HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Here's an interview with William Binney for background:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

It would be great to hear some HN voices tonight. We need to raise the level of dialogue and help the larger populace understand the real issues.

> The NSA is allegedly putting some stuff in a database.

William Binney, who was at the NSA for 30 years, and who designed big pieces of the infrastructure we're talking about, quit and blew the whistle. If I understand him correctly, every type of electronic communications people use -- email, phone, SMS, IM, fax -- are all stored forever.

There are a million interviews like this: http://youtu.be/TuET0kpHoyM

Edit: and, it seems that Snowden wanted the Washington Post and the Guardian to release all 41 slides, but neither paper had the courage to do it. I'd like to know what was on the other slides. If they had nothing of interest, why were they withheld?

Chilling: William Binney in Dec 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM … 20 to 30 trillion communications "stored" #Prism #NSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

Because its actually relevant? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

Uh, article? How about a direct link to the interview with known NSA whistlerblower? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

I think this is very relevant here - interview with the NSA whistleblower, William Binney, on how NSA is storing every post people are making online, so they (and FBI) can use it later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

No wonder NSA and FBI want warrantless access to private companies by lobbying for new laws like CISPA, and trying to build backdoors in services like Facebook, Skype, Twitter etc. They want to know absolutely everything you do online, besides your public posts:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-...

I don't know if they are doing it out of malice/power grabbing/control, or purely as a way to make their jobs more "efficient". But their #1 priority should always, always, be respecting the Constitution, and not trying to skirt around it. And I think they've forgotten all about that long ago.

⬐ revelation

I think the point is democratic states should (need) not have intelligence agencies with unlimited powers. They corrupt the state as they establish themselves as a central pillar of power (next to the military and the government).

They don't even have any historical roots in western political systems. The country with the claim to that is Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana), where they were commonly used to quell internal unrest and combat opposition.

⬐ hythloday

The role of an internal secret police goes back at least as far as the Roman Frumentarii[0] and I think you can trace a direct lineage from Walsingham's[1] operations to the CIA/NSA.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumentarii [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Walsingham#Entrapment_o...

⬐ Myrmornis

> their #1 priority should always, always, be respecting the Constitution

Presumably their #1 priority can be specified in a more rational way without random worshipping of some old document? Other countries, not blessed with the Constitution of the USA, also have intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

⬐ javert

No. The Constitution defines the proper form and responsibility of American government. If the Constitution falls, we no longer have legitimate government. That's historical fact.

Other governments' law enforcement agencies follow the laws of their own countries (or don't). Are you saying they shouldn't do that?

⬐ andrewflnr

Right. The point of a Constitution or whatever is to have some kind of law to follow. You don't need to worship it, it's just your axioms of government. That's your "rational way" of specifying priority #1.

⬐ mylittlepony

oelewapperke 5 hours ago | link [dead]

Weird that nobody realizes that the constitution does say that the government not only has the right to violate any (other) law to violate the constitution, but actually has the duty to do so.

To protect the constitution (and it's application within it's jurisdiction), the president (ie. the government) has the right AND the duty to violate ANY American law except clause 1 and 2 of the constitution. To put it plainly : the ONLY thing the president cannot do to defend the constitution is to mess with elections. That's it. It also states that the president is the person making the assessment if an action is necessary (and thus, not the courts, though of course, the president can be removed from office for making a decision that either congress or the courts think was not reasonable. That does not change the fact that the president cannot be punished for implementing that action. The maximum penalty for any crime for the president is impeachment, unless this is specifically extended by congress).

This is because article 2 of the constitution overrides every other law in the US, except article 1, including all following articles and amendments.

If you think this sequence is by accident, you should talk to a lawyer about things like this. Sequence in laws, and the principle that earlier rules override later ones is extremely well established technique of law.

What everybody seems to think these laws state, that you have extensive rights without any qualifications whatsoever, is just plainly not true. If you are a danger to the application of the US constitution within US borders, the president is not bound to any standard, nor does he have to respect any form of human rights in his attempts to stop you from doing so.

If you think it is better in European states, think again. Specifically, read what the Dutch monarch is allowed to do (e.g. she can have someone killed - both her and the actual murderer go free, she can confiscate any amount of property - with no legal recourse for anyone, etc.). Similar things are true for other Euro countries.

⬐ oelewapperke

Weird that nobody realizes that the constitution does say that the government not only has the right to violate any (other) law to violate the constitution, but actually has the duty to do so.

