Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Will It Take To End Mass Surveillance?
Nicola Hahn writes: Both the White House and the U.S. Intelligence Community have recently announced reforms to surveillance programs sanctioned under Section 215 of the Patriot Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But do these reforms represent significant restructuring or are they just bureaucratic gestures intended to create the perception that officials are responding to public pressure?
The Executive's own Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has written up an assessment (PDF) of reform measures implemented by the government. For those who want a quick summary the Board published a fact sheet (PDF) which includes a table listing recommendations made by the board almost a year ago and corresponding reforms. The fact sheet reveals that the Board's mandate to "end the NSA's bulk telephone records program" has not been implemented.
In other words, the physical infrastructure of the NSA's global panopticon is still in place. In fact, it's growing larger (PDF). So despite all of the press statements and associated media buzz very little has changed. There are people who view this as an unsettling indication of where society is headed. Ed Snowden claimed that he wanted to "trigger" a debate, but is that really enough? What will it take to tear down Big Brother?
The Executive's own Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has written up an assessment (PDF) of reform measures implemented by the government. For those who want a quick summary the Board published a fact sheet (PDF) which includes a table listing recommendations made by the board almost a year ago and corresponding reforms. The fact sheet reveals that the Board's mandate to "end the NSA's bulk telephone records program" has not been implemented.
In other words, the physical infrastructure of the NSA's global panopticon is still in place. In fact, it's growing larger (PDF). So despite all of the press statements and associated media buzz very little has changed. There are people who view this as an unsettling indication of where society is headed. Ed Snowden claimed that he wanted to "trigger" a debate, but is that really enough? What will it take to tear down Big Brother?
n/t
An all out revolt is probably the only way this will change at this point. Society has been on a downward spiral for a while now. Historically the only way to recover was lots of bloodshed. People in power never want to relinquish power or money, which is essence is what the mass surveillance is all about. Squashing descent, getting a leg up on any one selling things you want to sell, putting competition out of business, etc..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In an open society, the only solution to protecting oneself against mass surveillance is to permit anyone who has been surveilled by the system to enter the system, on demand, and ask when , why, for how long, and for reasons one has been surveilled. The Key problem yet tobe solved (it may be unsolvable) is how to limit access to the open system by those persons who are truly a danger to society.
Mass surveillance WILL become universal, because just a few people can cause havoc -especially as those persons become more able to access deadly weapons of mass destruction. If we don't solve this problem, mass surveillance WILL be abused and used as a means of control, rather than a means of protection.
It would take a swing in public opinion such that the people overwhelmingly demand that it be dismantled (and vote accordingly).
Of course, that would require that the public is willing to accept that some acts of terrorism will probably occur that might (at least theoretically) have been prevented via mass surveillance.
Given that, I'm guessing it isn't too likely. (and even if it was dismantled, it would all be brought back by popular demand shortly after the next Very Bad Thing happened)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I think he means "quashing dissent."
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
The ONE think they fear is effective encryption.
It is a sad situation, because that will also get in the way of legitimate (and yes, it can exist) investigation, however that is the arms race they are forcing you in to.
NOT encryption-when-you-have-something-to-hide, but encryption of EVERYTHING, as standard operating principle.
Right now exception is a nice bold flag to them that you should be monitored, however if even 20% of the population are regularly using it, that no longer works.
We are starting to see some very small movements in the encryption systems to escape from the over-complex not interoperable situation they let themselves
be pushed in to, and THAT is a big part of the problem, but some people now get it, and in a few years we may well have a much better choice in the area of
easy to use, interoperable, and open enough to be trustable encryption systems... and then the monitoring will work much less.
They will of course still see who is 'communicating' with who for some forms of link, that will be the next step.. protect the content first.
Like many things, the governments stupidity is going to make sensible law enforcement more difficult.
Go USA! and all that.. sigh.
Eh, surveillance is a problem only because it creates an imbalance of power between the people who have information and those who do not. There are a few approaches that could create some sort of balance.
