I am in favor of the NSA routinely surveilling Internet traffic. Furthermore, this practice does not affect Wikipedia users any more than it effects anyone who uses the Internet, so this lawsuit is nothing more than a political stunt. Perhaps it is a way to increase the money people donate to Wikipedia, perhaps not.
Now, a lawsuit to suppress unwanted advertising (i.e., virtually all advertising) on Internet, that I could agree with.
Now, a lawsuit to suppress unwanted advertising (i.e., virtually all advertising) on Internet, that I could agree with.
6
The lawsuit is a nice gesture, but the arc toward total surveillance will continue unimpeded. At this point, there will be major consequences if the public demands certain agencies cede power and end mass surveillance. As the kind warden in Shawshank Redemption said so lovingly to Andy: "Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is."
Once a society jumps aboard that train, it can't get off.
Once a society jumps aboard that train, it can't get off.
7
Google Apps can include a Wikipedia App that will by default encrypt query to reply. Such secure Apps may be certified only if the Wikipedia site can verify that all its data are secured by an open and verified algorithm that uses open and secure API for end to end encryption.
By 2016 encrypt everything will be a reality for cooperating App developers. If and only if they can certify their adherence to end to end standards and continuously audit for compliance.
By 2016 encrypt everything will be a reality for cooperating App developers. If and only if they can certify their adherence to end to end standards and continuously audit for compliance.
3
It makes me wonder if our comments on the NYT are monitored as well.
8
In the long run, we have more to fear from NSA and its ilk than we do from ISIS.
10
If Wikipedia contains information on say how to build a bomb - of any kind - I don't have a problem if the NSA tracks who's seeking said information.
5
To this ex military & scientist reader the most disturbing thing about NAS's surveillance of people's Wikipedia activity is the relative ineffectiveness of this undirected activity as a means to stop terrorist or foreign power spying and large scale casualty causing activity.Stopping the mass influx of "tourists", "students" and faux "refugees" from Islamic countries would be a much more efficient way to dry up the swamp of potential attackers here.This nation also does not have an doable with current tech visa tracking 'check in & out' system like those now used by many businesses - or even check all incoming shipping containers for nukes.Why not? Are our few % business owner nobility really that greedy for the functional equivalent of slave labor - that the nation has to ignore/allow the 50% of illegals that come in on phony visas to stay & constitute a potential foreign army in our midst? Does it really make sense to spy on all citizens, when we are not even keeping track of the 40 million 'visitors' that enter this nation every year? While our nation is essentially at war with nations that have a substantial terrorist movements there should be a travel ban on all except a few diplomats from those nation states! It is reasonable to have a policy that once the respective leaderships of these countries have hunted down, killed or imprisoned all their terrorists, that they then could be certified as "terrorist free" and granted the privilege of general travel into the USA.
2
Privacy is over, period. This cat cannot be put back in the bag. Lawsuits will not change this behavior, they will merely drive it deep under in the organizations that benefit from it. While this article focuses on the NSA, think about how Google and many other data aggregators or data mining firms are collecting every click, every work, every photo or video and all your location data shared with them. They sell this to the places where you apply for work, to businesses and individuals willing to pay and to your dear old Uncle Sam. We have no choice and despite proposed legislation, will not get a real choice. Our only options are to act knowing we are always under surveillance or to move to a cabin in the woods and not use the Internet or a mobile phone. Even that last action will probably lead to your tracked through some other means...
5
Will the material leaked by Mr. Snowden be admissible as evidence in court? The entire premise of this proposed litigation seems to revolve around the legitimacy of those documents.
3
The U.S. government is afraid of knowledge. Specifically, it's afraid of the knowledge its citizens might gain from the free flow of information between them and between citizens of other countries. This is a dangerous predilection that hints of something more expected of an oppressive Third World country than a First World power. It also appears to be an encroachment on the Constitutional right to free assembly -- namely, the assembly of ideas and association through a popular web site.
6
Basing your lawsuit on generalized assumptions made from a Powerpoint slide probably isn't going to turn out very well.
4
During colonialism, British government controlled the natives by divide and conquer, make them fight each other, which is not unlike what is happening now with us.
How do you fight an enemy that hide among us and do as we do -- use social media, internet, cellphones, take pictures of targeted buildings, ride planes and buses, study or teach in our colleges, etc.? How do ISIS recruit our youth?
Present day war is no longer just guns and tanks. Wars nowadays permeate through our homeland, the way we live and do business, a fight for our minds and hearts. Monitoring and spying them, unfortunately, also mean spying on ourselves to some degrees.
In our judicial system, due process meant to protect our rights can be exploited by bad guys to get off. I imagine privacy laws meant to protect our privacy can be used by terrorists to hide their actions. Our openness, though definitely a virtue, can also a weakness terrorists attack us through.
Transparency of our government is important because they potentially can and have abused their power. But sometimes, in a war, certain things do need to stay secret. Washington Post had reported that CIA secretly changed the bomb recipes on the terrorists websites so the bombs would not work. Why report this?
It is not easy to have a nuanced conversation on this because we don't trust our government and we don't want to admit that security and privacy will always have some trade off.
We can't be totally safe and private at the same time.
How do you fight an enemy that hide among us and do as we do -- use social media, internet, cellphones, take pictures of targeted buildings, ride planes and buses, study or teach in our colleges, etc.? How do ISIS recruit our youth?
Present day war is no longer just guns and tanks. Wars nowadays permeate through our homeland, the way we live and do business, a fight for our minds and hearts. Monitoring and spying them, unfortunately, also mean spying on ourselves to some degrees.
In our judicial system, due process meant to protect our rights can be exploited by bad guys to get off. I imagine privacy laws meant to protect our privacy can be used by terrorists to hide their actions. Our openness, though definitely a virtue, can also a weakness terrorists attack us through.
Transparency of our government is important because they potentially can and have abused their power. But sometimes, in a war, certain things do need to stay secret. Washington Post had reported that CIA secretly changed the bomb recipes on the terrorists websites so the bombs would not work. Why report this?
It is not easy to have a nuanced conversation on this because we don't trust our government and we don't want to admit that security and privacy will always have some trade off.
We can't be totally safe and private at the same time.
1
Worst to me is that the names are tracked, building a dossier, that could be traded for dossiers held by other intelligence services. Each of us has become a trading chip, with the holders always ready to trade coins that are cheap to them for coins that might be of more value. Akin to prisoner exchanges; but simpler, more private and they only sell copies.
11
US Constitution, Amendment 4 provides:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Even before the American Revolution, English Common Law prohibited warrantless searches and required probable cause for the issuance of warrants, which were limited to seizure criminal papers rather than all papers. Colonial law was initially more expansive, but in 1756, the Massachusetts legislature forbade general warrants, and such warrants were forbidden by the constitutions of eight states by 1784. Subsequent to adoption of the US constitution, the principal was adopted by the United States in Amendment 4.
What is now being done by the NSA and other federal agencies is wholesale violation of the rights secured by Amendment 4. Without even the pretense of warrants, communications are being vacuumed up and stored en masse, with the collusion of telecommunications companies. Successful usurpation of power promotes more of the same. History shows that over time, licentious conduct by "security agencies" leads to emergence of police states. As Juvenal put it in a classical discussion of domestic security, who will guard the guards themselves? Now, even the rubber stamp of the FISA Court is bypassed.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Even before the American Revolution, English Common Law prohibited warrantless searches and required probable cause for the issuance of warrants, which were limited to seizure criminal papers rather than all papers. Colonial law was initially more expansive, but in 1756, the Massachusetts legislature forbade general warrants, and such warrants were forbidden by the constitutions of eight states by 1784. Subsequent to adoption of the US constitution, the principal was adopted by the United States in Amendment 4.
What is now being done by the NSA and other federal agencies is wholesale violation of the rights secured by Amendment 4. Without even the pretense of warrants, communications are being vacuumed up and stored en masse, with the collusion of telecommunications companies. Successful usurpation of power promotes more of the same. History shows that over time, licentious conduct by "security agencies" leads to emergence of police states. As Juvenal put it in a classical discussion of domestic security, who will guard the guards themselves? Now, even the rubber stamp of the FISA Court is bypassed.
18
Many strides have to be made to make the internet, including social websites, secure and this cannot happen without taking away certain freedoms. The Founding Fathers had no vision into the information age when they were writing the bill of rights. Using the tools that are available to us is at our own risk. Freedom always comes with a price. This is to say that if the Government is not watching you be assured that someone else is.
2
"Freedom always comes with a price."
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." [Thomas Jefferson, 2nd POTUS]
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." [Thomas Jefferson, 2nd POTUS]
4
EuroAm: '"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." [Thomas Jefferson, 2nd POTUS]'
Jefferson was third. John Adams was second. Moreover, the quote is usually rendered 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty', not 'freedom' (may also be inverted).
Aside from that, and more important, according to the Monticello.org website, which is pretty much the authoritative source on these matters, there's no evidence Jefferson actually said that.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Eternal_vigilance_is_the_...
I'll bet you got your citation from Wikipedia. ;}
Jefferson was third. John Adams was second. Moreover, the quote is usually rendered 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty', not 'freedom' (may also be inverted).
Aside from that, and more important, according to the Monticello.org website, which is pretty much the authoritative source on these matters, there's no evidence Jefferson actually said that.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Eternal_vigilance_is_the_...
I'll bet you got your citation from Wikipedia. ;}
2
There is an undeniable balancing act between protecting individual privacy rights and ensuring public safety. The NSA's argument for the latter is weak, having failed to do all they can to target the true potential threats. The wide net they've cast is clumsy and ineffective, while violating laws and betraying the public trust.
If the NSA were sincere in their intentions and smart in their strategy, they'd stop persecuting Anonymous activists and instead elicit their assistance in bringing down extremists the NSA says they're after. Anonymous would do the job far more effectively. And our Internet privacy would be safeguarded.
If the NSA were sincere in their intentions and smart in their strategy, they'd stop persecuting Anonymous activists and instead elicit their assistance in bringing down extremists the NSA says they're after. Anonymous would do the job far more effectively. And our Internet privacy would be safeguarded.
2
It all comes down to trust. You sound like you trust the Anonymous and not NSA. That is dangerous. How do we know that it will always be on our side? NSA is at least under Congressional oversight under the system of our government. Who is watching over Anonymous? Whenever they stop being on our side, there is no recourse, since they are, anonymous.
2
OK - so we restrict the US in "spying" on Wiki users. What about the rest of the world? What about China, what about Russia, what about corporations? You trust your data and inquiries with Wiki, Google, Amazon, etc., etc., but no the US.
So what is your real point? Just that you CAN bring a lawsuit here, so you do? Try doing that in Russia, where Snowden is residing...or how about North Korea? Just what is your point?
So what is your real point? Just that you CAN bring a lawsuit here, so you do? Try doing that in Russia, where Snowden is residing...or how about North Korea? Just what is your point?
3
As a former federal prosecutor for 20 years, I know Wikipedia's law suit is necessary. Moreover, the law suit seeks to further the central premise, values and goals of our great republic, to wit: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Abraham Lincoln 1863
8
A costly and futile effort to collect everything about everybody is inefficient at best. Meanwhile, the temptation to persecute people acting in a democracy and protesting mostly obvious wrongdoing is tragically misguided and counterproductive. Treating people objecting to the tragic endgame of continued big fossil exploitation as terrorists is one example. Attacking people objecting to a market system turned casino and its profiteers is another.The persecution of people or color and people who are different by authorities is another.
The self-justification of authorities maintaining their power is typical throughout history. It's turning evil.
Even if there were any common-sense reason to collect too much about too many, the evidence that this trust is abused goes on and on.
People wanting to preserve the earth, have compassion on the less fortunate and guarantee a living wage for working stiffs, and fair treatment for people who are different, are not terrorists. They are patriots.
The haystack has gotten so big it's now being set on fire.
The self-justification of authorities maintaining their power is typical throughout history. It's turning evil.
Even if there were any common-sense reason to collect too much about too many, the evidence that this trust is abused goes on and on.
People wanting to preserve the earth, have compassion on the less fortunate and guarantee a living wage for working stiffs, and fair treatment for people who are different, are not terrorists. They are patriots.
The haystack has gotten so big it's now being set on fire.