To protect the constitution (and it's application within it's jurisdiction), the president (ie. the government) has the right AND the duty to violate ANY American law except clause 1 and 2 of the constitution. To put it plainly : the ONLY thing the president cannot do to defend the constitution is to mess with elections. That's it. It also states that the president is the person making the assessment if an action is necessary (and thus, not the courts, though of course, the president can be removed from office for making a decision that either congress or the courts think was not reasonable. That does not change the fact that the president cannot be punished for implementing that action. The maximum penalty for any crime for the president is impeachment, unless this is specifically extended by congress).

This is because article 2 of the constitution overrides every other law in the US, except article 1, including all following articles and amendments.

If you think this sequence is by accident, you should talk to a lawyer about things like this. Sequence in laws, and the principle that earlier rules override later ones is extremely well established technique of law.

What everybody seems to think these laws state, that you have extensive rights without any qualifications whatsoever, is just plainly not true. If you are a danger to the application of the US constitution within US borders, the president is not bound to any standard, nor does he have to respect any form of human rights in his attempts to stop you from doing so.

If you think it is better in European states, think again. Specifically, read what the Dutch monarch is allowed to do (e.g. she can have someone killed - both her and the actual murderer go free, she can confiscate any amount of property - with no legal recourse for anyone, etc.). Similar things are true for other Euro countries.

⬐ zizee

oelewapperke (who is suffering from one of the worst cases of hellbanning I have seen here) wrote:

Weird that nobody realizes that the constitution does say that the government not only has the right to violate any (other) law to violate the constitution, but actually has the duty to do so. To protect the constitution (and it's application within it's jurisdiction), the president (ie. the government) has the right AND the duty to violate ANY American law except clause 1 and 2 of the constitution. To put it plainly : the ONLY thing the president cannot do to defend the constitution is to mess with elections. That's it. It also states that the president is the person making the assessment if an action is necessary (and thus, not the courts, though of course, the president can be removed from office for making a decision that either congress or the courts think was not reasonable. That does not change the fact that the president cannot be punished for implementing that action. The maximum penalty for any crime for the president is impeachment, unless this is specifically extended by congress). This is because article 2 of the constitution overrides every other law in the US, except article 1, including all following articles and amendments. If you think this sequence is by accident, you should talk to a lawyer about things like this. Sequence in laws, and the principle that earlier rules override later ones is extremely well established technique of law. What everybody seems to think these laws state, that you have extensive rights without any qualifications whatsoever, is just plainly not true. If you are a danger to the application of the US constitution within US borders, the president is not bound to any standard, nor does he have to respect any form of human rights in his attempts to stop you from doing so. If you think it is better in European states, think again. Specifically, read what the Dutch monarch is allowed to do (e.g. she can have someone killed - both her and the actual murderer go free, she can confiscate any amount of property - with no legal recourse for anyone, etc.). Similar things are true for other Euro countries.

⬐ xfs

They don't mean to grab particular information about every individual. They want to ensure completeness of their data mining results.

⬐ dguido

You know, people keep repeating this assumption that the NSA stores every post that people make online. Maybe someone should do a quick back of the envelope calculation to see how feasible that actually is?

My guess is that it's nowhere near possible given the amount of network traffic coming into/out of the US and current hard drive storage technology. IMHO the extreme amount of volume and limitations of storage space should create a necessity to be at least somewhat targeted in scope.

Not sure why people don't use common sense a bit more often...

⬐ nodata

So somebody else should do a calculation, and based on the result of that calculation which you didn't do, people should use common sense more often?

⬐ rmc

You know, people keep repeating this assumption that the NSA stores every post that people make online. Maybe someone should do a quick back of the envelope calculation to see how feasible that actually is?

Think of Google. The have downloaded and stored lots of the internet. How else can they search it?

So if we know at some level that it's possible, could the NSA do it?`

⬐ yardie

> the extreme amount of volume and limitations of storage space.

Speak for yourself then. I've already got 10TB of storage at home in a case the size of a shoebox. It's got my entire life in it (at least every file I've created since university), but most of it is storing my movie and music collection. So, realistically your entire life can fit in a 1TB drive once you exclude videos and transcode audio. 2-4TB if you're a person of interest.