1. Full transparency. With enough technological progress, eventually everyone will have universal access to essentially a God's eye view of everything that ever happens. Anyone would be able to reconstruct and playback a 3D model of any past event, perhaps even including the neural impulses in your brain and interpret your thoughts. This makes it impossible to lie or conceal things, and you can see everyone's actions and decisions simply as manifestations of their life's experiences.
2. Legislated opacity. Everyone is guaranteed the right to privacy. But no one knows if anyone is secretly spying. Unless we secretly spy on them. If we openly spy on those in power, they'll just figure out how to hide their spying better. So maybe we need two competing government agencies always spying on each other, ready to go to the press if they find some misconduct on the other side. Oh wait, that sorta sounds like what we have.
So if there's any mass surveillance that goes on, we ought to make sure it applies to those holding power in public office first. But if we really manage to achieve that, we'll see them legislating surveillance out immediately.
An all out revolt is probably the only way this will change at this point. Society has been on a downward spiral for a while now. Historically the only way to recover was lots of bloodshed. People in power never want to relinquish power or money, which is essence is what the mass surveillance is all about. Squashing descent, getting a leg up on any one selling things you want to sell, putting competition out of business, etc..
Its easy to paint the situation as the masses being dominated by the people in power but the truth is that a revolt is unlikely to work for the simple reason that the average person really isn't just a passive observer; they really want much of what they claim they don't want. In terms of the specifics, its easy to claim that one doesn't want mass surveillance but that's just a symptom of a more fundamental truth. The truth is that given the choice presented to the people in power, most people would choose the same thing: namely given a choice between using every means at one's disposal to stop terrorism or not, most people would in fact choose to use every means at one's disposal, even if it infringed on personal freedom.
And the reason why a revolt is unlikely is the same reason why the Occupy Movement didn't generate lasting results in the same way many other movements did. Revolutions require people willing to do whatever it takes to achieve a result, often without the kinds of compromise that people normally engage in. A revolution to stop people from doing whatever it takes to achieve a goal is difficult to achieve when backed only by people unwilling to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.
George Washington famously assumed enormous military, and thus political power when he became the leader of the Continental Army, and his hands were not entirely clean when wielding it. But without him, there probably is no revolution that survives. When the war was over he surrendered that power by resigning his commission. The number of people both willing and able to exercise such vast power to achieve an end which results in surrendering that power entirely (even if only temporarily) is exceedingly small. Most people willing to do the latter have no capacity to do the former and vice versa.
To put it another way, what you need is a leader willing to say "I would rather see Americans die than surrender their freedom" that is also so popular he isn't immediately driven out of the country by pitchforks the next day, and can convince the average American (or for that matter any other citizen of any other country) to accept those values. Until such a person arrives, all revolutions to change the situation will fail, because none will genuinely have the support of the people.
Someone will probably come along and say that's a false choice, but that's missing the point. The point is that is the general perception: you either have the values that say "do everything you possibly can, pushing the envelope as far as you can" or you don't. If you don't, someone will always come along and say they would do more, and they would be correct, and because there's no way to prove it with certainty you'd always take the blame for the next person killed. That's just reality. You did everything possible, or you didn't. Leaders don't want to say they didn't, and citizens don't want excuses for why they didn't. That needs to change somehow, but most people I think don't really want that to change, deep down.
Wide spread, end to end encryption would need to be implemented. In order to do that, you need one or two major providers to start advertising that they are completely encrypted, and that the competition is just handing your data to the government. That's one hell of a marketing 2x4 that the NSA is giving away for free to the first company to wants to step up and claim it.
"The Banana Computer Corporation is proud to announce that our platform is completely encrypted from end to end, and will protect you and your loved ones from digital threats such as Eastern European Identity thieves, illegal government spying, and other data theft. And what about the other companies? They can't be bothered to protect your loved ones (shows cute little child playing ABC game on smart phone, with a superimposed image of what looks like a leering pedophile hacker Nazi rapist frantically typing to steal your data) so why give them your business? Switch to Banana Computer to protect your family today.