7
Freedom of expression, association and spech is not an equivalent to "I have nothing to hide". The idea that one would have to alter, search in code or write in a codified way means that our unabridged rights are gone or hanging by a thread. Another aspect of the "I have nothing to hide" contengent misses the point that what may now be "acceptable" search, speech and writing can be unknowingly be used against us in the future depending upon future political climate or conflicts or simply what the NSA deems as acceptable. We are living in a police state right NOW. We need to repeal and fight existing legislation to get out privacy rights back. It's NOT enoughto argue "I have nothing to hide".
9
The United States is almost unique among western democracies of having persecuted people for their political beliefs. It happened in my lifetime and it will happen again if this surveillance is allowed to continue. Of course it will continue because, in the espionage game, if they can they will. The ghosts of McCarthy and Hoover are still with us.
6
Remember the book "1984"? When I read it (in high school) I thought, "How could a society allow this to happen? " Now I know - freedoms are marginalized to keep us safe. It is ironic that both Wikipedia and the NSA both collect vast amounts of data. But one offers knowledge and hope, the other security and suspicion.
7
This is a waste of their time and money...I support the Wikimedia Foundation, but this lawsuit isn't going anywhere since pursuing it would require the release of classified information (ain't happening), so it will be dismissed in its first round (then appealed, dismissed, appealed, dismissed ad infinitum...).
2
Thank you Wikipedia and ACLU for fighting for our privacy. With every passing day, I become more and more grateful for the ACLU and organizations like Elecgronic Frontier Foundation. Support them in whatever way you can.
5
I see comments suggesting that those who have nothing to hide should not fear surveillance. But we all have something to hide.
Know anybody who had an affair? Once get into a fist fight? Had an abortion? Have a mental illness? Know anybody involved in radical politics in the 1970's? Are you responsible for information about other people? Did you go to school with a person from a country we are now at war with? Look up the manufacture of bombs? Use illegal drugs? Read the Snowden documents? Read the Church Commission Report? Demonstrate for an unpopular cause? Seek out articles you disagree with? Try to overthrow the government by legal means?
Widespread surveillance is not compatible with democracy.
Know anybody who had an affair? Once get into a fist fight? Had an abortion? Have a mental illness? Know anybody involved in radical politics in the 1970's? Are you responsible for information about other people? Did you go to school with a person from a country we are now at war with? Look up the manufacture of bombs? Use illegal drugs? Read the Snowden documents? Read the Church Commission Report? Demonstrate for an unpopular cause? Seek out articles you disagree with? Try to overthrow the government by legal means?
Widespread surveillance is not compatible with democracy.
13
Apparently our Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial branch disagree. What recourse do we have? An amendment to the Constitution has to be executed through the Congress. This lot should be a cameo in 'Monty Python's Holy Grail'. I don't want another revolution, what are our options?
2
Oh for God's sake. Microsoft, Apple , and the other giants of the tech world are constantly spying on you. Programs are on your computer that track every place you've been. Your stores spy on every transaction you make. You're being tracked by your phone, your car, and soon, your watch.
The only problem I have with the NSA is that they are not making any money off of their spying.
And to be honest, I want someone, even if at NSA, to know just how little of a real life I have.
The only problem I have with the NSA is that they are not making any money off of their spying.
And to be honest, I want someone, even if at NSA, to know just how little of a real life I have.
1
Where is the "threat"? I have nothing, absolutely nothing to worry about reading Wiki. And, neither does that lovely young lady in Egypt - unless of course, she really is up to no good, like say, killing Americans. I am not going
to band wagon with groups of ultra-paranoid people expressing fantastical outrage about so-called privacy. You all could start by just doing whatever it is you want to do in your own bathroom or bedroom. Just keep it all there - In the unfortunate world we live in today - brought about by-the-way, by persons like-minded to yourselves, the reality is protection is paramount. It trumps everything, including free speech, and association and all the other ivory tower, Harvard educated, sputum that drools from your lips.
to band wagon with groups of ultra-paranoid people expressing fantastical outrage about so-called privacy. You all could start by just doing whatever it is you want to do in your own bathroom or bedroom. Just keep it all there - In the unfortunate world we live in today - brought about by-the-way, by persons like-minded to yourselves, the reality is protection is paramount. It trumps everything, including free speech, and association and all the other ivory tower, Harvard educated, sputum that drools from your lips.
2
ever read any Ben Franklin? There's a famous quote regarding liberty and security......hmmmm, what was it?
4
1. Most bad guys are overseas;
2. The first and fourth amendments don't extend to overseas bad guys;
3. NSA surveillance is (supposed to be) focused on international traffic.
I draw some comfort that the NSA would notice if someone in Tikrit searched for the owner's manual for, say, a surface to air missile. One hopes that there is now enough oversight to limit deliberate NSA monitoring of US nationals, although I'm probably naive. Regardless, this suit appears to be motivated more by concerns over Wiki's business model than by material threats of monkey business at the NSA. But, perhaps I haven't read enough spy novels.
2. The first and fourth amendments don't extend to overseas bad guys;
3. NSA surveillance is (supposed to be) focused on international traffic.
I draw some comfort that the NSA would notice if someone in Tikrit searched for the owner's manual for, say, a surface to air missile. One hopes that there is now enough oversight to limit deliberate NSA monitoring of US nationals, although I'm probably naive. Regardless, this suit appears to be motivated more by concerns over Wiki's business model than by material threats of monkey business at the NSA. But, perhaps I haven't read enough spy novels.
1
The NSA is a rogue agency with a culture that is not reformable. And our politicians in Washington have no wish or will to reform it in any case. It is one measure of how our democracy is transforming itself into a fascist state. No external force is causing this -- we are doing it to ourselves!
4
Thank you, great piece and good luck.
3
Nonsense, the only America can be free is if the government knows everything it can about it's citizens. They would never abuse their power, never....
3
I hope the bite of your note isn't missed along the way. Speed reading does have drawbacks.
When the Patriot Act swept into effect, I heard so, so many people say, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be upset." They couldn't get their arms around the fact that it's not WHAT was being done, the critical issue was that it COULD be done.
I add only the suggestion that George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four" and "Animal Farm" be added to this summer's reading (or re-reading) list.
Thanks for your post.
When the Patriot Act swept into effect, I heard so, so many people say, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be upset." They couldn't get their arms around the fact that it's not WHAT was being done, the critical issue was that it COULD be done.
I add only the suggestion that George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four" and "Animal Farm" be added to this summer's reading (or re-reading) list.
Thanks for your post.
2
Freedom is not just "another word". It is the strength of America. Fear stalks our land and it blinds us to the consequences of loss of privacy and constitutional protections. Truthfully I would rather take my chances on being maimed or killed by terrorists than to loose my freedom of expression. It's like loosing one's soul. Let the lawsuit go forward and find success in our courts.
4
I'm astonished and disappointed to see how many commenters turn to Wikipedia for insight, especially in order to then post commentary online. Wikipedia is not and never has been a peer-reviewed publication. It is filled with gross inaccuracies and as any academic will tell you, it is a poor substitute for reliable scholarship (of the sort one can readily find in, say, a college library or an academic journal. It always has been, however, a hotbed of partisan bickering. One glance at the "talk" page of any entry devoted to politics will tell you everything you need to know about why the government might learn a thing or two about our volatile rhetorical tendencies simply by listening in....
3
'...as well as other information that can be linked to the person’s physical location and possible identity...“nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet.”...'
'Possible'?
'Typical'?
As long as it is not identifying a specific user, what is the problem?
Let us not pretend that terrorists do not use the internet to exchange information and that only people on the side of the angels do so.
It makes your case look weak.
'Possible'?
'Typical'?
As long as it is not identifying a specific user, what is the problem?
Let us not pretend that terrorists do not use the internet to exchange information and that only people on the side of the angels do so.
It makes your case look weak.
If NSA is allowed to snoop in places they don't belong, soon we'll be using paper and pamphlets to spread news and opinions, to remain anon.
While I want the bad guys stopped, I don't want my own right to privacy compromised. The trade off isn't worth it.
While I want the bad guys stopped, I don't want my own right to privacy compromised. The trade off isn't worth it.
8
If we lived in a perfect world where the people in control of police forces at all levels, including the NSA, were perfect, then perhaps there would be no reason to worry. But, as we have seen lately, this is very much not the case. For this reason (and because it's not clear that having way too much information facilitates catching terrorist threats), it is necessary to have serious limits and oversight on the government's spying operations if we care about having a democracy where innocent people are free from blanket surveillance.
4
The problem with information overload is delay in processing due to too many leads. It's easy to compile the likes or dislikes of a terrorist after the fact and say: "It was obvious! We should have told you so!". But how many terrorists were caught before they were able to carry out their mission? We don't know if it really works because the dangerous ones keep a low profile and don't leave electronic traces. Just like Osama. It's much cheaper and effective to conduct a foreign policy that prevents terrorism than one that fights it. This is an asymmetric fight that can lead easily to bankrupcy. Maybe we should learn something form the Swiss or Sweedes.
2
The NSA's internet spying program is the virtual equivalent of placing bugs in every American's home and recording all their conversations. It is excessively intrusive and I hope the courts will agree that it is a violation of the Constitution.
I'm glad that advocates for a free internet are continuing their fight so quickly after the victory on net neutrality. It's easy to forget that there is still more to be done.
I'm glad that advocates for a free internet are continuing their fight so quickly after the victory on net neutrality. It's easy to forget that there is still more to be done.
7
I support this effort and believe it is a useful approach to educate users about the laws that allow the NSA to legitimate this kind of surveillance.
Voters -- have supported our representatives in government to allow these laws to exist. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through the USA-Patriot Act to the FISA amendments of 2008, Congress has passed these bills to create at least enough support for the kinds of data collection and surveillance that Snowden's disclosure revealed -- and appear to disturb the American public.
Last I knew, we still live in a democracy. If the American public does not like these practices, then they should say so loudly and clearly to Congress before traditional notions of "privacy" pass us all on by ...
Voters -- have supported our representatives in government to allow these laws to exist. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through the USA-Patriot Act to the FISA amendments of 2008, Congress has passed these bills to create at least enough support for the kinds of data collection and surveillance that Snowden's disclosure revealed -- and appear to disturb the American public.
Last I knew, we still live in a democracy. If the American public does not like these practices, then they should say so loudly and clearly to Congress before traditional notions of "privacy" pass us all on by ...
5
If we allow government monitoring of our internet use, are we living in a police state? If we bar government from interfering with our lives, will we live in anarchy? Painting this a black and/or white issue seems counterproductive.
We live in a time where the threats against America are often more complex and clandestine than soldiers with bayonets running in our direction from hundreds of yards away. America's enemies are using technology in the fight against us; America needs to harness this same technology to repel this ever-advancing threat.
Do I enjoy being monitored over the internet or in my daily life through credit card tracking and cell phone usage? No. But at least some of it is necessary to combat bad actors. Crime is evolving, so too should our defense against it. We will always have elements among us that will frame or blame others for crimes we commit. We should expect hackers or savvy programmers to hide behind complex schemes in order to perpetrate crime, as 'ordinary' criminals concoct alibis. This cannot mean handicapping police access to technology to fight this new and intricate threat.
We live in a time where the threats against America are often more complex and clandestine than soldiers with bayonets running in our direction from hundreds of yards away. America's enemies are using technology in the fight against us; America needs to harness this same technology to repel this ever-advancing threat.
Do I enjoy being monitored over the internet or in my daily life through credit card tracking and cell phone usage? No. But at least some of it is necessary to combat bad actors. Crime is evolving, so too should our defense against it. We will always have elements among us that will frame or blame others for crimes we commit. We should expect hackers or savvy programmers to hide behind complex schemes in order to perpetrate crime, as 'ordinary' criminals concoct alibis. This cannot mean handicapping police access to technology to fight this new and intricate threat.
I admit I am torn. I use Wikipedia often, and sometimes to better understand world events. At times no doubt I've looked up what it says about groups that have declared their enmity to the U.S.
I hate the idea that someone is spying on me. I have nothing to feel guilty about, and I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time.
On the other hand, clearly the U.S. is subject to some very serious threats and needs to deal with them.
What will be done with the NSA records? How long will they be kept, especially when there is no reason to think an individual is a threat?
