No Way NSA(nowaynsa.com)

173 pointsby twog13 tahun yang lalu36 comments

http://nowaynsa.com/

39 comments

sneak13 tahun yang lalu

The really terrible part of all of this is that the administration's response has been to put James Clapper, the guy who lied under oath to congress about the scope of these very programs, in charge of reviewing the policies that created them.

He should be facing charges, and instead he's promoted to an oversight role.

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/12/this-technical-review-g...

krichman13 tahun yang lalu

"Obama announces the formation of a 'least dependent' group to review our capabilities."

SmokyBorbon13 tahun yang lalu

Everlag13 tahun yang lalu

Really nice site that could get out into social media and spread quite easily! I mean, that combination of animations and potent yet minimalistic text really gets the point through in a small package.

oceanstone13 tahun yang lalu

It's great more & more people are waking up.

icantthinkofone13 tahun yang lalu

And it gives the little people something to do.

jordanthoms13 tahun yang lalu

Nice - one point, it wasn't at all obvious from the initial screen that you can scroll down. There should be a visual hint.

merlish13 tahun yang lalu

I also missed this just now. Thought it was a one-slide site. Big down arrow please!

hobs13 tahun yang lalu

There is a bouncing down arrow at the bottom middle of the screen, unless it has changed since you posted this comment.

Update: I read lower, and Mike totally DID add it after these comments.

[deleted]13 tahun yang lalu

rcruzeiro13 tahun yang lalu

Thanks, I had missed it!

Zoomla13 tahun yang lalu

there's the scroll bar...

asgard102413 tahun yang lalu

Thanks. :-)

sneak13 tahun yang lalu

"NSA surveillance has damaged foreign relations. Millions are protesting worldwide and European businesses are abandoning U.S. tech companies. Total losses could reach $35 billion."

I'm not sure where WaPo got that $35bn number, but it seems quite low to me.

[deleted]13 tahun yang lalu

grandpoobah13 tahun yang lalu

“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.

^ Missing the end quote

mciarlo13 tahun yang lalu

Thanks for all the kind words :) Fixed up the quote and the first slide.

I'm doing everything I can to try and get this in front of people. I'm extremely grateful that a discussion happened on HN and am looking forward to seeing where the site goes from here.

Cheers, Mike

theboss13 tahun yang lalu

Lots of inaccuracies and fallacies.

The NSA Spying is not against the fourth amendment. If you're a lawyer feel free to correct me but the supreme court has made it very clear that they believe the framers were being literal when they said "persons, houses, papers, and effects." and they have said they believe this cannot be extended to non-tangible things like data.

And whether I'm right or wrong it's better to say 'We Believe' it is a violation... because if it was then the NSA would have been forced to stop

The big problem is that the NSA can do this without breaking the law...

ghayes13 tahun yang lalu

A core analogy here is the distinguishment between say a letter, which when you hand it to the government to convey to an associate is protected, versus an e-mail, which handed to Google or a private channel via the web at-large, is not protected. There are federal courts[1] which would agree that e-mail should be protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has recently been skeptical of the government in decisions on Search and Seizure (c.f. Jones[2] and Florida v. Jardines[3]). The government has generally avoided scrutiny from the Court by generating laws that do not grant clear standing. The recent accusation of "evidence laundering" shows the governments out-right reluctance to let the collection tactics stand up to judicial scrutiny. I want the law changed, but while these are laws, I would hope we can push for proper judicial overview.

[1] http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf

[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

[3] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-jardine...

malandrew13 tahun yang lalu

I think it's pretty easy to abstract papers to the internet and personal files.

Paper was used for storing personal information and for transmitting that information to others. Security was achieved through wax seals and other markings that would show tampering.

data = papers.

001sky13 tahun yang lalu

You're wrong, I think. Condiser: a phone call. Fed's are not allowed to tap a landline without a warrant. Its the communication that is protected, not the property. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. What is reasonable? That's where the debate will be determined.

rgbrenner13 tahun yang lalu

I've never heard the argument you're making -- that it doesn't apple because it's data. The NSA/gov has said repeatedly what their argument is.. it's because you've entrusted a third-party with it, and therefore there was no expectation of privacy.

theboss13 tahun yang lalu

Yes this is a reason too. Katz v US.

People need to think "Who really owns my facebook account, my twitter account, my dropbox, etc..." If it isnt you (it isnt... trust me) then you're out of luck

magicalist13 tahun yang lalu

That is not correct. It is still your data (that's why you need to grant a license to these companies to show your pictures even just back to you), and the third party doctrine is not settled law.