Its like ten million new free subscribers to the first company to encrypt and give the NSA the finger, I am puzzled why nobody is pursuing this...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Had this been done at the time of the civil war, it would have cost considerably less than the cost of the war.
What makes you think the South would have gone along with that? Or that Lincoln and his Cabinet (the smartest men of their time, just as the framers of the Constitution were) didn't think of it? All Lincoln cared about was preserving the Union. If it was as simple as writing a check do you not think that he would have tried it? The South revolted because they saw the long term demographic writing on the wall. Nothing Lincoln could have offered them would have changed that. Recall that he didn't even make slavery an issue until after Antietam.
That is how they did it in Britain, Washington D.C. and basically the rest of the world.
Britain's economy was never dependent upon slavery in the manner of the plantation states of the south. It's more than compensating owners for their "property"; you're effectively destroying an entire economic system. The effects were felt far and wide and extended well beyond the monied interests of the plantation owners. You can't implement a massive economic and societal change simply by writing a check. It took the bloodiest war in American history to effect that change, followed by a generation of reconstruction, and the effects of the resulting economic dislocation were being felt well into the 20th Century.
When writing the US Constitution, there was another option -- abolish it in the future.
Then the Southern States refuse to ratify the Constitution. Now you've got two (likely more than two, since if you're not willing to compromise on this issue what other issues go unresolved?) weaker countries on the global stage. A stage they're sharing with a massive pissed off empire they just fought an eight year war against. No, there was a reason why principled men on both sides were willing to compromise on issues as dear as slavery. It's a shame that our modern "leaders" can't look back to that example, for the issues we face today are nothing like the issues those men faced. Can you imagine the current crop of "leaders" in Washington sitting down to draft a new Constitution? Those idiots would spend the next five years arguing over who was going to take the minutes of the first meeting.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As I read it, things usually get better during long periods of difficult reform, but worse after a revolution. Sometimes when the balance between big powers changes there are opportunities for small nations to reassert their independence from an external tyrant, but that isn't a revolution in the same sense.
The 1917 Russian revolution would be an example of things getting worse after a revolution. The French revolution results were more mixed, but some things got a lot worse for a while, and its debatable how much the revolution itself really helped. The 1989 Polish revolution would be an example of escaping from an external oppressor, where things got better because the society was already capable of supporting a much better order than had been imposed from without.
The problem with revolutions, is that the a corrupt society is usually corrupt at more than just the top level - the people who abuse power at the top are able to do that in large part because of the corruption of those below them. When they are overthrown violently, even worse elements are commonly able to take advantage of the breakdown in civil institutions.
I'm not defending the people at the top - I hate the 1%. And I'm not against violence where it makes sense. But if people had what it takes to make things better after overthrowing their moneyed overlords violently, in most places they have what it takes to do it better without the violence. We have a lot of power already. If we don't use it because we're lazy or busy or brainwashed, a revolution isn't going to help with that.
You do realize that the "War on Terrorism" is just creating more targets every day it persists, right? That if we actually grew a pair and cut Israel off from all the aid we give them (in spite of the horrific things they've done to the Palestinians) and stopped invading countries for our own benefit and not theirs we'd have a lot less international terrorism and could focus on the domestic terrorism (gangs, whacko militias and such) that really needs to get cleaned up in our own house.
The only people to blame for all this mess is ourselves because we're the ones that elected these idiots that created the Patriot Act and all these spy programs to begin with. Stop voting for these a-holes that want this to continue.
This is coming. I don't want it to come, and neither do you.
But one day, there will be such a security breach that regular people for whom monitoring happens to other people will find every phone call they've made, every email/text/IM they've sent, every street camera picture that's been taken of them, every URL they've visited, and every nude airport scan available for searching, downloading, and scrutinizing going back at least a decade.
Some will find surprisingly more.
This will hurt you, me, the super-paranoid dude with the encrypted hard drive, the boring grandma, and the powerful politician.
After the dust settles from the several million ruined marriages, the inevitable political scandals, and the rampant identity theft, things will change. For a while.
New politicians will get elected. Privacy laws will be enacted. Watchers will be appointed to watch the other watchers. Whatever government surveillance exists will go further underground. Everyone will encrypt everything.