I hate the idea that someone is spying on me. I have nothing to feel guilty about, and I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time.
On the other hand, clearly the U.S. is subject to some very serious threats and needs to deal with them.
What will be done with the NSA records? How long will they be kept, especially when there is no reason to think an individual is a threat?
4
When are we going to enforce the laws of our nation and put the politicians and civil servants that lied to Congress and approved these illegal programs on trial? Same for the judges who authored secret law that should be impeached.
Until then American democracy is a myth like the Loch Ness Monster.
Until then American democracy is a myth like the Loch Ness Monster.
1
Why is the NSA spending tax dollars of contributing members of our society to identify Wikipedia contributors? There are a lot of ways to obtain more critical security data at less cost to the American tax payer. NSA is not held accountable on detail level for 'ways and means' of information gathering by Congress. In this case, a not for profit corporation is filing a lawsuit. In the past, the US Government has filed suite against the CIA. (Information surrounding that lawsuit should be in Wikipedia, but probably is not.) We need to have the opportunity for disciplined and open discourse of history and knowledge to provide stability and promote the heath of our country. The NSA, while tasked with keeping us safe from terrorists or those set to destabilize our country, overstep their mandate routinely, and without check, become an obstacle to our health and safety, not only individually, but as a democracy.
1
Horrified by the recent images of the ISIL monsters destroying statues, artifacts, precious creations of our historical ancestors? Consider that every keystroke made to compose this very comment is monitored in real time by some secreted cretin in the bowels of this vast "Intelligence Community" apparatus.each expression of our Thinking, reading, writing now within the panopticon gaze of our own secreted version of these anonymous subvertors, destroyers of the assumed safe exchange of information,the thought police watching as we write these thoughts, including the ones I write in this moment, here. Shame on them for participating, and shame on those of us tjhat allow it to continue. This lawsuit is a great signal that there is hope and action, Thank you.
1
If it can be done it will be done. Whether it is our NSA, or Russia, China, Great Britian, Coka Cola, or some kid in a garage, it's gonna happen. What can we do so the least amount of damage is done. I think the answers are in legal restrictions on how information gathered can be used, not in the technological one upsmanship game.
1
This is only the tip of the iceburg. The NSA is involved in much more domestic spying than most people recognize. Google voice to skull technology and see where it leads you.
2
I suspect the NSA is doing more than just "monitoring" Wikipedia. As a member, I recently corrected an obvious misquote (footnoted) in a biography of Carl Sagan, which had changed the meaning of the quoted statement.
I received a notification that my correction had been deemed "not substantive" and thus had been rejected. This missive was from an "associate" who left no contact information. It seems inconceivable that an obvious correction of a footnoted reference could have been questioned at all.
I've had an uneasy feeling about Wikipedia since, and your article lends some insight into the questionable veracity of the site's information.
I received a notification that my correction had been deemed "not substantive" and thus had been rejected. This missive was from an "associate" who left no contact information. It seems inconceivable that an obvious correction of a footnoted reference could have been questioned at all.
I've had an uneasy feeling about Wikipedia since, and your article lends some insight into the questionable veracity of the site's information.
3
We the people need to accept that our government requires boundaries that could lead to something getting missed and some of us getting hurt. And when that happens, instead of screeching recriminations, we need to consider all those before us who've sacrificed even more to protect the liberties we too often take for granted.
While interesting, the case is clearly not going anywhere and will be summarily dismissed. The US government can spy on foreign individuals and foreign communications pretty much at will, because neither are protected under the US constitution. Unrestricted spying on activities based on foreign soil is kind of a central tenent of espionage conducted by most every government. We can argue whether or not there should be a law restricting some of the potential abuses against ostensibly innocent foreigners, but we can't pretend that such a law has already been passed. It hasn't and most likely it won't.
1
This borders on the surreal, I envision some Peter Sellers Pink Panther like character at the NSA surveilling the people who log onto Wikipedia. This is paranoia run amuck. President Obama please stop this madness and bring Edward Snowden home.
5
Search should Always be free of secret "analysis" it is at the very heart of peer review.
1
Like many bureaucracies, the NSA appears to have yielded to the temptation of mission expansion. While they are welcome to read and document all my Wikipedia enquiries, the fact that they are doing it suggests that they are overfunded. A 25% budget reduction might help
them focus on the critical elements of intelligence gathering. Efficiency and clarity are valuable.
them focus on the critical elements of intelligence gathering. Efficiency and clarity are valuable.
2
what is the difference between privacy and anonymity?
in my view, privacy means that you are free from surveillance or monitoring, search or seizure in your home, your personal effects, and any place in the infrastructure where you are informed you have that privilege.
anonymity is the ability to communicate through, move around in or transact with the infrastructure -- outside your home, beyond your personal effects -- without being identified.
wales and treitkov want users to browse or edit wikipedia *anonymously* -- apparently, even if they do so through a wikipedia corporate account. they call this a right of privacy, as a legal strategem, but it's not -- it happens in the public infrastructure, not in the person's home.
the legal constructs around telephony have gotten most people confused about the difference between privacy and anonymity. yet anonymity is the reason we have online stalking, trolling, disinformation and spam, among many other things.
the libertarian spirit of the early internet culture has foisted on the infrastructure a false claim to infrastructure privacy. all we have gotten from that is a pandemic of abusive anonymity. yes, there must be an accountable legal framework around internet surveillance. but no, the fear of that surveillance should not be used to defend a dysfunctional culture of anonymity
in my view, privacy means that you are free from surveillance or monitoring, search or seizure in your home, your personal effects, and any place in the infrastructure where you are informed you have that privilege.
anonymity is the ability to communicate through, move around in or transact with the infrastructure -- outside your home, beyond your personal effects -- without being identified.
wales and treitkov want users to browse or edit wikipedia *anonymously* -- apparently, even if they do so through a wikipedia corporate account. they call this a right of privacy, as a legal strategem, but it's not -- it happens in the public infrastructure, not in the person's home.
the legal constructs around telephony have gotten most people confused about the difference between privacy and anonymity. yet anonymity is the reason we have online stalking, trolling, disinformation and spam, among many other things.
the libertarian spirit of the early internet culture has foisted on the infrastructure a false claim to infrastructure privacy. all we have gotten from that is a pandemic of abusive anonymity. yes, there must be an accountable legal framework around internet surveillance. but no, the fear of that surveillance should not be used to defend a dysfunctional culture of anonymity
1
If you don't wish to be vulnerable to eaves-dropping by others, don't use the computer or a cell phone for sensitive information. In this age of sophisticated technology it is a given that your information can be obtained by others. Thirty years ago large corporations routinely warned their employes not to discuss research and development on the new mobile phones as being too risky. I really don't think a simple research of historical material or reading the NYTimes is of interest to our government or any government. But don't put private information out there for the taking. Fraud and worse lives in the cloud.
Government spying is a job that many love to have. As long as there is spying employment there will be spying in USA! And this is rapidly proliferating in our digital world.
It is great to seeing someone taking the fight to an over-reaching NSA. I am not sure how anyone who has read the 4th Amendment would deem this program to be anything but illegal. But to some extent legality is beside the point, because all repressive regimes ultimately align the law with their own interests. Slaughtering Jews was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany. In fact, it was illegal to inhibit the effort. Solzhenitsyn recounts the legal framework that Stalin used to execute the "great purge," in he which killed upwards of 20 million dissenters. World history is replete with ways in which repression can be executed ruthlessly under the cover of law. So perhaps law isn't the best defense against this program - though at this moment, it still appears to be a very valid one.
The bigger issue is the freedom that is at stake. The freedoms that we have enjoyed in the west since the Enlightenment assume a notion of privacy. The NSA is attempting to undercut the privacy for reasons that we don't know. They may be well-intentioned (protect us) or not (repress us). Ultimately it doesn't matter what the original intentions are/were, because once the system of surveillance is in place (as it already seems to be), the only pertinent question is what are the intentions of those in power "now." Unfortunately, those in power tend to place exceedingly high priority on the notion of staying in power. I fear the stage is set for turnkey tyranny should power fall into the wrong hands.
The bigger issue is the freedom that is at stake. The freedoms that we have enjoyed in the west since the Enlightenment assume a notion of privacy. The NSA is attempting to undercut the privacy for reasons that we don't know. They may be well-intentioned (protect us) or not (repress us). Ultimately it doesn't matter what the original intentions are/were, because once the system of surveillance is in place (as it already seems to be), the only pertinent question is what are the intentions of those in power "now." Unfortunately, those in power tend to place exceedingly high priority on the notion of staying in power. I fear the stage is set for turnkey tyranny should power fall into the wrong hands.
3
Good for the authors.
The problem is more insidious than that suffered just by Wikipedia editors and users. It's the classical problem that arises in any putatively free society when too much discretion is given to cops. Yes, I know, the NSA isn't the first organization that comes to mind when parsing a police power, but it's really the same thing.
I love cops. You have to admire people who every day put on the uniform and go out to try to impose order on a violent society forever on the edge of dissolving into chaos. But as much as I love them, I don't really trust them.
The NSA is like this, as well. Many of its people are patriots who sacrifice much, take great personal risks and work very hard to keep America safe from enemies that only the most blind contend aren't out there trying to do us harm. And the collective efforts of our intelligence agencies and our real cops, such as the FBI and state and local law enforcement, have done yeoman work at walking our walls at night while we sleep relatively safely.
But a cop will ALWAYS subordinate liberties held by the people to the need to impose order; and they clamor eternally for more power over the people to do so. It requires a strong executive to listen carefully to them, separate real dangers from potential ones and strike a rational balance.
For years now -- and this goes for Republican administrations as well as Democratic ones -- we haven't been well-served by our executives.
The problem is more insidious than that suffered just by Wikipedia editors and users. It's the classical problem that arises in any putatively free society when too much discretion is given to cops. Yes, I know, the NSA isn't the first organization that comes to mind when parsing a police power, but it's really the same thing.
I love cops. You have to admire people who every day put on the uniform and go out to try to impose order on a violent society forever on the edge of dissolving into chaos. But as much as I love them, I don't really trust them.
The NSA is like this, as well. Many of its people are patriots who sacrifice much, take great personal risks and work very hard to keep America safe from enemies that only the most blind contend aren't out there trying to do us harm. And the collective efforts of our intelligence agencies and our real cops, such as the FBI and state and local law enforcement, have done yeoman work at walking our walls at night while we sleep relatively safely.
But a cop will ALWAYS subordinate liberties held by the people to the need to impose order; and they clamor eternally for more power over the people to do so. It requires a strong executive to listen carefully to them, separate real dangers from potential ones and strike a rational balance.
For years now -- and this goes for Republican administrations as well as Democratic ones -- we haven't been well-served by our executives.
1
I'm curious at the number of people who don't seem to mind the government monitoring their internet activity and email. Would these same folks accept a state in which every personal letter they mail would have to be given daily to an NSA mail carrier, who would send it do a distribution center, where it would be opened by someone on the federal payroll, have all text scanned and analyzed by computers, resealed and sent on its way? I think not.
The question is not "if" such a system will be abused but *what* abuses have already occured. Never in the history of the world has the secret collection of private information by government powers not eventually been abused in substantial ways.
The question is not "if" such a system will be abused but *what* abuses have already occured. Never in the history of the world has the secret collection of private information by government powers not eventually been abused in substantial ways.
3
It is time we wake up to the threat that the NSA posses to our basic freedoms. The 4th Amendment has become a hollowed shell of its intended protections, and there appears to be no elected representative who has the courage to accept the challenge to reverse the tide that the "Patriot Act" (what an irony that title slaps us with), confronts the American people with in the name of "security."
The only thing more appalling than the lose of our freedoms is the apathy with which we have all accepted it.
Earl Hall, Ithaca, NY (just to make it easier for our friends at NSA)
The only thing more appalling than the lose of our freedoms is the apathy with which we have all accepted it.
Earl Hall, Ithaca, NY (just to make it easier for our friends at NSA)
2
Unfortunately we do not live in 1776 any longer. If people wish to publish accurate articles about how to build small nuclear devices that can be hidden in shipping containers and delivered to a port such as New York or Los Angeles, or introduce the poison ricin into a public water system, or create "pressure cooker" bombs, then it is a legitimate and societally useful activity to monitor who might be reading such articles. And you'd better hope that the NSA is successful.
