A Story of Surveillance (2007)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110700006.html

by llamataboot • 13 years ago

94 21 13 years ago

reirob• 13 years ago

I would be interested to see if Mr. Klein achieved something in his fight against NSA's surveillance program. It was back in 2007 and now we have 2013. Five years gone.

INTPenis• 13 years ago

I'd say it's more likely his life is destroyed, I would love to know how he's making a living today.

Either way, he's not the one who was supposed to have "achieved something" in that battle, we were, the people should have reacted. They didn't, and they won't this time either. Sorry but we're just too complacent with all our luxuries and comforts.

blaabjerg• 13 years ago

He was already retired when that article was written.

zxcdw• 13 years ago

For most individuals things like these don't matter afterall. It's a small minority which even cares, so I don't really even wonder anymore.

Just mind your own business and avoid problems, that works the best for an individual person. Sad but true.

wmeredith• 13 years ago

He was already retired when the article was written.

llamataboot• 13 years ago

The lawsuit he helped inspire is still in the courts, and the EFF is still fighting the governments assertions that such lawsuits cannot be brought because of state secrets

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/government-seeks-...

_wp3r3• 13 years ago

I am still pretty confused about how this community seems to not have known these programs existed. It has been widely reported almost since inception. Not to mention the broad record of previous land line recording programs.

waterphone2• 13 years ago

I'm getting tired of seeing comments like this everywhere, which serve little use. Yes, it's been going on for a long time. Yes, many people have been aware of such programs as small bits have been leaked over the years. Yes, many of us have been angry about it for a long time.

The difference this time is not specifically the new information but the fact that it hasn't successfully been buried in the news after a day or two so far and people are in fact getting more upset about it. This is a good thing. If people aren't talking about it, the chance of doing anything about it and expressing mass disapproval is significantly reduced.

Maybe nothing will happen this time either, but a lot of people are angry about it at the same time, and finally talking about it en masse, and I don't see that as anything but a great thing.

mtgx• 13 years ago

Same here. Not only do such comments serve no useful purpose, but they are actually negatively impacting the "cause" to change things, because such comments are basically saying "relax people, this is old news...".

NO! Now is not the time to relax, and it really doesn't matter if it's 1 week old news or 10 year old news. If it's that old, it's much more important to finally have the debate about privacy, which Congress and the nation as a whole mostly skipped over it because of the fear or terrorists.

It's about time that discussion started again, to see if things like the Patriot Act and FISA are first of all, constitutional, and second of all, if all the privacy breaching is worth it to Americans, and only if there is real proof that it works not based on feeling and security theatre.

_wp3r3• 13 years ago

Sorry for being snarky.

Let me rephrase.

What is different about the story this year, that makes people and the news all the sudden pay attention?

youngerdryas2• 13 years ago

Critical thinking is hard, indignance is easy.

aqme28• 13 years ago

There's a huge difference between something considered to be true by a handful of specialized people, and something provably known to be true by the public at large.

_delirium2• 13 years ago

When it comes to damage-reduction, I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as much as possible, extensive profiles on people, especially profiles that are, or easily can be, tied to their real identity. For those of us who aren't doing so ourselves, we can pressure companies not to do so, either those we work for, or those we interact with as customers. This can either mean not collecting profiles at all, collecting limited ones only as needed, and/or collecting them tied to pseudonyms rather than making use of real-names mandatory or default.

I realize it can be commercially valuable to have such profiles when it comes to things like targeting ads or financial instruments, but on the whole I think the damage such data can do, if it exists, outweighs that justification. To take a concrete example, the side of the internal Google+ "nymwars" who were against the real-name requirement were right.

Of course, we should also work to keep corporate and government data collection separate. But I fear that will be a longer-term struggle, in which case an avenue to pursue simultaneously is to minimize corporate data-collection.

youngerdryas2• 13 years ago

I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as much as possible, extensive profiles on people, especially profiles that are, or easily can be, tied to their real identity.

So Google and Facebook should commit Seppuku?

_delirium2• 13 years ago

Google has been making large profits since long before Google+ even existed. There's probably some incremental value in having real-name profiles tied to data, but there's very large incremental harm as well, such that adding such functionality is net-negative for society. A large number of Googlers have made a similar argument, which is why the real-name policy was so controversial; the argument was already pretty strong before the NSA revelations, and is only stronger now.

Facebook is a trickier case. Their business model may simply be incompatible with a non-surveillance society.

jpdoctor2• 13 years ago

I think a better approach would be client-side: Something like a browser extension for identity rotation, for one example. I also suspect Tor-for-the-masses has a larger chance of becoming a reality. Presumably, VCs are now wringing their hands over the money to be made in the newfound software industry of identity obfuscation.

I'm sure all of this has the NSA folks whining and moaning, to which I'd have to point out: You made your bed.

maxerickson• 13 years ago

It's anyway all a side issue. A tidy personal history and limited data collection provide some flimsy bulwark against petty tyranny. They don't do anything against arbitrary tyranny.

The solution to tyranny is to build robust and open societies and to spread those values. Not open societies in the sense of transparency, open societies in the sense that people are not attacked for who they are or for the choices they make (transparency is often a useful tool, it just isn't in itself any sort of sensible goal).

And I don't mean that simple personal steps are futile, I just think there is a larger picture to consider (and direct energy towards!).

jpdoctor2• 13 years ago

Relevant, started in 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office

A Story of Surveillance (2007)

Related Stories