anonymous reader writes: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a detailed, global strategy for ridding ourselves of mass surveillance. They stress that this must be an international effort — while citizens of many countries can vote against politicians who support surveillance, there are also many countries where the citizens have to resort to other methods. The central part of the EFF's plan is: encryption, encryption, encryption. They say we need to build new secure communications tools, pressure existing tech companies to make their products secure against everyone, and get ordinary internet-goers to recognize that encryption is a fundamental part of communication in the surveillance age.
They also advocate fighting for transparency and against overreach on a national level. "[T]he more people worldwide understand the threat and the more they understand how to protect themselves—and just as importantly, what they should expect in the way of support from companies and governments—the more we can agitate for the changes we need online to fend off the dragnet collection of data." The EFF references a document created to apply the principles of human rights to communications surveillance, which they say are "our way of making sure that the global norm for human rights in the context of communication surveillance isn't the warped viewpoint of NSA and its four closest allies, but that of 50 years of human rights standards showing mass surveillance to be unnecessary and disproportionate."
They also advocate fighting for transparency and against overreach on a national level. "[T]he more people worldwide understand the threat and the more they understand how to protect themselves—and just as importantly, what they should expect in the way of support from companies and governments—the more we can agitate for the changes we need online to fend off the dragnet collection of data." The EFF references a document created to apply the principles of human rights to communications surveillance, which they say are "our way of making sure that the global norm for human rights in the context of communication surveillance isn't the warped viewpoint of NSA and its four closest allies, but that of 50 years of human rights standards showing mass surveillance to be unnecessary and disproportionate."
So, Slashdot, should we expect your support?. https, when?
Seriously, to put it simply, these guys are the shit. I figure most Slashdotters are well aware of what the EFF does, but if you aren't, definitely check out their website, blog, etc., look at what they've done, and consider donating to support them. (FWIW, I am in no way affiliated with the EFF. I just think it's a great organization.)
Good Luck! You'll Need It!
And what I mean by this --- the average Joe likes to post all his stuff on Facebook. He knows his communications aren't private and he doesn't care.
You aren't going to make him care either.
And is this a worthy cause? Cheap/free services depend on a revenue stream from something and exploiting the user ("You are the product") is not a horrible trade-off for the wide availability of cheap/free services.
How is a company going to support end-to-end encryption for free and still make money selling your information and metadata to third parties?
Keep in mind that means Google too. Or are you going to come up with a plan for Google to not be able to read your emails? Because if Google can read your emails, the government can.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
People like you are the real problem. If you truly cared about your family, you'd do something to ensure your children's freedom.
As it is, your words mark you as selfish and cowardly.
The problem is that while trying to survive and maintain some kind of social normalcy most people don't take an active role in shaping their local/regional/national/world topology until men in black are infiltrating their home at night and killing/disappearing them and/or raping their wife while their children watch. Complacency lies in the middle, and we're ("civilized" countries) still in the middle. The middle's that slippery slope between the crest and trough of utopia and North Korea. Hopefully the EFF will have some success before momentum takes us to that dark point where we have no choice but to answer with drastic measures. Ironically, the goal of both sides is peace and order. I suppose the difference in opinion about the road to said peace and order is what puts us at such unenviable odds.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Starting using TOR browser bundle after White House threats in previous Slashdot article
WTFBBQ?!
Ok... White House threats?
The ones made by Sir David Omand
former head of GHCQ
in the UK (the "sir" and "GHCQ" should have been clues)
That guy is now a policy making executive in the White House?
Look I agree with your sentiment, but your total ignorance ruins your credibility here.
Some retired guy in the UK explaining that without surveillance spies will need to do more intrusive spying to get at intelligence does not amount to White House threats, even if he was the head of the British equivalent of the NSA. He's still just a retired guy rendering an opinion.
What's more what he is suggesting will happen is actually a good thing. We want the NSA to make intrusive spying efforts at targeted individuals, under warrant and court supervision. That's their job, and we all more or less agree with them doing exactly that. What we don't like is them sitting back and tapping everything from everyone, everwhere. But if they literally have to go somewhere and physically plant a bug in some suspected terrorists laptop to get at his info ... GREAT.
We should be raising Omand on our shoulders and parading him around as the voice of reason.
I heard a good quote from Glenn Greenwald. When talking with friends and others about mass surveillance, people often respond, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." To this, he replies, "Well, you're not doing anything wrong, right? So you wouldn't mind giving me the password to all your email accounts, and I will go through there and look for anything I find interesting and want to write about?" This makes people realize PRIVACY is not about HIDING bad stuff but about our fundamental write to keep our private communications from our private lives PRIVATE!