These are interesting examples because the difficulty in building an atomic bomb or poisoning a water supply or creating a shrapnel-producing explosive is mainly in obtain the materials, not in finding a workable design. That's why we strictly control the sale of explosives, poisons, and nuclear materials and we don't embargo encyclopedias.
1
While the authors' opinion is sensible and the lawsuit is not a bad thing for democracy, the ultimate protection here--as elsewhere in the internet--must be in the hands of the netizens themselves, protecting their rights through encryption and other counter-surveillance measures. It is good for our public governance that the plaintiffs go forward with this legal action, but there is no assurance that we can trust the judiciary to arrive at the right answer. There is only one thing we can trust, as encryption expert Bruce Schneier has counseled: "Trust the math."
2
Somebody should build a 'scrambler'. Some kind of bot that randomly searches the internet and comments on stuff so that what we are doing as humans is lost in the noise of the bot.
1
It should use all of the keywords the NSA and their brethren focus on. You know, like bomb or slaughter. Think of what fun that would be to watch the spy's chasing their tails. What a hoot.
Jimmy, you will lack standing to fight NSA. Firstly, you are not personally harmed in that your posts were not monitored by NSA and shared with foreign governments. The person in Egypt or China posing on Wikipedia through networks like TOR may have standing IF they can show that their posts were monitored unlawfully and shared with their governments, leading to harm.
You are wasting your time.
You are wasting your time.
Another poster had a great idea, if it's viable; can others, as in "every" aggrieved citizen, be a party to the lawsuit ??
Wouldn't that be cause for summary judgment, a kind of fait accompli, which a court could not ignore, especially since we all have standing given that everyone's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated...
Wouldn't that be cause for summary judgment, a kind of fait accompli, which a court could not ignore, especially since we all have standing given that everyone's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated...
3
Mel: Evidence of Fourth Amendment rights violation, please.
1
This is why Hillary had a secret e-mail account ..... spying eyes everywhere.
1
When they are watching you, who is watching them?
I have no fear of NSA surveillance. Indeed, it must be strengthened.
They have no, as in zero, interest in your personal likes and dislikes -- until the trail leads to a serious concern that you might be involved with those who would do us massive harm. The rest is dross and is ignored.
That is exactly what I want the defenders of our Nation to do. To extrapolate their concern about, and hunt for, our enemies to a fear that their activities will be used politically is ludicrous paranoia.
"Privacy is a fundamental right." Oh? Exactly where is that guaranteed -- not implied, but specifically itemized -- in our Constitution? You worry about NSA tracking your users? Google is doing that now. Every Google search result link actually first links to Google, who then records the details of when/who/where. That is a tiny part of what commercial data aggregators accumulate on every Internet user, every moment -- and that they sell to those who prey upon you financially, enticing you to buy, buy, buy.
Wales: You run a great repository; I use it daily. Stick to what you know, and let our protective services do their jobs without this meaningless whining. You solicit public support so that Wikipedia may remain advertising free. But wasting those funds on this quixotic quest . . . I won't be contributing next year.
They have no, as in zero, interest in your personal likes and dislikes -- until the trail leads to a serious concern that you might be involved with those who would do us massive harm. The rest is dross and is ignored.
That is exactly what I want the defenders of our Nation to do. To extrapolate their concern about, and hunt for, our enemies to a fear that their activities will be used politically is ludicrous paranoia.
"Privacy is a fundamental right." Oh? Exactly where is that guaranteed -- not implied, but specifically itemized -- in our Constitution? You worry about NSA tracking your users? Google is doing that now. Every Google search result link actually first links to Google, who then records the details of when/who/where. That is a tiny part of what commercial data aggregators accumulate on every Internet user, every moment -- and that they sell to those who prey upon you financially, enticing you to buy, buy, buy.
Wales: You run a great repository; I use it daily. Stick to what you know, and let our protective services do their jobs without this meaningless whining. You solicit public support so that Wikipedia may remain advertising free. But wasting those funds on this quixotic quest . . . I won't be contributing next year.
3
This is an interesting post you made NeverLift. What I find most interesting is that you assure us the NSA is doing no harm at all, but then tell us a LEGAL entity, Google, by LEGAL action is " tracking us...Every Google search result link actually first links to Google, who then records the details of when/who/where. That is a tiny part of what commercial data aggregators accumulate on every Internet user, every moment -- and that they sell to those who prey upon you financially, enticing you to buy, buy, buy.
If a legal entity Google, by legal activity is doing what you admit to being questionable, then why would you have no fear of the NSA, a legal entity doing something of the same? Answer: You either know nothing of the NSA or you are a biased supporter of that type of entity (military and inevitable Republican connection) and not an entity such as Google...
But this is what I like best about your post. After assuring us we should have no fear of the NSA, that we are just being paranoid for wondering about such, you say with respect to privacy being a fundamental right." Oh? Exactly where is that guaranteed -- not implied, but specifically itemized -- in our Constitution?"
I guess I can trust you not to meddle in my private life.
If a legal entity Google, by legal activity is doing what you admit to being questionable, then why would you have no fear of the NSA, a legal entity doing something of the same? Answer: You either know nothing of the NSA or you are a biased supporter of that type of entity (military and inevitable Republican connection) and not an entity such as Google...
But this is what I like best about your post. After assuring us we should have no fear of the NSA, that we are just being paranoid for wondering about such, you say with respect to privacy being a fundamental right." Oh? Exactly where is that guaranteed -- not implied, but specifically itemized -- in our Constitution?"
I guess I can trust you not to meddle in my private life.
Yes, NSA has "zero, interest in your personal likes and dislikes" except when NSA staff passes around explicit pictures that they intercept, for amusement. It appears you have not read any news at all for the past 4 years.
Whether privacy is explicitly stated in the Constitution or not is irrelevant; it has been repeatedly upheld and guaranteed as a right by the SCOTUS. You cannot simply wipe away legal precedents.
Google (and a million other companies) are tracking the users as well. But if you read their privacy policy, they tell you that they are doing to collect information on you and what they will do with it. You agree to those terms every time you use those web sites. I don't recall receiving a privacy policy from NSA. Perhaps you have?
Whether privacy is explicitly stated in the Constitution or not is irrelevant; it has been repeatedly upheld and guaranteed as a right by the SCOTUS. You cannot simply wipe away legal precedents.
Google (and a million other companies) are tracking the users as well. But if you read their privacy policy, they tell you that they are doing to collect information on you and what they will do with it. You agree to those terms every time you use those web sites. I don't recall receiving a privacy policy from NSA. Perhaps you have?
1
Yes, the well-used argument along the lines "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and "trust us, it's for your own good".
3
So imagine, now, a Wikipedia user in Egypt who wants to edit a page about government opposition or discuss it with fellow editors. If that user knows the N.S.A. is routinely combing through her contributions to Wikipedia, and possibly SHARING INFORMATION WITH HER GOVERNMENT, she will surely be less likely to add her knowledge or have that conversation, for fear of reprisal.
---------------------------------------
Jimmy Wales' arguments are as hollow as information contributed by some of the 'authors' who may have a vested interest. Why would he assume that NSA is sharing intelligence about who authors information on Wikipedia?
What if ISIS myrmidon posts some questionable information to entice lone-wolf attackers in the United States? NSA is within its rights to monitor ALL foreign communication flowing through USA based servers.
If Jimmy does not like what is going on, let him move his servers to Brazil or any other country that is not likely to intrude upon the authorship of questionable articles showing up on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is nothing but crowd-sourced mediocrity.
---------------------------------------
Jimmy Wales' arguments are as hollow as information contributed by some of the 'authors' who may have a vested interest. Why would he assume that NSA is sharing intelligence about who authors information on Wikipedia?
What if ISIS myrmidon posts some questionable information to entice lone-wolf attackers in the United States? NSA is within its rights to monitor ALL foreign communication flowing through USA based servers.
If Jimmy does not like what is going on, let him move his servers to Brazil or any other country that is not likely to intrude upon the authorship of questionable articles showing up on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is nothing but crowd-sourced mediocrity.
1
Dan, the line is drawn in the U.S. Constitution. It does not address the right to survive, but does address freedom of expression, which leads to a more pleasant survival period.
2
This lawsuit is just plain silly. Most American post more information on their social media pages than the NSA can gather from what they are looking on the internet. So before you get on your high horse and preach about the needs for privacy, and free exchange of information, please make sure you've 'liked' and 'disliked' yourself off of these other public forums. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. If you're going to make the argument that you want people to know you're into some things, and don't want people to know that you're into others, than congratulations on your deception, and leading of a double life. And if that double life is potentially harmful to others - I hope the NSA discovers you.
1
Do your friends know EVERYthing you're "into"?? Just asking.
I am not on any of the pages you discuss. I am not a hypocrite. I believe the NSA is so out of bounds as to be a danger to we the people. A basic tenet of our system is that the government in all its power must prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt. That's why they need a warrant to enter your home, no matter how clear it is to them at that moment that something bad is happening. That's why criminal trials determine guilt, not innocence. This is why many white americans find solidarity with their fellow black citizens who are targeted by the police for sitting on bus stops. And that sir, is why NSA has no right to do what they have done. And if you do not understand this, then you have misinterpreted the principals our government is founded upon.
How about those of us who do not use social media? Aren't we entitled to a right to privacy? I we want you or anyone else to know what we are reading or writing we'll call you up or meet over drinks to talk about it. Tell the NSA/Big Brother/DHS/CIA/local cops etc. to stay the heck out of our lives! End of discussion.
Mr. Wales' and Ms. Tretikov's column asserts that the NSA can and does monitor all international communications through Wikipedia's servers in the US. The lawsuit appears to be limited to such transactions.
In order to do this, the NSA must be able to sort through all Wikipedia communications and to exclude or ignore all that are purely domestic. While I understand the need to keep the lawsuit's focus narrow, I do not believe for a minute that the NSA scrupulously refrains from domestic spying and destroys billions of records without peeking at their content.
In order to do this, the NSA must be able to sort through all Wikipedia communications and to exclude or ignore all that are purely domestic. While I understand the need to keep the lawsuit's focus narrow, I do not believe for a minute that the NSA scrupulously refrains from domestic spying and destroys billions of records without peeking at their content.
4
Public libraries monitored and patrons reading checkout selections are profiled for various gov. agencies uses. No great stretch that huge reservoirs of public accessible information are and will continue to be monitored and visitors profiled based on information subject.
2
Unfortunately, the NSA's leadership is so determined to spy on everyone and everything that no court, no government will be able to control it. Just as James Clapper lied to Congress with a straight face, it will not comply with any court order to stop spying. No court order, no matter how strongly worded, will be enforceable because only the NSA can know whether it is complying. Even if NSA agreed to comply, it would be just another deception, since whatever a court forbids NSA to do, it will simply arrange with GCHQ to do instead. It has already been doing such things for years.
There is a definite need for top-notch intelligence, including sigint. But NSA has become a monster, completely out of control. Short of dismantling it (which NSA knows will never happen), there is no way any legislation or court ruling will ever bring it under control. Obama, as the head of the Executive Branch, has authority over NSA, yet if he were to order it to curtail its ubiquitous surveillance, his order would simply be ignored.
There is a definite need for top-notch intelligence, including sigint. But NSA has become a monster, completely out of control. Short of dismantling it (which NSA knows will never happen), there is no way any legislation or court ruling will ever bring it under control. Obama, as the head of the Executive Branch, has authority over NSA, yet if he were to order it to curtail its ubiquitous surveillance, his order would simply be ignored.
4
One wonders if the FTC's new regulation of the internet is meant to be a stop-gap should the courts order the NSA to cease their spying activities.
2
The latest Snowden revelation was made by the Intercept yesterday, and picked up by the Guardian, and not yet by The NY Times - And this is a beaut, and incredibly presumptuous of the CIA, but I suppose they believe, or "know" they can do wrong ...
Excerpt and Link -
"RESEARCHERS WORKING with the Central Intelligence Agency have conducted a multi-year, sustained effort to break the security of Apple’s iPhones and iPads, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Intercept.