And then people will relax and thighs will go back to some version of what we have now.
You do realize that the "War on Terrorism" is just creating more targets every day it persists, right?
I hear guys and gals working military hardware production have caught on. Hard to say who else knows about this little secret.
That if we actually grew a pair and cut Israel off from all the aid
We can't do that... with signage around town reading "Support Israel" ... cutting them off isn't supporting them.
in spite of the horrific things they've done to the Palestinians
So they routinely kill more Palestinians in a single hour of shelling than a decade of "rocket attacks from Gaza" ... this isn't a bad thing...they are only defending themselves... only anti-Semites would think Israel is bad for killing people intentionally kept poor and miserable by Israel.
and stopped invading countries for our own benefit and not theirs
Invasion creates jobs. Shouldn't everyone have a job? Who is against jobs?
we'd have a lot less international terrorism
Drug trafficking and terrorism .. sounds like a job for the CIA.
could focus on the domestic terrorism (gangs, whacko militias and such) that really needs to get cleaned up in our own house.
Keeping drugs and hookers illegal will teach these low life scum a lesson.
The only people to blame for all this mess is ourselves because we're the ones that elected these idiots that created the Patriot Act and all these spy programs to begin with. Stop voting for these a-holes that want this to continue.
Is the candidate with the most signs against spy programs? I vote for the candidate who can afford the most signs.
FALSE!!! The answer is not encryption because they will simply ban encryption. The TRUE answer is YOU engaging in direct POLITICAL action to bring the laws and candidates YOU want into place. Then you can encrypt all you want forever. You can even outlaw wiretaps.
The answer is not political action with candidates, because the people *don't care*.
The answer is getting people to care.
That means schools and media campaigns, and exposing abuses of the system. Right now the system works in secret, so misuses of it don't come to light much, but I doubt very much there are none. You're handing a bunch of well-meaning people something of a ring of power--a way to invisibly steal into everyone's life. Some of them are going to misuse that power, most trivially with simple voyeurism and most seriously by effective blackmail. The FBI has *never* demonstrated that it is serious about rooting out government corruption outside of a few very limited cases (e.g. bid rigging, bribable prison guards, the rare elected official), and this would be a *great* and important place to have an effective organization doing that.
When the penal system overflows and we simply can not afford to arrest one more person they might as well stop spying. At some point we will be able to discover multiple thousands of felonies ever day. I suspect we already have reached the saturation point for arresting the multitudes. We might even become so wise as to see clearly that the justice system is actually creating crime these days. Somehow locking criminals up with other criminals simply does not make them all better people.
The 4th and 5th amendments are not enough to assure personal freedom from search in the digital & wireless age. Only an amendment to the constitution that spells out this freedom can prevent it's continued abuse.
So what you're saying is that the federal government refuses to abide by the Constitution. Okay, I agree that is what they do. Your argument is that we will get them to stop breaking the rules by making a rule that says that they can't break the rules?
The federal government has been wiping its ass with the Constitution ever since FDR. Trying to constrain or restrain the federal government via written law is a fool's errand.
The USA was the pinacle for all e-business, from e-mail to hosting to operating systems. With the snowden revelations and Wikileaks, people are now wising up to the inherent issues of digital hegemony. Now other countries host their own e-mails and websites, new methods of payment are cultivated (like Bitcoin), and non-US variants of operating systems are also getting developed. Once the US is no longer the only game in town and people have other options, then it will no longer matter how draconian the US wants to get. Sure, the US is powerful, but I see other places getting savvy about tech so that en masse, or as a collective, they can slow down the imperial hegemony and her 'five eyes'. I used to do all my e-business with the US, as they were the only game in town. Now, I can (and do) go elsewhere! So if America continues to behave this way, people will simply look for or create alternatives. The schoolyard bully can only dominate for so long. The age of empire is over.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
All it takes is surveillance of the Mighty. Congress, President, every police department and enforcement agency, and don't forget the IRS.
Their laundry is a lot dirtier than ours.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?