It is a catch 22; You can't get a warrant without evidence and you can't get evidence without a warrant.
No. Its really not. Its called regular police work. And police have been identifying suspects, building cases against them, culminating in search and arrest warrants for a hundred years now without "mass surveillance".
Will the EFF be the ones who apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped?
Where are these unicorns? Has there ever been a single verifiable case of this?
And even if they do exist? So what? Why should the EFF apologize for pushing for policies that make us all more free; even if a tiny handful of people die as a result?
Should the police be allowed to just randomly stop and frisk you? Maybe give you an anal probe right on the street? Maybe come into your house at night, and search the place for evidence of terrorism? No? You don't think that's ok?
Will you personally apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped if these searches had been allowed?
That's a good point, but it also misses the fact that there isn't a single government throughout history that didn't subject its citizens to horrible abuses of some sort, which includes the US government. Give normal humans nearly unlimited power and they'll abuse it. The people who say "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." must be completely and utterly ignorant of history, and must have such faith in the 'normal' people in their governments that they not only believe that the current people in the government will not make mistakes or abuse their powers, but that everyone who will ever be in the government will always be that way. That is just plain stupidity.
Also, the fact that it's unconstitutional in the US should make people in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" oppose it instantly. Whatever happened to the idea that we should be extremely cautious of the government? Even many of the people who say they want a smaller government support mass surveillance, which makes zero sense.
Then the more people that use TOR, the more targets they'll have. You can provide cover for the people who really need protection. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Surveillance does not make people less free.
Violating your privacy infringes upon your freedoms, so yes, it does. The United States constitution's fourth amendment mentions that you are secure in your papers among other things. The papers themselves? No, what is really protected is the information on the papers.
If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.
You can't separate the two, you insufferable moron. One inevitably leads to the other, as history shows. Information is power, and mass surveillance is a means of crushing democracy and destroying people who challenge the status quo. They tried to do that with MLK, they tried it with nearly every anti-war movement, they try it with nearly every movement that challenges the status quo, and now with mass surveillance, they'll be that much more efficient at crushing those who challenge authority.
As with any proposed solution, you forget the most important fact: human nature. :) ...
With one year to govern, and no experience in the particular field and little or no interest to match, the new governors require background information, historical precedent, comparative analysis of existing implemented policy, summaries of related and effected fields, current data, survey results etc. etc.
They will revert to being influenced to either a) take the easy option, b) take the corruption option or c) take the idiot option.
And the influencers will have a jolly old time subverting all this, just as they do now.
But you won't have the actual dedicated honest-player politicians left in place to keep them straight and honest.
It's a nice idea, but the devils in the details
And offering them bonuses based on results, largely out of their control and remit ? I don't see how that's going to come out well either
"If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to hide"
That's what you say if you're the aggressor. If you're the victim, you say this:
"If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to spy on me."
This forces the aggressor to come forward and admit that he doesn't believe in one of the most fundamental concepts of justice: that individuals are innocent before proven guilty.
Its all well and good to talk about "encryption, encryption and more encryption" and to invent new protocols to help keep stuff from the eyes of those who would try to access private information (whether they be criminals, law enforcement, intelligence agencies or otherwise) but unless you can get vendors to adopt your new technology its not going to see widespread enough use to make a difference.
Take SSL/TLS for example. Right now when you visit a https site, your browser retrieves a certificate and checks that the certificate has been signed by a root certificate in your browser's local root trust store. There are a number of proposals out there to change this so that the public keys used for https connections are obtained in a way that doesn't rely on the broken CA model but as of yet none of those proposals have been implemented into any of the mainstream web browsers.
Why isn't more being done to get these new security ideas into the mainstream browsers? (especially the open source ones like Chrome/Webkit/Blink/Firefox). DANE (an RFC for storing https certificates in a DNSSEC secured DNS record) has a patch for Firefox posted in 2011 that has gone nowhere and vague mentions of work for Chrome but nothing else.
Where are these unicorns? Has there ever been a single verifiable case of this?
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Kanuckistan the RCMP has been working, with the cooperation of the muslim community, to deradicalize people, with some success.
"With the cooperation of the muslim community. Meaning; the RCMP were alerted to potential bad eggs from within the muslim community by volunteers; thanks to the RCMP being accessible and opening channels of communication. Its an example of truly good police work.
That's exactly what we need, and more of it.
But the unicorns I'm talking about are the terrorist attacks stopped by the panopticon, by the mass surveillance of everybody.