The security researchers presented their latest tactics and achievements at a secret annual gathering, called the “Jamboree,” where attendees discussed strategies for exploiting security flaws in household and commercial electronics. The conferences have spanned nearly a decade, with the first CIA-sponsored meeting taking place a year before the first iPhone was released."
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/ispy-cia-campaign-steal-ap...
Excerpt and Link -
"RESEARCHERS WORKING with the Central Intelligence Agency have conducted a multi-year, sustained effort to break the security of Apple’s iPhones and iPads, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Intercept.
The security researchers presented their latest tactics and achievements at a secret annual gathering, called the “Jamboree,” where attendees discussed strategies for exploiting security flaws in household and commercial electronics. The conferences have spanned nearly a decade, with the first CIA-sponsored meeting taking place a year before the first iPhone was released."
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/ispy-cia-campaign-steal-ap...
9
While almost everyone, everywhere would like to live a peaceful life, free of crime, terrorist attacks and fear of catastrophic war, history demonstrates that there have always been some people who do not share this desire. They are those who would subjugate others, terrorize others and victimize others to satisfy their own ideologies, ambitions and greed.
In part, governments big and small have been created by the many to protect themselves against those who wish to harm them. Detection, conviction and punishment after the fact have been the historical norm, but what most people really want is prevention.
Absent hiring public safety personnel skilled in mental telepathy, governments who are trying to prevent crimes, terrorism and war must rely on whatever means are at hand to ferret out harmful intentions by others. This has taken many forms over the years but the need has not changed, only the methods.
Whether this lawsuit is successful or not the bad guys will still be there. What actions do Mr. Wales and the ACLU recommend in lieu of the practices targeted by their lawsuit that would provide a similar chance of preventing harm to our citizens?
In part, governments big and small have been created by the many to protect themselves against those who wish to harm them. Detection, conviction and punishment after the fact have been the historical norm, but what most people really want is prevention.
Absent hiring public safety personnel skilled in mental telepathy, governments who are trying to prevent crimes, terrorism and war must rely on whatever means are at hand to ferret out harmful intentions by others. This has taken many forms over the years but the need has not changed, only the methods.
Whether this lawsuit is successful or not the bad guys will still be there. What actions do Mr. Wales and the ACLU recommend in lieu of the practices targeted by their lawsuit that would provide a similar chance of preventing harm to our citizens?
3
"A country that gives up its liberty for a little security deserves neither."
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
12
while "what most people want is prevention," that desire has nothing to do with our system of government, laws or judiciary. Our system requires that the govt build a case against an individual or group, catch them in a crime, etc. Then and only then can the govt prosecute. It's not based on sentiments concerning individual's feelings about personal safety.
I am a US citizen and an inveterate Wikipedia user and financial contributor. In this suit you do not speak for me. Our right to privacy is in some cases secondary to the need to protect the nation.
5
Why do you demand the government protect you from shadowy foreign terrorists, but not from domestic armed fellow-citizens, or from auto accidents, or domestic accidents, or lightning strikes, or crippling medical bills, or any of the other 100 things more likely to threaten your well-being?
Your unreasonable fear of harm at the hands of ISIS members who lack the resources and capability to project threat on US soil is something you need to work out for yourself, and may require you find less hysterical and fixated news sources. It should not override the constitutional rights that previous generations of Americans fought and died to preserve.
Your unreasonable fear of harm at the hands of ISIS members who lack the resources and capability to project threat on US soil is something you need to work out for yourself, and may require you find less hysterical and fixated news sources. It should not override the constitutional rights that previous generations of Americans fought and died to preserve.
17
The nice thing is that the Bill of Rights protects everyone even if some of us are ready to give those rights away.
Phil: Because it's the government's job to protect us from foreign invaders. That's the point of a government, way before nanny state and all that.
If a person goes into a library and checks out a book, the library will not reveal to another who checked the book out. So how is it that we are under surveillance every day, by gps and digital means.
6
As I remember this is precisely what happened to Monika Lewinsky, the Great Inquisitor Kenneth Starr subpoenaed her library records.
1
Because the internet is inherently open?
The library does not keep records of who checked out what, once the book is returned.
I support this lawsuit.
12
Once again the lawyers profits over public panic over curtailment of the right to privacy in the interest of national security. The public's fascination with Snowden's need to remain front page news is ridiculous. Obama's new policies regarding cybersecurity are already addressing these issues. Meantime, the taxpayers will pay for another unnecessary federal lawsuit instead of waiting for policies to be implemented.
5
If you think this is only about lawyers profits, which sounds like a joke all on its own, I don't think you understand why what the NSA is doing is problematic. "The public's fascination with Snowden" is not nearly enough because for every one person who understands the importance of what he did, there are 10 people like you claiming that you have nothing to hide, and why should we care?
Feel free to watch this talk by Glenn Greenwald about why privacy matters:http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters?language=en
And by the way, one of the most important things to Snowden (which Greenwald actually mentions in his talk) was to stay out of the public light so that people focused on the issue at hand, not on him as a personality. So your assertion about "Snowden's need to remain front page news" is the thing that's ridiculous here, in addition to your woefully uninformed opinion of how effective Obama's new policies are going to be.
Feel free to watch this talk by Glenn Greenwald about why privacy matters:http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters?language=en
And by the way, one of the most important things to Snowden (which Greenwald actually mentions in his talk) was to stay out of the public light so that people focused on the issue at hand, not on him as a personality. So your assertion about "Snowden's need to remain front page news" is the thing that's ridiculous here, in addition to your woefully uninformed opinion of how effective Obama's new policies are going to be.
9
“Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.”
- Ronald Reagan
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
- Henry Kissinger
---
If this suit has feet, expect a long walk to the SCOTUS.
- Ronald Reagan
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
- Henry Kissinger
---
If this suit has feet, expect a long walk to the SCOTUS.
8
Where's my checkbook? Time to reup my donations to Wikipedia and ACLU.
17
Agreed, I proscratined long enough. But I will use a credit card instead, this will make tracing my gift it even easier.
3
The NSA cannot protect us from harm, neither can the CIA or our Military. This destructive meme somehow has infected journalists who hold politicians to unreasonable standards. The fear of unreasonable accountability drives a lot of this wretched excess, overreach and plain illegality. The important thing is our freedoms, and we should not trade them away thru inaction.
All the NSA can do is connect dots AFTER the fact. As was demonstrated in Boston. No agency, however ubiquitous, can ever become Pre-Crime. In a country where 11,000 citizens die unnecessarily from gun violence each year, or 45,000 die unnecessarily from lack of access to preventative care, how can we continue to allow the corporate media to throw ISIS in our faces night after night after wearying night? Just so that their paymasters can continue to feed at the $4 trillion WOT trough?
Our response to 9/11 has been farcical. All our activity in the Middle East has just helped create the enemies we sought to marginalize. Bush helped birth ISIS and Obama incubated it. Our military is just a gas can, poured on so many fires. All the pundits on the mainstream media have skin in the game, whether self-declared terrorism experts, retired generals now lobbyists, neocon politicians (from both sides of the aisle), or, perhaps most ridiculous of all, Peter King, a former IRA supporter. The American public need to wake up.
All the NSA can do is connect dots AFTER the fact. As was demonstrated in Boston. No agency, however ubiquitous, can ever become Pre-Crime. In a country where 11,000 citizens die unnecessarily from gun violence each year, or 45,000 die unnecessarily from lack of access to preventative care, how can we continue to allow the corporate media to throw ISIS in our faces night after night after wearying night? Just so that their paymasters can continue to feed at the $4 trillion WOT trough?
Our response to 9/11 has been farcical. All our activity in the Middle East has just helped create the enemies we sought to marginalize. Bush helped birth ISIS and Obama incubated it. Our military is just a gas can, poured on so many fires. All the pundits on the mainstream media have skin in the game, whether self-declared terrorism experts, retired generals now lobbyists, neocon politicians (from both sides of the aisle), or, perhaps most ridiculous of all, Peter King, a former IRA supporter. The American public need to wake up.
26
Spying on Wikipedia is just the voyeurism of the extremely distracted misapplied minds given a task which they know not how to accomplish. The N.S.A. employs very smart people but ignorance treats us all the same, all are baffled and lost when it comes to what is outside of our understanding. The dull mind seeks to grab a hold of some pattern with which it has become familiar by looking and listening at everything around, because it does not know how to address the problem is must solve, so it seeks someplace to start, anyplace. The justification is the purpose given and the total lack of appreciation of how to achieve it. It is just a hit or miss approach that makes no other sense.
3
We need to remake THIS country safe for Democracy because it's lost.
If it's not the rich buying elections and their own representatives, it's their packaging us into a national security police state for money and power and trying to sell us the idea that it's about freedom. The only freedom they really care about is the free market economy.
We shouldn't be forced to go to court when elected officials have already sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - not the creepy 'Homeland' or the 'national interests' of Wall Street. But that's what we're forced to do, however futile.
The legal system does not work when it comes to our own government's actions. They own the courts by virtue of having devised secret laws, secret courts, and hiding everything that can be useful in court as State Secrets. They win court cases by invoking State Secrets, denying us legal standing, and lying and denying that evidence even exists. Edward Snowden gave us proof of that. That's REALLY why they hate him.
They have secrets on everyone, including circuit judges and Supreme Court justices. You'd think THEY'D be speaking up, wouldn't you? Secrets are power and someday, if not already, they will be used when absolutely needed. As Lord Acton observed, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Always has, always will.
I rest my case - in the only court that really works, the court of public opinion.
If it's not the rich buying elections and their own representatives, it's their packaging us into a national security police state for money and power and trying to sell us the idea that it's about freedom. The only freedom they really care about is the free market economy.
We shouldn't be forced to go to court when elected officials have already sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - not the creepy 'Homeland' or the 'national interests' of Wall Street. But that's what we're forced to do, however futile.
The legal system does not work when it comes to our own government's actions. They own the courts by virtue of having devised secret laws, secret courts, and hiding everything that can be useful in court as State Secrets. They win court cases by invoking State Secrets, denying us legal standing, and lying and denying that evidence even exists. Edward Snowden gave us proof of that. That's REALLY why they hate him.
They have secrets on everyone, including circuit judges and Supreme Court justices. You'd think THEY'D be speaking up, wouldn't you? Secrets are power and someday, if not already, they will be used when absolutely needed. As Lord Acton observed, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Always has, always will.
I rest my case - in the only court that really works, the court of public opinion.
27
I have rather mixed feelings here. Before September 11, 2001, computer scientists under contract with the Department of Justice were working on methods used by pedophiles to hide and disseminate child pornography over the Internet and within benign commercial websites using common steganography tools like pict encrypt to conceal child porn under a picture of something for sale. Like a lawn mower for example. In fact that same method was used by Ramzi Binashibh to send messages to the hijackers living in the US both before and after 9/11. In the case of 9/11 the benign website was a stock photography company based outside the US who routinely received thousands of innocent hits daily.The US may have had no knowledge of its clandestine use before hand. But it was most assuredly the source which led to the capture of both Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the "safe drop" remained functional. Where do we draw the line between freedom of expression and the right to survive?
19
After 911 our representatives in Washington drafted and approved FISA. The majority of the body politic wanted to stop Terrorism in its tracks and voted that way with FISA as the best known means.
People, we as a nation voted to do this....We, YOU and I asked for it...now we have it....Please try to understand that our "freedoms" as drafted in a pre 911 age are not what "freedoms" are in a post 911 age. You need to insert context into your reading of the 1st amendment unless you are a strict "Scalia" origionalist.
People, we as a nation voted to do this....We, YOU and I asked for it...now we have it....Please try to understand that our "freedoms" as drafted in a pre 911 age are not what "freedoms" are in a post 911 age. You need to insert context into your reading of the 1st amendment unless you are a strict "Scalia" origionalist.
3
Sorry, but the majority of the body politic didn't "ask" for this. It was foisted on us.
Personally, I never believed the terrorist (small "t") threat was as grave as our manipulative leaders made it our to be. I also don't believe that all the heightened security measures do much to protect us overall. But since you apparently have swallowed the bait whole, I refer you to the following quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Personally, I never believed the terrorist (small "t") threat was as grave as our manipulative leaders made it our to be. I also don't believe that all the heightened security measures do much to protect us overall. But since you apparently have swallowed the bait whole, I refer you to the following quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
I sure didn't choose to have a police state instead of a democracy. I spent not one moment after 9-11 being afraid.
