[comrade1]

Hopefully companies and organizations like the UN start moving away from AT&T. AT&T is a publicly traded company and so the only thing they understand is profit and loss.

The snowden releases cost u.s. tech companies $100B+, including a 10% drop in Cisco quarterly revenues. Hopefully this continues as multinationals continue to move their business outside the u.s.

Let the u.s. government spy on Americans all they want since Americans seem to like being spied on, while the rest of us move on. I know that mindset doesn't match many of the people here on HN, but Americans are mostly Authoritarian and seem to like the comfort they feel from programs like this.

[johncolanduoni]

> Let the u.s. government spy on Americans all they want since Americans seem to like being spied on, while the rest of us move on. I know that mindset doesn't match many of the people here on HN, but Americans are mostly Authoritarian and seem to like the comfort they feel from programs like this.

What exactly is your source on this? If we're going to stick with anecdotal evidence, I (who actually live in the US) have found most people's reaction to the Snowden revelations to be overwhelmingly negative, particularly among younger people.

If we want to look at some actual data, instead of accusations about public opinion by someone who doesn't even live in the US, it appears that a majority of Americans don't approve of the NSA's actions[1]. On top of that, companies like Apple, Facebook, etc. have been implementing end to end encryption so thoroughly that the government is pushing to make it illegal[2].

So I'd thank you to not decide that all Americans like to be spied on, or that we're mostly authoritarian, just because it fits your ideology.

[1]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-america... [2]: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/08/421251662/...

[fnordfnordfnord]

I live in the US too, and as far as I can tell most people are barely aware of anything to do with Snowden. Of those that are, many have a negative opinion and a very unsympathetic attitude towards privacy or civil rights.

[rayiner]

My mom thinks spying is great and my dad thinks the first amendment should have limitations so you can have laws requiring you to be sensitive to particular ethnic groups. They vote every single time. My wife and I disagree with both positions, but we never vote. Neither of those issues really bothers us enough to want to take time off work on a weekday, and we don't think there is a point when the boomers have politics locked up for another few election cycles anyway.

[fnordfnordfnord]

My own mom also doesn't see spying as something that negatively affects her/our cohort, but she probably won't vote because she thinks it protects her from jury summonses. None of my family live in a swing state, and so I'll skip an election unless I care about some of the local candidates. My wife and I have started to take more of an interest in politics recently though and it even looks like my state could flip in 2018 or 2020, maybe even in 2016, but doubtful.

[johncolanduoni]

I provided the Pew result because my anecdotal evidence is nearly as suspect as the one given in the post (the only difference is that I actually live in the US now). Do you think there is something wrong with the survey?

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Do you think there is something wrong with the survey?

I'm not going to criticize a Pew survey, much, but, I do think that the set of survey participants may be distinct from the people who vote. I also think that when people are answering a survey there is very little emotion involved as opposed to when they are voting; where people are barraged with messages fully intended to stimulate emotional responses. Those are a couple of things that might explain a difference. I'd also note that it has a relatively small sample size (475). So, I don't think the survey is the last word on the matter.

[comrade1]

First, I'm American. I've worked on NSA and DoD projects, and I've worked for PGP. I now live in Switzerland.

You only have to look at the consequences of the Snowden revelations. Nothing has really changed - some meaningless legislation was passed that moves the phone metadata recording to the phone companies from the NSA, but even then it's not clear that its stopped - the NSA data center in Utah where those conversations were recorded doesn't seem to be shutting down. I would bet the phone conversation, skype conversation, etc recording is still going on since it was never explicitly addressed anywhere in legislation.

And my comment about Americans being Authoritarian is nothing new - they've long considered to be Authoritarian.

[johncolanduoni]

> You only have to look at the consequences of the Snowden revelations. Nothing has really changed...

So your evidence that the public doesn't care about the revelations is that the government (who are the perpetrators of the spying) haven't changed their ways? Could it instead be because when selecting candidates to vote for (for the minority that do vote, which is a separate problem), Americans have prioritized other issues? Do you think that the survey I cited was methodologically unsound, or that people were simply lying?

How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?

> And my comment about Americans being Authoritarian is nothing new - they've long considered to be Authoritarian.

By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?

[joering2]

> Could it instead be because when selecting candidates to vote for (for the minority that do vote, which is a separate problem), Americans have prioritized other issues?

Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.

> How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?

Those are PR stunts. From companies like FB that are on record founded by CIA, and having same investors as companies such Palantir, I'm sure bunch of data exchange is happening behind the curtains.

> By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?

Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling, how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?

[johncolanduoni]

> Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.

It means that they either don't care, or that they care about other issues more (foreign policy, economy, etc.). Even sticking to issues with technology, I am far more concerned about banning end-to-end encryption without key escrow than with legislation to ban wiretapping. The US government has a long history of doing illegal wiretapping anyway, so I think the better solution is for private companies and citizens to make it more difficult practically, not legally. Does that mean I don't care about privacy?

> Those are PR stunts.

Which is exactly my point. Why would they perform such stunts if the public at large didn't care about wiretapping, or if they mostly supported it?

> Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling

Thanks. That was a great rebuke to the way I personally insulted you and everyone else who has been a part of this conversation.

> how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?