Do know that 1 Backblaze 4U-server holds 135TB. They are building a datacenter in Utah with 100,000sqft[1] of rackspace. 20,000 racks per floor (I don't know if there are multiple stories) gives you 29.7 petabytes if they used a Backblaze solution.

So yes, if the US govt wanted to record everything you did everyday they are more than capable of doing it, now.

[1]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

⬐ Exabitionistic

They are sitting on at least an Exabyte. With multiple-Yottabytes of traffic.

⬐ yardie

You're right, I'm off by a few magnitudes. 29.7 exabytes if they use every square foot for servers JBOD. And that is with current disk tech.

⬐ Ntrails

I wonder how many times goatse.cx appears in that database.

⬐ bluedanieru

Forget about the Constitution. Rather, they should respect basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment. All this focus Americans put on their Constitution makes it easier for their government to become oppressive, because it encourages complacency. As though you could write the perfect set of laws, that you could define the perfect set of operating principles for your government, and in that way free yourself of tyranny forever and guarantee a free and open society for you and all your descendants. No, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

⬐ cpeterso

I don't disagree, but courts are much more likely to enforce laws that are written down and (implicitly) agreed to by US agencies.

⬐ joonix

If you take a glance at the development of Constitutional law you realize the document itself is largely meaningless. What matters is the progression of SCOTUS cases that interpret a simple archaic document in order to apply it to a massive, complex government.

It's quite easy for a Supreme Court to rationalize the disposal of civil liberties. Look at air travel. The argument is that people are consenting to the invasive searches because they are choosing to fly; never mind that flying is basically the only reasonable way of getting across this giant country. They can say the same thing about the internet. "You are consenting to use the option of internet based communication. If you want privacy, speak in person."

⬐ rmc

You don't even need to pick modern things like air travel.

The US consitution & bill of rights were fine with the slavery, racial segration, denying women the vote, denying men without property the right to vote, legal sexism, etc.

You're right that it's all about how it was interpreted.

⬐ wololo

(in case anyone missed the reference, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson)

⬐ wissler

Insightful. I'm curious as to what you think are the basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment.

⬐ rmc

An easy way is to read history, and see what things were like. It's amazing how many things that seem common sense and accepted now are from the enlightenment.

* Democracy. That one's obvious. Universal adult sufferage regardless of sex, race, creed, property ownership. We all know about "women getting the vote", but men without property used to not have the vote, catholics/prodestants/muslims/jews (delete as appropriate) used to not have the vote. Race based voting restrictions are similarly common. Some countries allow restricting voting based on criminal record (USA) other's done (most of europe), some countries prevent current criminals being elected (UK did this after some IRA terrorists were getting elected).

* Inherent rights. Who gives you your human rights? The Crown/State? So can they take them away? Does everyone have rights? Or just people/men of the right colour/creed/aristocracy? Does everyone have the same rights? No. We view that everyone has rights all the time that cannot be taken away.

* Rule of law. You/anyone should be able to know what the law is. The crown/state cannot just make up a vague law that only they can interpret. Laws cannot apply retroactively. The law should apply to everyone. It should be wrong if a certain law doesn't apply to the local lord, but it does apply to you.

* Fair trials. It's wrong that the crown/state alone gets to decide guilt/innocence, there should be an independent trial. You are allowed to argue your case. You are allowed appeal. The jury cannot be punished for how they decide your trial. You should be presumed innocent. You cannot be locked up unless you have been tried.

* Constitutionalism. There should be a document that overrides the crown/state and defined how the state works. It should list what powers the state/crown has. The King/state is not allowed to just do whatever it feels like. (Fun fact: Nazi Germany, the USSR and the USA have/had constitutions. The UK doesn't really. :P )

⬐ bluedanieru

Does it matter? I'm not debating the principles of the Constitution here, but rather the American focus on the document rather than the principles themselves.

⬐ wissler

I don't think the principles are common knowledge. Of course they matter.

⬐ sliverstorm

I think his deflection of your question suggests he was using them as rhetorical literary devices.

⬐ wissler

Insightful. ;)

Yes, I was surprised by his responses, I thought his initial remark was great, but people mean quite different things by those lofty abstractions.

⬐ bluedanieru

How about the both of you rub those brain cells together and see if you can organize a cogent point. Otherwise, piss off.

⬐ sliverstorm

So much for insightful.