This story reveals outrageous spying by the NSA and violation of freedom and constitutional rights. As a wikipedia user I feel vulnerable.
11
Its never been about monitoring terrorists- criminals are easy to find.
Informed dissent is much more dangerous.
Informed dissent is much more dangerous.
21
It has never been about catching terrorists, despite the 9/11 meme being dredged up every time to justify their actions. It has always been about keeping tabs on the population and refining the means to control them.
3
Thank you.
7
I don't think many people really understand what the NSA is doing in situations like this. The NSA is looking to connect the dots in ways that were missed prior to 9/11.
There is no monitoring of any individual's specific internet activity. That would be practically impossible given the sheer volume of information. Instead there is the collection of huge amounts of data with computer algorithms used to look for potentially suspicious connections. Perhaps if someone is searching Wikipedia for "improvised explosives" and also exchanging e-mails with a person in Yemen that would generate a flag for further investigation. (I suspect the NSA algorithms are more complex than this simplistic example.)
For all practical purposes nothing but a computer will ever see your internet activity. Could this be abused? Yes, we have plenty of evidence of IRS and State Dept employees viewing personal data on citizens for which they were not authorized. But the answer is to punish those violating the law, not shutting down the entire program.
There is no monitoring of any individual's specific internet activity. That would be practically impossible given the sheer volume of information. Instead there is the collection of huge amounts of data with computer algorithms used to look for potentially suspicious connections. Perhaps if someone is searching Wikipedia for "improvised explosives" and also exchanging e-mails with a person in Yemen that would generate a flag for further investigation. (I suspect the NSA algorithms are more complex than this simplistic example.)
For all practical purposes nothing but a computer will ever see your internet activity. Could this be abused? Yes, we have plenty of evidence of IRS and State Dept employees viewing personal data on citizens for which they were not authorized. But the answer is to punish those violating the law, not shutting down the entire program.
38
But the end of the day, the government is still clearly violating the text of the 4th Amendment (and was lying about it too, until outed by Snowden). You're really just arguing that it should permitted to do so because its motives are trustworthy.
13
"There is no monitoring of any individual's specific internet activity. That would be practically impossible given the sheer volume of information."
Actually, the NSA's XKEYSCORE system is set up to do precisely that. An analyst can use "selectors" to query for an individual's activity across a vast amount of ingested data. Check out http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-onli...
Actually, the NSA's XKEYSCORE system is set up to do precisely that. An analyst can use "selectors" to query for an individual's activity across a vast amount of ingested data. Check out http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-onli...
The technology exists. Google uses it every day. Try this experiment: go out and do some searches that have nothing to do with your normal daily activities (preferably from someplace you do not even normally connect from). Wait about an hour. Now visit a website and notice the ads you are served. Notice any relationship?
The ability to find and correlate individuals from their web activity exists and it can be done remarkably fast today.
The ability to find and correlate individuals from their web activity exists and it can be done remarkably fast today.
As with most complex social issues, the extremes are very easy to agree or disagree with. Unfortunately, the answer always lies in the murky middle. The real problem here is that we have to do both; protect our constitutional rights and protect our lives. The stakes are too high for protracted, emotional arguments.
2
Not that again. I think it was safely assumed for several decades that the government would have back doors to the internet. After all they funded it, directed its design, and had access to the source code for the communications protocols. As an IT professional, I remember well the rumors going around in the early 90s after the first anti-trust suit against Microsoft was settled with a slap on the wrist: around the same time, Microsoft dropped its own network protocols for the suite of the internet protocols. The only company that actually had the market presence to force a move away from the government-originated standard (which was not all widely accepted at the time) did an unprecedented, for the time, 180-degree turn. And not coincidentally carried the market with it. I'm no conspiracy theorist. But some things make you wonder. As for the lawsuit, no, it is too late in the day for that.
2
Thank you Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov for reminding us that "[o]ne of the documents revealed by the whistle-blower Edward J. Snowden specifically identified Wikipedia as a target for surveillance, alongside several other major websites like CNN.com, Gmail and Facebook."
Americans need to be regularly reminded that there is no freedom of expression when everything you write and read -- including this post -- is being monitored by the government.
We also need to be regularly reminded that we have Edward Snowden to thank for allowing us to have this conversation. It's time for the country to rise up and insist that Snowden be pardoned so that he can return home. It's a crime that he has been forced into exile for telling the truth.
Americans need to be regularly reminded that there is no freedom of expression when everything you write and read -- including this post -- is being monitored by the government.
We also need to be regularly reminded that we have Edward Snowden to thank for allowing us to have this conversation. It's time for the country to rise up and insist that Snowden be pardoned so that he can return home. It's a crime that he has been forced into exile for telling the truth.
22
This really hits home! I am an avid user of Wikipedia and have never thought that the government, through NSA, was spying on me while I am researching something on the website.
The government will have to prove that my recent research on the early Christian church fathers is a valid infringement on my rights.
God help them!
The government will have to prove that my recent research on the early Christian church fathers is a valid infringement on my rights.
God help them!
7
Stop spying on Americans without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Start spying on Americans with reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Stop big open net wasteful trawling and start focused fishing as the preferred method of spying.
The failures to detect both attacks on the World Trade Center and the attacks on the American embassies in Africa stemmed from incompetence and negligence.
There is no need to violate our Constitutional freedoms and liberties in order to provide us with a reasonably competent professional level of security.
Thank you Wikipedia.
Start spying on Americans with reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Stop big open net wasteful trawling and start focused fishing as the preferred method of spying.
The failures to detect both attacks on the World Trade Center and the attacks on the American embassies in Africa stemmed from incompetence and negligence.
There is no need to violate our Constitutional freedoms and liberties in order to provide us with a reasonably competent professional level of security.
Thank you Wikipedia.
21
Go gettem folks!!!
You are my new heroes.
You are my new heroes.
10
Just think: our taxes are being spent, in part, monitoring the multiple e-mail discussions my play-for-the-fun-of-it band, Fortune's Ridge, is having trying to decide what songs we're going to play at our next (non-paying) gig-and we use Wikipedia to look up the song writers to give them credit before we play a given song. Don't you feel safer knowing the NSA knows our set list? I sometimes wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought of the NSA, TSA, and the Robert's SCOTUS. Maybe we'd still be a UK colony...
9
David: No one is monitoring your personal emails.
The level of narcissism here is astounding.
The level of narcissism here is astounding.
1
I applaud the efforts of Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov. I am appalled at the casual acceptance by the American people of the vast over-reach by the NSA.
If the 1st, and 4th Amendment, client-lawyer privilege, and client-doctor privilege are to have any meaning the NSA must be stopped. I am puzzled by other comments that accept searches of email and on-line activity. Would these same people accept police daily searching their house to determine if there is any "illegal activity?" I think not. It wasn't many decades ago that Americans laid down their lives to defeat totalitarian governments.
In the American form of government, power is derived from the people. Daily warrent-less searching of online activities strongly tilts the power dynamic in favor of the government ... it threatens democracy ... it must be stopped.
If the 1st, and 4th Amendment, client-lawyer privilege, and client-doctor privilege are to have any meaning the NSA must be stopped. I am puzzled by other comments that accept searches of email and on-line activity. Would these same people accept police daily searching their house to determine if there is any "illegal activity?" I think not. It wasn't many decades ago that Americans laid down their lives to defeat totalitarian governments.
In the American form of government, power is derived from the people. Daily warrent-less searching of online activities strongly tilts the power dynamic in favor of the government ... it threatens democracy ... it must be stopped.
154
"I am appalled at the casual acceptance by the American people of the vast over-reach by the NSA." You should be appalled, RichL, but not at the NSA, be appalled at the American people for their "casual acceptance" of governmental wrongdoing. That same "casual acceptance" led to our dysfunctional government and our current oligarchy; American are blithely giving away their rights. That's what's truly appalling.
4
I regret that the generation that are in positions of responsibility today are of the generation who do not have possess the political nor mature understanding or interest of their fathers or grandfathers. Since 2001, Americans have totally lost their moral courage and cower in collective fear of losing their material possessions and do not care for the collective good of the nation. I am glad Ieft and sorry not to see the back of this country I don't recognise any longer.
1
I'm an artist and I've known 4 other artists visited by the DoHS in the last 2 years for simply and innocuously photographing in public urban areas, They were either seen on some sort of surveillance or turned in by an anonymous call from an over anxious citizen. Nothing occurred further from the visits, 2 of which were to their parents homes (as they were younger - in art school) but as a result now all of my friends feel intimidated to take pictures, not just these 4. I wonder how many more people have been stopped or visited in other cities. I can't think of a time in the history of this country where these conditions existed. I can think of lot's of other situations in history where it did.
Like Wikipedia users, we are all free citizens, we all have a right to privacy for our ideas and need to feel free to express them. This includes the collection and exhibition of information and images of this country and the world. Even just knowing that it's possible for your expression to be monitored will stop you from writing. I've seen first hand how easy it is to erode this liberty, and realize now that it takes much more work and vigilance to keep it alive.
Like Wikipedia users, we are all free citizens, we all have a right to privacy for our ideas and need to feel free to express them. This includes the collection and exhibition of information and images of this country and the world. Even just knowing that it's possible for your expression to be monitored will stop you from writing. I've seen first hand how easy it is to erode this liberty, and realize now that it takes much more work and vigilance to keep it alive.
126
"They were either seen on some sort of surveillance or turned in by an anonymous call from an over anxious citizen. Nothing occurred further from the visits,"
Perfect. That's exactly how a call from a concerned citizen should be handled. A quiet, non-threatening inquiry, no foul found, no harm done, case closed.
Were they, perhaps, photographing children at play in a park? Roads accessing government buildings? Faces of policemen? I can think of dozens of "innocent" photographer activities that would have me reaching for a phone.
Perfect. That's exactly how a call from a concerned citizen should be handled. A quiet, non-threatening inquiry, no foul found, no harm done, case closed.
Were they, perhaps, photographing children at play in a park? Roads accessing government buildings? Faces of policemen? I can think of dozens of "innocent" photographer activities that would have me reaching for a phone.
1
Sorry Owen, but your idea of privacy is completely one-sided. I work in a neighborhood that attracts a lot of tourists - all constantly photographing everything in sight. It is impossible for me to get to work without getting into at least a few photographs of strangers every day and I'm not entirely comfortable with that. How do I know what they will do with those photographs of me? Where are my rights? If my job was a sensitive position in the government or finance and I noticed one of those cameras being intentionally pointed at me (or my office), you better believe that I would contact the DoHS because I know that saying something to a local cop would be useless.
Doing anything in public comes with tremendous risk as well as responsibility. Police are not only allowed, but encouraged to specifically watch anyone who looks suspicious and the internet is a new virtually public space in many respects.
Doing anything in public comes with tremendous risk as well as responsibility. Police are not only allowed, but encouraged to specifically watch anyone who looks suspicious and the internet is a new virtually public space in many respects.
1
Exactly!
What we need is internet privacy - from everyone, particularly profit-seekers. Push technology should be outlawed and only those we choose should be able to access OUR hardware and software - just as we are protected from eavesdropping on our land line phone calls. With the unregulated internet every move we make is up for grabs to the highest bidder and companies have spying software attached to all the electronic devices WE purchase in our homes and lives. It all needs to be reined in.
3
The despicable NSA lead by the goon Clapper. You go, Wiki.
1
There is a reason the massive N.S.A collection center is located near Salt Lake City, Utah. Mormons are collecting data, and hacking many social media programs to do so - disqus and the NYT comment section are prime targets. They monitor your Wikipedia use, too, Mr. Wales. But then, you already know how much of the Internet Mormon moneyed-interests control, right, Mr. Wales?
1
Monitoring, collecting, collating and archiving information on our own citizens is not what our government should be doing to us. It may make some people sleep better at night, but in the end it is a dangerous path. The Nazi's kept great records too. It is not so much about what they spies claim they want to achieve - they have righteous and lofty goals to protect American interest. It is the unfortunate reality of what happens when people spy on each other that is the problem. We all become collateral damage. Our sleuths can learn many things and use them for other purposes later. I don't think the Wiki lawsuit has even a remote chance at shutting this down, but it continues what Snowden and other whistleblowers started. It keeps the issue in the spotlight and continues to remind the dozing public they are not secure from their own government.
