At root, for any of these filtering/parsing projects to work, it means splitting and inspecting raw communication streams. The EFF is currently challenging mass surveillance on this point and arguing that these raw communications are are protected papers that are being searched without a warrant[1][2].
Let's say that the EFF wins. Let's say it exceeds its wildest dreams.
How do you know it had any effect?
Until the next Snowden comes along, you don't. And I'm sure there won't be any more Snowdens. The NSA is going to redo its systems so that nobody can get anything out. This isn't a stretch of the imagination. They obviously have plenty of very technically talented people working there, and they'll get much stricter with access controls now.
Democratic processes cannot change a fundamentally undemocratic system. Secret courts, secret laws, secret executive orders, none of it is even a pretense of democracy. And so, nothing the EFF does can save you. Nothing you can do within the political system can save you, because it is a rigged game, or more accurately, an irrelevant game. It does not matter who wins or loses. It is not the game the NSA plays.
=============================================
I'm sure people will ask what my solution is. I wish that I had one, and I hope that you realize the fallacy in insisting that until a more comfortable solution is in front of you, the "solution" you have that will obviously not work should be invested in without any faint expectation of a return.
There is one thing you can do that's simple, though: Don't work for them. Don't work for SAIC. Don't work for Booz Allen. Don't work for the NSA. Without people like us, without engineers, they can't do anything.
And more then that: If you have a friend from undergrad, if you meet someone at a meetup or a hackfest or in a bar that says they work for the NSA, directly or indirectly, treat them like the Statsi agent they are, spit in their face and tell them they're not welcome in your life. Make sure they know that they aren't doing a good thing or the right thing. Make sure they know how utterly, baselessly evil they are.
That's one solution. It's not as blandly palatable as donating to the EFF, but it's one that's less of a waste of your time.
>> "treat them like the Statsi agent they are, spit in their face and tell them they're not welcome in your life."
The HN hivemind is mentioned in a negative context quite often. If the parent's view were institutionalized as part of the orthodox/mainstream belief system around here, it might 1) genuinely constrain the NSA's operations and 2) be a socially beneficial application of groupthink.
I worry a lot that the lionizing of Binney and the too-perfectly-named THINTHREAD is a kind of retconning, and that very few of us would be comfortable with the implications of a fully-realized Binney-designed THINTHREAD either.
From what I've read, THINTHREAD is also a system that involves widespread and intrusive monitoring of US communications. THINTHREAD purports to use "encryption" to solve the privacy problems that arise from retaining information about US citizens. I am not reassured.
Binney had the guts to step back and speak out. He could've kept playing ball. THINTHREAD or not, his subsequent actions are worth praise. Credit is given where credit is due. Very little else is out there to encourage people in high positions to follow suit. That's true. THINTHREAD's reassurance of privacy is as laughable now as it was then. Marketing to a naive public like that is so annoyingly ironic when the leading threat (time and time again) is the lack of privacy from a surveillance state.
Binney, after all these years, finally has the some evidence to support the claims he was making all along.
I remember reading about him and thinking how this is a bit too conspiratorial. Probably a disgruntled[+] employee making stuff up knowing it will never be confirmed or denied. I knew at the time about Constitutional protections and all that, and thought well surely someone up there on top wouldn't allow something this blatant to happen.
It wouldn't be surprising if Snowden studied Binney and learned the lesson of how "all they had to do is come and tell their superiors and there was no need for all the public disclosures" is a bunch of bullshit. Binney did that. Also Binney didn't get any proof or documents with him. Can't help but think Snowden learned from that too.
Wonder what is the lesson to be learned by next Snowden who is probably already planning his actions. Try to stay completely anonymous? Fly directly to Brazil for a warmer weather?
Maybe the ultimate lesson we learned then and now is how little people care. NSA learned that too and I wouldn't be surprised if instead of dialing down the level of these programs they will crank it up. Why wouldn't they? They have clear tested proof that the public doesn't mind that much. No need to play the Constitutional farce any more.
[+] It would seem Binney was a bit disgruntled since his system was re-purposed (stolen) and he was pushed to the side. There was an interview where he talks how after 9/11 NSA was on a lockdown, and he snuck in to work and saw all this hardware everywhere. And eventually found out it was to be used for his re-purposed system. But without him on onboard. It was handed over to contractors.
> I remember reading about him and thinking how this is a bit too conspiratorial.