That is definitely evidence that America's government was and is authoritarian in many aspects, which I wholeheartedly agree is the case. It is also evidence that the voting segments of the population for the past 20 years (and further) have a similar bent. However, my issue with the original post is that he made a blanket statement about Americans in general. I don't think it's a great thing that the majority of Americans don't vote, but as a result this can only possible suggest the attitudes of a minority of Americans. That is why I prefer to judge what the public thinks about an issue by a poll, not by elected officials, or by anecdotal evidence (mine or anyone else's).

[jeremyjh]

If the public cared, this would be a campaign issue, and it really isn't.

[agarden]

Or maybe it is just that the segment of the public that is expected to vote doesn't care.

I don't vote, and I care about this issue. Why don't I vote? Mostly because the things I care about are not made campaign issues. That might be common.

[facetube]

You don't have to vote on every issue, candidate, or seat – there's no penalty for skipping questions. I do this routinely for issues where I either (a) don't feel qualified/informed enough, or (b) only a single candidate is available (writing in "no confidence").

If you care, please vote – even if it's just for the one guy who pledges to hold the NSA accountable for its actions.

[manish_gill]

The segment that doesn't care happens to be the majority. Which is exactly the point the original post made.

[grecy]

> So your evidence that the public doesn't care about the revelations is that the government

OP thinks that because the people are supposed to be in charge of the government. If the people really want to change something, they should be able to change it - i.e. see what happens in France when an elected leader tries to take away a single day of maternity leave or change benefits - literally millions of people rally in the streets, then that person gets voted out, almost immediately.

Now, if the people of the United States are not in control of their government, you have a whole 'nother issue to solve.

[jonknee]

It's very hard to move away from telecom companies. You may switch your direct services, but whoever you switch to will still use AT&T backbones and the like. All the big telecoms are guilty of being complicit with the government, what would make a difference is one taking a stand like Apple/Google has regarding encryption. That would put pressure on the others to follow suit.

[CyberDildonics]

There is no sense in trying to bend all the middle men to our will. The problem is broadcasting anything in the clear. Being able to effectively encrypt data at the IP level is what really needs to happen.

[fastandfurryous]

Google and Apple are still subject to the same pressures applied by warrants, subpeonas and national security letters.

I'm not really sure what you mean by encryption, though. Apple's iMessage may be encrypted, but their key exchange can be MitM'd easily.

Realistically you wouldn't use a service that exists because of the profit motive or is in the US. It will continue to operate to drive a profit while working with the government to stay in business.

[chinathrow]

I heard a rumour that iMessage/Apple is trying to fight an NSL. Does anyone have more details?

[fastandfurryous]

Given that NSLs have a gag order, this is probably a PR stunt like the lawsuit against the government.

They have been complicit with PRISM since 2012 without a peep.

[toomuchtodo]

Could Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple create a non-profit that owns their own dark fiber and parcels out capacity?

Think municipal fiber, but at a wholesale level.

[haroldp]

Each of those companies has been implicated as complicit in cooperating with the NSA's warrantless domestic spying.

[us0r]

Not sure why you are down voted but the US Intelligence Agencies are Amazon's single biggest customer.

[chinathrow]

Also not sure why we haven't heard anything about Amazon/AWS within the Snowden docs... yet. Anyone?

[us0r]

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/07/how-cia-partner...

[fnordfnordfnord]

That was the CIA.

[Zigurd]

Because there are several people on HN who think an illusion of privacy is good enough.

[giggles_giggles]

Why would they do it non-profit?

Google Fiber is this.

[toomuchtodo]

Google Fiber is for the last mile, consumer/business users.

I'm suggesting a non-profit organization or entity that is a holding company for dark fiber assets for tech companies, with a charter that specifically protects the privacy and integrity of the packets that travel over it.

If your packets run over AT&T, you clearly have lost. But if you control physical access, the only way the government is going to gain unlawful access is through someone who has integrated themselves into your org or through an illicit fiber tap. You've significantly reduced your attack surface.

EDIT: You could even go so far as to require different orgs to travel over physically diverse strands, thereby preventing any sort of multi-tenant shenanigans, with the cable being shared ownership.

[olympus]

They maybe could, but that probably wouldn't stop the NSA from gaining access through other means.

More importantly, they probably wouldn't. All those companies you previously listed have been identified in documents leaked by Edward Snowden as supporting the NSA with backdoors.

[mercurial]

Who are these lucky "rest of us" fellows who have both advanced technical infrastructure and no government spying? They don't live in the EU, Russia, and I guess most of Asia.

[ianlevesque]

People just don't pay attention at all. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Zigurd]

It's all hostile territory. While it's rational to punish quislings, it's irrational to think anyone handling a large amount of communications isn't a quisling. Certainly nobody is making claims that they are working to secure your data against state surveillance.

It's also long past time when providers like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. could have been offering secure communications and storage. At some point you have to suspect they are in with the surveillance state as much as the telcos are.

[mtgx]

After the Snowden revelations I believe AT&T was stopped from expanding in Europe. Mexico seems to welcome them on the other hand...

[FlaceBook]

> I know that mindset doesn't match many of the people here on HN

Right, the people here on HN only support spying when they are the ones doing it to users for "ad targeting" purposes.

[white-flame]

I wonder what percentage of YC ventures have their revenue model based on advertising prospects.

[happyscrappy]

This is a standard trope, but it requires that you be willfully ignorant that 1) all western countries are sharing intel 2) the US does most of its spying on foreign countries 3) there is no European politician that has even tried to run on an anti US platform. I wonder why?