⬐ fusiongyro

Can't speak for the OP, but the Declaration of Independence is a short, punchy summary of those things. You probably are familiar with some of it even if you aren't an American simply by virtue of being an English-speaker:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I recommend reading the whole thing if you have five minutes. It's a very fine piece of writing, and there are a lot of interesting details that most Americans either willfully ignore or fail to notice:

- Safety is mentioned in the first paragraph as a reason for government to exist.

- Many of King George's offenses will sound very familiar to us as things our government does today: maintaining standing armies, levying taxes, etc.

- Many of those offenses also have the phrase "without our consent" in them, which tends to be missed by people who bring up that second point.

- One of the offenses listed is limiting immigration. Whoa buddy!

The ending is a quite powerful summary of the rights of the state and probably about a thousandth as well known:

"We… solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

It's worth noting that interventionism doesn't seem to be on that list, even though we wouldn't even make it 40 years into countryhood before that changed.

…

So I think the OP and Chris are both right. The court cannot be expected to "defend liberty" outside the legal framework; they're beholden to the Constitution and the rest of the law. There is the "black ice" problem of case law, and the citizenry are going to have a very poor command of that, and that's just a fact. But the OP is right that it is the citizen's job to defend their own liberty as best as possible. The problem with that perspective is that resisting the government carries a price and most government infractions are not significant enough to pay that price. If you take that philosophy to the extreme you wind up with a Ruby Ridge scenario where a lot of people die because they misunderstand the founding fathers' opinions of taxation.

I also think we should have some awareness of the level of crap King George visited on the colonies as described in the Declaration. He wasn't merely taxing them, he was essentially waging war on them from within and without. Even with all that there were still significant numbers of loyalists in the colonies. We like to imagine that Britain raised taxes and we joined together as one to secede the next day. The way it played out on the ground was much messier.

⬐ rmc

Forget about the Constitution. Rather, they should respect basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment. All this focus Americans put on their Constitution…

It's part of the American mythos/story/narrative, that the USA constitution/bill of rights/founding fathers were some sort of genius people who were the first to come up with this brilliant and perfect text.

⬐ CapitalistCartr

That's not it at all. "Basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment" have no position in American law while The Constitution is the foundation of all American law and of the actions of American law enforcement people.

⬐ rmc

Yes, legally the US constitution is king. However the US constitution was not the source of the idea that "all men are created equal" or that "no-one shall be imprisoned unless they get a fair trial", these ideas predate the US consitution.

⬐ frozenport

The FBI's actions aren't in any way different then Google. Who also crawl the Internet and download every post people make.

⬐ wildranter

Sure they aren't, the difference lies on what they do with the data.

While Google will use that data to show you harmless text advertisement, the FBI might use it to backup a phony case against you, that can ultimately put an end to your freedom.

I'd say that's an incredible difference. Wouldn't you too?

⬐ Draiken

Still, you cannot know everything they do with that data. They show us the advertises, but what else are they doing? What guarantees do we have that they do not sell or give out information?

I'd stay both sides are bad. We may see them as completely different things, but you have to agree, in both sides, what we see is just the tip of the iceberg.

⬐ wildranter

Yes, both sides are bad.

But only one of these can lock you up in jail for whatever reason they want whether or not you're guilty. Besides, if you want to avoid having your data collected and possibly sold without you conscent just stop googleling your thoughts.

Now, the real question. How to avoid governments taking over our rights?

⬐ b6

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. The NSA's dossiers are automatically being built from data they're getting via the expensive hardware they forced telecom companies to install, not scraped data from the web.

If your email, or SMS, or voice call, or fax, or IM, or whatever else they care about and know how to parse, ever goes through any of their boxes, it's stored and associated with your entity forever, and may be used to glean unknown levels of insight about you, or used against you in criminal cases.

⬐ artichokeheart

"But their #1 priority should always, always, be respecting the Constitution, and not trying to skirt around it. And I think they've forgotten all about that long ago."

That's the irony of the whole American security apparatus. They are in place, nominally, in order to protect American citizens rights to live with the freedoms inherently granted to them by the Constitution.

⬐ consciousness

^ This -- nailed it.

⬐ Ankaios

This doesn't detract from your point, but I thought I should correct something just because there are a lot of overseas readers here who might not be very familiar with the US Constitution:

The Constitution does not grant freedoms to citizens. Instead, it delegates specific powers from the citizens to the federal government.

⬐ nickpinkston

Russia Today should be taken with a grain of salt right? Not saying this is bad, but just wanted to throw that out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Objectivity