I see this a lot and I honestly wonder. A lot of us knew-without-proof what was going on... suspected strongly may be better wording. We didn't talk about it because either people wouldn't be interested without proof, or we assumed other people knew just as much.
What is it that in fact makes the subject so far-fetched and a topic treated the same way as the "the president is a man-reptile from neptune" kind of conspiracies?
I am really trying to figure out what, in my education (or what little I had of it seeing as I left high school fairly early), caused me to see things in a less "that's crazy talk" way and more as a "it's technically possible and they have endless resources, why wouldn't they do it" subject while other people dismissed it (and some still do).
I think it comes down to imagination and confidence. Some people cannot construct scenarios in their mind and analyze their likeliness. And others just want to be accepted and part of the mainstream.
There are also people who simply aren't interested in learning about topics yet feel free to blast their opinions about them. Kind of like how I might say 'country music sucks' when actually there's a lot of good country music but I haven't tried very hard to find the artists I like.
What is it that in fact makes the subject so far-fetched and a topic treated the same way as the "the president is a man-reptile from neptune" kind of conspiracies?
Describing something as a conspiracy is to spin it as something far-fetched. This isn't to say that there aren't far-fetched conspiracy theories, but some yet-to-be proven conclusions have enough data as to be near-fetched. After all, math and the sciences are full of conjectures.
> Maybe the ultimate lesson we learned then and now is how little people care.
People are woefully uninformed on the NSA and surveillance. If you ask a random layperson what Snowden disclosed nine times out of ten you'll get "that phone program thing, right?"
The major media outlets made the issue about PRISM and The Congress ran with that free lunch to pass ineffective measures on part of one program while ignoring the bulk of the revelations.
The Snowden documents passed through America without being digested at all. The media made the story about the Snowden character and political bickering. The Merkle episode was covered like it was a report on bickering children (German chancellor upset at US, Obama to meet with her) rather than piecing together how having that data during the Eurozone crisis likely affected policy decisions.
I'd call this trick a feat if it weren't such a repeat act.
I honestly do believe people care. I just don't think people understand what was disclosed. Even tech-savvy and otherwise well informed friends are surprised when I send or summarize the lesser covered material.
I don't think the public will get it until a major Hollywood movie presents a compelling narrative. People understand Minority Report. People don't understand Powerpoints released sporadically over multiple years.
Also part of the problem is that the Snowden leaks, while full of technical detail, are devoid of almost all human elements.
The other concerning element of all this is that even people who understand all of this fully, they still support it. So in some respects, the public is fully complicit. Maybe a similar dynamic to how whites accepted slavery.
They probably need to present how the data can and is actually being used in a way that hits people personally.
The UK phone hacking 'scandal'[1] showed that the public doesn't really care that much about phones being hacked if it ends up revealing corruption or crime or celebrity gossip. The real big deal was when it came out that they were accessing the voicemail of a missing 13 year old girl, who was later found dead.
I would be partial to this thesis, but I find it to be more a failing of the media.
From Wikipedia: "In a democratic society, however, access to free information plays a central role in creating a system of checks and balance, and in distributing power equally amongst governments, businesses, individuals, and other social entities. Access to verifiable information gathered by independent media sources, which adhere to journalistic standards, can also be of service to ordinary citizens, by empowering them with the tools they need in order to participate in the political process."
People payed attention to the news during the Snowden disclosures. But it wasn't news worth paying attention to.
There's a good history of media partnerships with TLA agencies - I'm just going to leave some links. I'm willing to write about it but this time of night I'm not prepared to spend the time curating something comprehensive.
To me this may explain another reason law enforcement agencies are upset about the recent changes Apple and Google made that prevent them from providing phone data.
If what the article said is true, it's not that they can't see the data, they just can't use it in court. Part of what the article calls the 'Planned Program Perjury Policy' would likely be to reverse engineer a probable cause to get a warrant for the device then serve the warrant to Apple/Google and then take the evidence to court.
It seems most of the spying (on unecrypted data) is done thanks to the Executive Order 12333. So your rights aren't even being violated because your Congress representatives said so - they are being violated because a single man decided that decades ago.
So how do we set things in motion to nullify the EO 12333?
At root, for any of these filtering/parsing projects to work, it means splitting and inspecting raw communication streams. The EFF is currently challenging mass surveillance on this point and arguing that these raw communications are are protected papers that are being searched without a warrant[1][2].
[1] - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-asks-judge-rule-nsa-i...
[2] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/deeper-dive-effs-backb...