12
I didn't even know that our government was monitoring Wikipedia, but it seems like a good idea to me. I don't understand all the paranoia out there. Look how inept we are at other things like protecting the president, IRS losing hundreds if not thousands of emails, no one even knowing that Hillary was using a private email account, us giving guns to Mexican warlords without the justice department knowing. I could go on and on, and you are worried that some low levle government employee might be monitoring your use of a website? Get over it, in the big scheme of things, this is totally meaningless.
2
This story could be about the UCLA also because it has done many good things to keep America free Pro Bono. This one that is telling the NSA to back off its surveillance of Wikipedia volunteers is another proud example.
Look, people, do you want protection from a host of enemies that are among us, or do you want chaos? As for privacy, all of us know that when we enter the public arena, many of those privacy rights do not apply. When you go out on Wiki, you are in public, whether you like it or not and your personal privacy is not relevant.
I never did think that I would see the day when America was lawless, but we are fast approaching that state of affairs, thanks to a libertarian definition of freedom without restraint -- and responsibility.
I never did think that I would see the day when America was lawless, but we are fast approaching that state of affairs, thanks to a libertarian definition of freedom without restraint -- and responsibility.
2
It appears that the member activity pages are encrypted using SSL, so I'm not sure what the author's are complaining about (unless the NSA can crack SSL).
I have a user login, but I'm not a contributor. Reading pages is certainly not encrypted, but the edit and history pages are. This should protect the authors.
I have a user login, but I'm not a contributor. Reading pages is certainly not encrypted, but the edit and history pages are. This should protect the authors.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Just click on the history tab and you will see the names of the account holders and the IPs of the non account holders who have edited the article.
1
So they will file a lawsuit and hope a court agrees that 18th century language that prohibits "searches and seizures" and keeps our "papers" secure applies to 21st Century Internet traffic monitoring. Instead, why not use the mechanism built into the Constitution and amend it and explicitly prohibit it?
Lots of luck with that. We couldn't even pass an amendment which insured the equality of women - and that was before the descent of the GOP, and SCOTUS, into the la-la land they now inhabit.
2
Once again the privacy absolutists unleash a vast torrent of hyperbole, but I have yet to see even one "victim" of U.S. anti-terrorist surveillance efforts (someone unjustly punished or defamed). Legions of lawyers are standing by to represent them.
I'm a financial contributor to Wikipedia, so it disappoints me to see Jimmy Wales ignore true threats (terrorism in Europe, soon likely to reappear here) and focus on an extreme interpretation of the right to "privacy." Kindly read the Fourth Amendment and you'll see a "reasonableness" clause--not an "absolute" right at all. In this regard the privacy absolutists are no different than the "gun rights" absolutists. Both would endanger the lives of every man, woman, and child in the country for their personal ideology. It's selfishness on stilts.
Meanwhile, a key figure who sparked this libertarian paranoia (Edward Snowden) resides happily in Russia. When has he ever spoken out against the authoritarian surveillance (and worse) he surely knows occurs there? He focuses on the imagined victims and ignores the real ones.
I'm a financial contributor to Wikipedia, so it disappoints me to see Jimmy Wales ignore true threats (terrorism in Europe, soon likely to reappear here) and focus on an extreme interpretation of the right to "privacy." Kindly read the Fourth Amendment and you'll see a "reasonableness" clause--not an "absolute" right at all. In this regard the privacy absolutists are no different than the "gun rights" absolutists. Both would endanger the lives of every man, woman, and child in the country for their personal ideology. It's selfishness on stilts.
Meanwhile, a key figure who sparked this libertarian paranoia (Edward Snowden) resides happily in Russia. When has he ever spoken out against the authoritarian surveillance (and worse) he surely knows occurs there? He focuses on the imagined victims and ignores the real ones.
34
Edward Snowden showed the American people what was being done behind their backs without any knowledge or debate. He also did not flood the information onto the internet as he could have easily done through wikileaks, but provided it to journalists to screen. I applaud his patriotism and wonder why you object to having Americans know what is being done in their name?
I suggest you watch the film CitizenFour and read Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide so that you can at least familiarize yourself with the other side of this debate. And then let's have a fully informed debate about how much of our personal privacy we are willing to cede to the government in the name of security.
I suggest you watch the film CitizenFour and read Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide so that you can at least familiarize yourself with the other side of this debate. And then let's have a fully informed debate about how much of our personal privacy we are willing to cede to the government in the name of security.
15
I watch the same films you do. But I'm less taken by them. And Mr. Greenwald is not my idea of an objective journalist.
Meanwhile, you decline to comment about Mr. Snowden's silence concerning Russian surveillance. Shouldn't our heroes make at least the pretense of moral consistency?
Meanwhile, you decline to comment about Mr. Snowden's silence concerning Russian surveillance. Shouldn't our heroes make at least the pretense of moral consistency?
1
Gary, regardless of your personal opinion of Mr. Greenwald's journalistic bona fides, he is simply revealing what the government says it is doing in our name. You trust the government to tell the truth in these matters, right? These are their powerpoints, not Mr. Greenwald's afterall.
Believe it or not I am not an extremist in this matter. I trust that government will spy on all of us if it feels it is in its best interest, and will use those methods they have at their disposal to do so. That said, I want to at least have some form of debate about it, just as individuals are doing here at the NY Times. It is the secrecy and lying to Congress about a program's existence that scares me more than the collection of metadata.
As for Russia, Snowden was forced into exile there by default. Remember, even the Bolivian president's plane was forced from the skies under the assumption that Snowden was aboard. Russia's churlishness is the only thing that is protecting him right now. Frankly, I think Snowden should be pardoned and allowed to come home. Put his world-class skills to work for the US rather than the Russians.
You may not like Snowden or what he did, but surely you don't want Americans to be even more clueless than usual when it comes to what the government does. How can we be an informed electorate if we don't know what we are voting for?
And by the way, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Libertarian party.
Believe it or not I am not an extremist in this matter. I trust that government will spy on all of us if it feels it is in its best interest, and will use those methods they have at their disposal to do so. That said, I want to at least have some form of debate about it, just as individuals are doing here at the NY Times. It is the secrecy and lying to Congress about a program's existence that scares me more than the collection of metadata.
As for Russia, Snowden was forced into exile there by default. Remember, even the Bolivian president's plane was forced from the skies under the assumption that Snowden was aboard. Russia's churlishness is the only thing that is protecting him right now. Frankly, I think Snowden should be pardoned and allowed to come home. Put his world-class skills to work for the US rather than the Russians.
You may not like Snowden or what he did, but surely you don't want Americans to be even more clueless than usual when it comes to what the government does. How can we be an informed electorate if we don't know what we are voting for?
And by the way, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Libertarian party.
1
The authors cross the often blurred line between freedom of expression and paranoia, through the usual path of defending the importance of anonymity. They fail to understand that the hallmark of freedom of expression, well understood by John Hancock, is courage to stand by what is expressed. It is imperative that people be able to say and write what they feel is important, but we all have a right to know who is saying and writing it.
Charles Kenny
Stockbridge MA
Charles Kenny
Stockbridge MA
7
Instead of our government keeping us safe, we now need to be kept safe from our own government. I assume the N.S.A. operatives doing the snooping have been fully aware of the endemic racism at Sigma Alpha Epsilon and were just waiting for the right moment to inform the University of Oklahoma.
10
The NSA "cherry picks" the information they feel is relevant to their cause. Unfortunately, the folks that post nasty tweets or racially divisive screed often slip through the "cracks" and the end results are often disastrous. Too little to late...
As soon as the first plane hit the World Trade Center, I said to my friends,'there goes our freedom and privacy'. It will only get worse as the conservatives are stacking the courts with their own on every level. More nails in the coffin of our democracy.
10
Phil,
The conservatives have an agenda. 9-11 gave them license.
The conservatives have an agenda. 9-11 gave them license.
5
True conservatives oppose invasion of privacy. There needs to be a balance on surveillance. Cameras on every corner is absurd. Cameras in banks makes sense. Monitoring internet traffic to the point that colloquialisms bring unwanted and unwarranted attention. Expressing opinions or a particular interest in a subject should not in itself bring attention especially when we have agencies of the government getting away with violations of the unlawful search and seizure statutes and making charges that are taken as 'guilty until proved innocent'. Our country was founded, birthed out of a condemnation of government overrule by a king that could mandate anything he wanted. Now we have a president doing the same. This is why we need protection from the government. The Bill of Rights is to protect the people from an abusive government. For example, Freedom of Religion is not to protect the people from religion but to protect religion from government intrusion. The Founding Father's were intent to error on the side of freedom. That should be our intention also.
4
I guess I am surprised how we don't want government to "spy" and yet we want them to prevent the next 9-11. Surveillance of the internet is essential to the later's end.
I don't have the answers; alas it is complex. But lets not have a naive one-sided discussion. These authors have serious self-interest motives to get the government off their backs.
I don't have the answers; alas it is complex. But lets not have a naive one-sided discussion. These authors have serious self-interest motives to get the government off their backs.
4
Gee Doc,
I wish you read more. Numerous books written by intelligence community insiders have shown that neither water-boarding or spying have prevented us from terrorist attacks. The insiders say they hope these intelligence gathering techniques will protect us, someday but admit that it doesn't now. The problem is assessment. There is no technology available today that can put all those little pieces into a coherent picture that would convince an experience CIA or FBI analyst let alone a judge.
I wish you read more. Numerous books written by intelligence community insiders have shown that neither water-boarding or spying have prevented us from terrorist attacks. The insiders say they hope these intelligence gathering techniques will protect us, someday but admit that it doesn't now. The problem is assessment. There is no technology available today that can put all those little pieces into a coherent picture that would convince an experience CIA or FBI analyst let alone a judge.
2
How do I sign on as an additional plaintiff?
Also, I am doubling my contributions to Wikipedia and the ACLU.
So should you.
Also, I am doubling my contributions to Wikipedia and the ACLU.
So should you.
8
I support the principles at play here, but I wonder whether a lawsuit is the most effective way of achieving the objective. When someone files a lawsuit, judicial rules of evidence come into play, and it is at best unclear whether what Edward Snowden says constitutes adequate proof of the contentions forming the basis of the lawsuit, or indeed whether it can be established to a legal standard of evidence the extent to which any such spying is actually endangering contributors or impairing the objectives of the website. Somehow, I think it may be more effective to deal with this matter at a policy level rather than a judicial one. Clearly Wikipedia is not a national security risk to the USA and as a matter of policy should be exempted from spying.
10
The rights to privacy and association are vital counter-balances to the power of the government, are are vital to a healthy democracy. It is a very dangerous thing when a government seeks to track those who it considers dissidents, as it has a demonstrable chilling effect on this important means of discourse.
91
"It is a very dangerous thing when a government seeks to track those who it considers dissidents . . ."
It doesn't. It sweeps massive data through analytic filters that on rare occasions highlight an anomaly or a chain of links to persons or groups already high on the list of those who would do harm. It isn't interested in "dissidents": Only in our enemies.
I am more worried about my car starting on a cold morning than NSA watching me try.
It doesn't. It sweeps massive data through analytic filters that on rare occasions highlight an anomaly or a chain of links to persons or groups already high on the list of those who would do harm. It isn't interested in "dissidents": Only in our enemies.
I am more worried about my car starting on a cold morning than NSA watching me try.
Thank you very much, C.V. Danes. You have restored my confidence that there are still a not so few intelligent (north)americans minority that have the capacity of thinking above what their totalitarian government tell them to hate.
Well, NeverLift, hopefully you will never have cause to step outside that safety zone.
You can, if you are interested, download the entire Wikipedia database, then query it locally. NSA won't have a clue what you are up to.
2
I not only use Wikipedia, I contribute to it since I like paying my way even if the amount I pay is very little (what I can afford).
So the government is spying on us, wanting to see who goes to what subject and how long we stay there probably. I'm not sanguine about Wikipedia winning any fight with this form of government, as the relentless pursuit of "safety" seems to encompass every aspect of a person's life now regardless of how "safe" that person wants to be.