It has backing in precedent, but as ghayes cites above, the supreme court has given some strong signals that they would not agree with it today (e.g. in US v Jones). In addition, the incredibly important US v Warshak had the sixth circuit ruling that email in long term storage on a third party's server had just as much expectation of privacy for the owner as any personally held document. There are several companies now using that as a legal basis for requiring a warrant (which requires demonstrating probable cause) for account content requests (apparently outside of those coming from the FBI/NSA, unfortunately...), so it's likely this will come up before too long, either in Congress (I'd love to see the ECPA reformed but don't have high hopes) or in the Supreme Court, especially if another court of appeals rules differently.

I also have no idea why you cite Katz v US, as that's where the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test itself comes from, which runs directly counter to the later legal theory of the third party doctrine (in e.g. Smith v Maryland), which takes little account for reasonable expectations so long as you're handing off your communications to a third party.

theboss13 tahun yang lalu

My point that "you don't own it" is more from a security standpoint. ..which was pretty dumb to say. I can't verify that companies wont give my data to the feds and I can't trust them not to. It isn't my data to maintain anymore

fusiongyro13 tahun yang lalu

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

pbz13 tahun yang lalu

This is good, but I think a more effective way is to bring up some hypotheticals. You don't even have to make up your own. Just look at history and you will find lots of examples of how secrecy leads to corruption, in-fighting, negative psychological effects, loss of free expressions, fear, oppression, etc.

One neat way to approach this would be to talk about an example that happened in the past and draw parallels with what it going on today. It's difficult for people to understand or see where all this leads, which is why there's so little revolt. Unfortunately, by the time people feel the effects it's too late.

bazillion13 tahun yang lalu

"There is no evidence that the FISA Court and NSA programs are effective. Mass surveillance did not prevent tragedy in Boston or aid in identifying those responsible."

I think this part very much weakens your argument and should be removed entirely. First, the NSA has nothing to do with domestic surveillance -- that falls upon the FBI. Secondly, you can collect all of the data that you want, but you won't be able to prevent the lone wolf element (as opposed to organized terrorism), especially with no national database of firearms.

D9u13 tahun yang lalu

     >the NSA has nothing to do with domestic surveillance

Have you not been reading the news?

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/ns...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/05/shocker-nsa-tools-for-spyi...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/uk-dea-irs-idUKBRE9...

Thanks to the "Patriot Act" and "Threat Fusion Centers," along with other such efforts to streamline the police state agenda in the name of the "War on Terror," government agencies have been sharing information more readily than in the past, apparently to the point of NSA derived intelligence being used in pursuit of drug dealers and tax cheats on US soil.

Of course people are aware of the intended functions of the various federal enforcement agencies, and the fact that these agencies are overstepping their mandate is why people make websites such as the one featured here.

The quotes you refer to are quite relevant, in my view.

Peaker13 tahun yang lalu

It may fall upon the FBI, but weren't the leaks all about the fact that the NSA does in fact implement domestic surveillance?

Also, if the NSA surveillance stopped many terrorists - they could expose it.

Whether this trade-off of privacy vs. security is worth it cannot be left in the hands of a few elite decision makers, even if supposedly exposing the public to these details may make the program lose some of its effectiveness.

t013 tahun yang lalu

Also, it could in fact be very effective. That information is never released to the public.

001sky13 tahun yang lalu

According to a recent NSA memo, 1.6% of all online activity is monitored and collected. That’s enough to capture more than 50% of all internet communications.

== Leverage

skrebbel13 tahun yang lalu

I like that the site's design is entirely based on the flag of the Netherlands, famously the country with the highest amount of phone taps per inhabitant.

bendoernberg13 tahun yang lalu

This is awesome! Any chance you can repost tomorrow when it might get a bit more attention?

sillysaurus13 tahun yang lalu

Just a FYI for the submitter: that's a bannable offense, and enforced. Wouldn't want you to lose your account.

thejosh13 tahun yang lalu

reposting content is bannable?

Every week I see posts reposted daily - for example Bootstrap was posted multiple times over a time period.

ZoF13 tahun yang lalu

Re-posting your own post, not happening to post the same link as someone else.

EGreg13 tahun yang lalu

Spying? In MY country?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/x-in-my-y

iamnotserious13 tahun yang lalu

Strange. I immediately looked past the goal of the site and fell in love with how it looks instead. Fantastic work there.