[suprgeek]

So that's it - the net legislative effect of all the "bombshell" disclosures that Ed Snowden made has been what - Nothing, NADA, Zilch.

Proving once again that going thru "Official" Channels was never an option. That in the toxic hyper-partisan environment of Washington the Powerful will find a way to kill any meaningful reform of even the worst abuses.

The solution to this has to be first and foremost Technological.

[andrewfong]

First, a single political defeat is not the end-all-be-all here. Politics may move slowly, but it does move (e.g. the political status of a black lesbian is undoubtedly better today than it was 50 years ago).

Second, technology and political are not an either/or proposition (or even a primary/secondary proposition). IMHO, it's something like: Privacy = Technology * Politics. Simply stressing one will give you (relative) diminishing returns if you don't push the other as well.

Good encryption can make it difficult for the NSA to conduct widespread online surveillance, but given (a) the difficulty of getting crypto right, (b) the sheer number of organizations with the ability to (intentionally or unintentionally) compromise security for a large number of users, and (c) the relatively low impact privacy and security have on purchasing decisions for many (if not most) people, it's something like the size of the NSA's budget (a political question) that will ultimately determine whether mass surveillance is prohibitively expensive or merely inconvenient.

[vitno]

saying that it is "Technological" is merely dodging what you are actually doing is a technology based form of rebellion. It is the statement that the government is not correct, and that the people can organize and do better.

I very much agree, but keep that in mind.

[higherpurpose]

It's okay. Now we all have a reason to recommend others against using American products. If the Washington leaders "don't want to" make a reform, let's force them to do it.

[enraged_camel]

The vast majority of people don't care, though. We saw this in the latest election. Surveillance wasn't a central issue for most candidates, and the electorate was OK with that.

[bobsil1]

Just need a telegenic "privacy rape" case, which is inevitable.

[happyscrappy]

Pretending that the entire West is not working together on intel only helps guarantee US dominance.

[olifante]

No, the entire West is not working together on intel. Most Western countries are not part of the 5-eyes agreement. Of course most states secretly have no qualms about violating the privacy of their citizens, but this should in no way distract us from the fact that UKUS capabilities far exceed those of anyone else.

[Amezarak]

Five Eyes is not the only agreement, and the UKUS capabilities are not far in excess of the others. Nearly all European nations did/do have agreements with the NSA and other intelligence organizations to share data on both their own citizens and foreigners. For example, the NSA categorized Germany's BND as a Tier 2 partner.

[olifante]

UKUSA capabilities ARE far in excess of others. They are the only global adversary that happens to control DNS and the whole certificate stuff. Furthermore, all popular consumer operating systems (Windows, Mac OS X, Android and iOS) are created by American companies who can receive secret orders with gag clauses at any time to introduce custom functionality or vulnerabilities which are only meant for UKUSA use. Additionally, apps are increasingly installed from app stores, which are once again subject to American law. This means that any undesirable app created outside the UKUSA jurisdiction (e.g. Telegram or Threema) could be tampered with at the source. No other nations have ANY of these capabilities.

[Amezarak]

They are not the only ones that can control certificates and DNS. I am not sure why you thought this was the case given it is widely documented (and occurs with some regularity) that we hear about some other country doing one or the other.

One might make the argument that most consumer hardware is not produced in the US. But it suffices to say that if Microsoft or Apple choose to obey a secret order rather than exiting a market of 300 million people, they will do so for other countries.

App Stores are subject to more than American law. For example, there isn't just a single Apple App Store. It's split up.

It is true that the NSA has uniquely easy access to say, Google and Facebook servers and so things are a little easier than just tapping all the fiber. That's precisely so many countries are gung-ho about creating their own, in-state services...so they're the ones with uniquely easy access.

But that's not "far in excess" of others, it just makes the job easier.

[happyscrappy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Future_enlargement

[3327]

Honestly, I'll start by saying I am a democrat so before the full flak of the HN community peppers me.

Rule contraction at times of relative piece and expansion at times of duress are never effective. Expanding surveillance after 9/11 with sweeping judicial reforms and due process, and vice versa (in today's case) contracting or attempting to contract is also not a good idea. Yes there are many problems, but think of it from a impact and policy perspective. What happens after if there is a terrorist event? Then do we expand again because perhaps someone yells out "not enough oversight or data?". Although many here are PRO reform, the pattern contraction/expansion is not the way to go about national security policy.

[ibejoeb]

I'm not peppering you because your political leanings, but because I have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that there is never a good time to change our current state of mass surveillance.

What pattern of expansion and contraction are you talking about? I know the expansion part, but I certainly don't know what the last contraction was.

What due process are you talking about? These policies were effected unilaterally, in secret.

What is a good way "to go about national security policy" if not by working within the legislative framework? Are you saying that there is no legislative solution?

What if there is a terrorist event now? How much more data can we collect?

My position is that it is never too early to examine the effects--the consequences--of any legislation. This particular incident has lingered secretly for well over a decade, and that is oppressive. Regardless of wordsmithing and mental gymnastics, these programs are clearly out of line with the spirit of American civil liberties and need to be checked.

[brazzy]

I think s/he's saying that policy should not be determined as a knee-jerk Reaktion to current events, either way.

[ericcumbee]

For what it's worth I am Republican (or a Republican Affiliated Libertarian might be a more apt description) I am active in the local GOP and sit on the county party executive committee.

The serpentine flow of the amount of power given to the executive branch or government in general is nothing new. There was an overstep with the patriot act, and according to Rep. Sensenbrenner (the author of patriot act) the executive branch under Bush and Obama exceeded the authority of the patriot act.

I think ultimately these types of powers need a congressional kill switch. Much like under the war powers act. The Congress through a concurrent resolution can remove the executive's authority under these acts.

[bobsil1]

Congress is a client of mass spying. It will not rein it in in any meaningful way.

[bobsil1]

This whole frame is wrong. Mass domestic spying is about domestic political advantage, not terrorism.

[pXMzR2A]

A little bit familiarity with the US ways of congress tells me that this comment is most probably right about this and that the voters need to be categorized qualitatively ("Why did you vote against?) rather than quantitatively ("Did you vote against?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8627770

[senateandnsa]

The worst thing is:

This was only about mass surveillance conducted over phones.

If this "analog tip of the iceberg" already fails, how can they ever be stopped politically regarding mass surveillance conducted by simply tapping all Internet traffic (as was shown they do)?

[RexRollman]

The apathy and cowardice of the American people allows this to continue.

[adultSwim]

No. The solution to this has to be first and foremost Activism.

Just look at how the civil rights movement made progress. It certainly wasn't just by writing polite letters to their representatives...

[dreamweapon]

No.

It means they're scared and are circling the wagons.

And that rather than dropping the fight, we need to keep pushing even harder.

[wdr1]

It's far from zilch, but year, I agree this is very frustrating.

[etha]

Actually, the lesson is that people don't WANT a "solution".