So the government is spying on us, wanting to see who goes to what subject and how long we stay there probably. I'm not sanguine about Wikipedia winning any fight with this form of government, as the relentless pursuit of "safety" seems to encompass every aspect of a person's life now regardless of how "safe" that person wants to be.
5
Actually, I'd love to know if NSA, or FBI, has a file on me. I hope they do. I've been a grumpy curmudgeon, regarding our government, for most of my adult life.
1
ejzim, if you suspect there might be a file, you can actually ask to see it - but be careful what you wish for. There is an apocryphal tale of a 1960s ex-Yippie-hippie-antiwar protestor etc who, years later, asks to see his FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act. He expects to get back page upon page, documenting his youth as a bold leader of the counterculture and freedom fighter a la Les Miz. Aux barricades! What he gets is one paragraph, with no info blacked out, advising the agency that he is a dilettante hanging on the fringes in the hopes of picking up girls, and not to waste time on him.
This was adapted into an amusing scene in an episode of Law & Order with Richard Belzer as the radical, turned cop, but I had heard that story well before that episode was aired in the 1990s.
Get over yourselves. Chances are you are not important to the government. I wouldn't mind if they monitored my NYT comments - at least I'd know someone was reading them and I wasn't entirely screaming into the wind.
;}
This was adapted into an amusing scene in an episode of Law & Order with Richard Belzer as the radical, turned cop, but I had heard that story well before that episode was aired in the 1990s.
Get over yourselves. Chances are you are not important to the government. I wouldn't mind if they monitored my NYT comments - at least I'd know someone was reading them and I wasn't entirely screaming into the wind.
;}
In this age, you have to assume anything you do, say, look at, read or peruse on the internet (phone calls too) will be monitored by someone. The NSA, the Chinese, the Russians, Iranians, N. Koreans, whoever.
I agree, file the suit and hopefully win a legal ruling against such. Sadly, it will be a feel good victory at best. Nothing will change. In fact it will only get worse. We're all forewarned, it's the new buyer/user beware. The invitation from my point of view is: don't be naive.
I agree, file the suit and hopefully win a legal ruling against such. Sadly, it will be a feel good victory at best. Nothing will change. In fact it will only get worse. We're all forewarned, it's the new buyer/user beware. The invitation from my point of view is: don't be naive.
4
I would like to learn more about any factual evidence ALCU/Wikipedia has, aside from being mentioned in a couple powerpoints. Without more, this case might not even make it to court.
It would be nice to provide a link to the plaintiff's complaint.
It would be nice to provide a link to the plaintiff's complaint.
1
These days, I presume EVERYTHING I type into or via the internet can be - or is being read by somebody, government or private, for whom it was not intended. At this moment, I don't really see how this is ever going to change.
8
'...These days...'?
The internet was designed to be open and that will never change, nor can it.
And no one is 'reading' your comments or emails. Computer programs are parsing metadata for specific words and phrases.
Most of us are not important, so let's drop the hysteria.
The internet was designed to be open and that will never change, nor can it.
And no one is 'reading' your comments or emails. Computer programs are parsing metadata for specific words and phrases.
Most of us are not important, so let's drop the hysteria.
1
"So imagine, now,"
That's pretty much all we can do until we know exactly which programs the NSA would love to put into play (but blocked by the FISC), which ones were only tested, and which ones are actually active. No, the NSA does not collect and store every text, email, and social media entry sent through the internet because that is physically impossible - it can only be imagined. I know this because I follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia pages covering internet traffic and data center technology when researching an issue as important as this.
And unfortunately, the 4th Amendment is not absolute and spying on international (and for that matter domestic) communications has been a part of national security since the day the Constitution was written (I read about it at Wikipedia). Should the FISC be revised to require greater limitations on secrecy? Yes. Do we need a Constitutional Convention to sort out this and several other archaic protections in the Constitution? Yes.
But should we assume that there are people at the NSA literally reading every American's email and social media entry? No - because even at the worst possible level of intrusion, the fraction that can be observed is so miniscule that it has to be highly selective...and approved by the FISC. Paranoia is what will destroy us. An educated America is a safe America and reading all the Wikipedia entries and references on internet technology and infrastructure is a great place to start.
That's pretty much all we can do until we know exactly which programs the NSA would love to put into play (but blocked by the FISC), which ones were only tested, and which ones are actually active. No, the NSA does not collect and store every text, email, and social media entry sent through the internet because that is physically impossible - it can only be imagined. I know this because I follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia pages covering internet traffic and data center technology when researching an issue as important as this.
And unfortunately, the 4th Amendment is not absolute and spying on international (and for that matter domestic) communications has been a part of national security since the day the Constitution was written (I read about it at Wikipedia). Should the FISC be revised to require greater limitations on secrecy? Yes. Do we need a Constitutional Convention to sort out this and several other archaic protections in the Constitution? Yes.
But should we assume that there are people at the NSA literally reading every American's email and social media entry? No - because even at the worst possible level of intrusion, the fraction that can be observed is so miniscule that it has to be highly selective...and approved by the FISC. Paranoia is what will destroy us. An educated America is a safe America and reading all the Wikipedia entries and references on internet technology and infrastructure is a great place to start.
4
"No, the NSA does not collect and store every text, email, and social media entry sent through the internet because that is physically impossible - it can only be imagined."
Yet.
Yet.
2
Thanks! I'm absolutely in favor of realistic changes to the 239 year old Constitution. What worked then, doesn't always translate to now, and Republicans violate it, at every turn, anyway. Imagine...getting congress to change the rules, to favor the nation, but against their own personal interests.
Really? You're aware of the NSA having a technology so superior to that of the rest of the industry that it can monitor and store (for more than, say, a microsecond) all of the global internet traffic that passes through the U.S.? I don't mean theoretically or conceptually, but please, do tell.
One definition of paranoia is a fear of something that doesn't exist. Fear of the nonexistent has already driven too much policy (e.g. Patriot Act). I don't want to see a reaction to it be equally destructive. I do believe that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
One definition of paranoia is a fear of something that doesn't exist. Fear of the nonexistent has already driven too much policy (e.g. Patriot Act). I don't want to see a reaction to it be equally destructive. I do believe that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
1
Knowledge does NOT flourish where terrorism thrives and the fear of Boston-style bombings is ever present. Also, NOBODYy visits Wikipedia or any other website anonymously because corporate data miners are tracking and selling our every move and then collating and selling that data without permission. That is the TRUE threat to average citizens! This NYT article spells out the dangers VERY clearly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/the-dark-market-for-personal-d...
Why do the authors of this article (and others like them, such as Poitras and Greenwald) obsess endlessly about the NSA's surveillance but never make a peep about these corporate data miners, who are MUCH more dangerous to our society than the NSA? Why is that? I would really like to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/the-dark-market-for-personal-d...
Why do the authors of this article (and others like them, such as Poitras and Greenwald) obsess endlessly about the NSA's surveillance but never make a peep about these corporate data miners, who are MUCH more dangerous to our society than the NSA? Why is that? I would really like to know.
20
Lots of people in the tech and security sector as well as journalists point out the danger posed by advertizing companies like Google, Yahoo etc. In Wikipedia's case, it is the N.S.A which is to be faulted. Also, the N.S.A's surveillance goes beyond specific websites. It is targeted at the infrastructure of the internet. And this intelligence is shared with countries with shady reputations. The sad fact is that the basic structure of the internet is compromised by its very design -- there cannot be perfect anonymity. If there was, your bits would not get through.
But just to address the point of the "fear of Boston-style bombings". We can clearly see that the N.S.A surveilance was ineffective in this case. I am from Boston and I am offended any time someone uses the Boston marathon example to defend mass surveillance.
But just to address the point of the "fear of Boston-style bombings". We can clearly see that the N.S.A surveilance was ineffective in this case. I am from Boston and I am offended any time someone uses the Boston marathon example to defend mass surveillance.
5
Why not object to both?
As the "left wing" media are in fact doing.
Most organizations can work more than one project at a time.
As the "left wing" media are in fact doing.
Most organizations can work more than one project at a time.
2
"MUCH more dangerous" than our Federal Government? LOL!
Knowledge does NOT flourish where dragnet surveillance thrives.
Knowledge does NOT flourish where dragnet surveillance thrives.
3
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely". I'm sure most of these NSA types believe in what they are doing. I'll bet they believe they can handle this power and only use it for "good" purposes. Like my uncle, "they can quit anytime they want to". He quit the night he drank himself to death. It is absolutely inevitable that this power will be abused. I'm a reasonably average American, never been in jail, haven't had a fisfight since grade school. BUT- what if I knew for sure that I could get even with the guy who stole my girlfriend in high school, or the guy who cut me off in traffic, or even the congressman that I believe is a danger to our nation. This is way to much power to give to anyone.
43
This just proves my point about not being able to see the forest for the trees. They gather so much information that they can't sift out the important stuff. If NSA is surveiling me, an elderly grandmother, then they really are missing the security boat! Dear NSA: stop watching me and do your actual job!
Lets not be disingenious, the NSA has oversight, in fact, it has 27 oversight committees. So, if the NSA does something wrong then the people you need to complain to are in Congress and the Senate. The NSA has no power of its own, it is issued mandates by Congress, Senate and the President.
1
The NSA should stop monitoring the Internet even if it means we lose an important way to stop terrorists and, as a result, many innocent people die.
No, I don't believe that. I am just waiting for someone who supports this lawsuit to write it. Still waiting.
No, I don't believe that. I am just waiting for someone who supports this lawsuit to write it. Still waiting.
4
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
10
I support the Wilkipedia lawsuit.
Why do you oppose democracy?
Why do you oppose democracy?
10
No need to make a declaration about what you believe or don't, whether you're waiting or not: Clapper and Brennan already know. So do Brin and Zuckerberg.
2
Bravo, Jimmy Wales and Brava, Lila Tretikov !
20
I congratulate Wikipedia for taking on this suit. Spying should only be done when evidence is presented to a court of law that secrete observation of a person's activities is necessary. Anything else leads us towards a police state.
165
I have friends that worked for the NSA. I doubt they are interested in most of us as individuals but they are interested in finding those among us who pose a threat to the well being of our nation. I realize we have to give up something to gain something. The modern Internet is full of tech savvy people so we have the challenge of trying to be more tech savvy then them. Not an easy job. If you decide to do research on the net, every stroke of the key is recorded somewhere on that hard drive. If chose to do research in my living room by reading newspapers and books and the NSA is outside my house looking a in my windows, now I have a problem. Think about this. Sobriety check points don't bother those who don't drink and drive.
28
How about broadening your perspective and reading an example of fear/reprisal in other countries that Mr Wales is trying to share?
1
I don't drink and drive, but sobriety checkpoints bother me. The Fourth Amendment is meant to protect us from being investigated as crime suspects when we have given no cause for suspicion.
Why does Will Swoboda support the abrogation of the Constitution and the violation of Americans' rights? Is it because he hates our freedom?
Why does Will Swoboda support the abrogation of the Constitution and the violation of Americans' rights? Is it because he hates our freedom?
6
You sound like the classic zombie patriot: That we have nothing to fear from mass surveillance that protects us from ourselves and from terrorism. Classic, expedient, simple minded ideology: Nothing hidden, then nothing to fear! A mindset that was fostered in totalitarian regimes, police states with no privacy laws and no democratic accountability. Your analogy that sobriety check points don't bother those who don't drink and drive is way too simple minded, because non drinkers are stopped and held up at those check points too.
8
The intelligence state won't stop until we make them stop.
5
How?
It is not as if we live in a real democracy.
It is not as if we live in a real democracy.
1
I'm continually astonished that the mass of Americans aren't outraged by all the government agencies surveillance. I guess we are too busy playing with all of our electronic toys. I'm sure the agencies justify it in their own minds as necessary to protect us. I'm just as sure they are wrong. Anything this powerful and this invasive will be misused. What if some Congressman wants to present some limiting legislation and he gets a little note about his online girlfriend or boyfriend or pictures he has downloaded. There are all sorts of chilling and likely scenarios. We need our privacy back. It is a constitutional right and it has been stolen.
9
So, why doesn't Wikipedia adequately encrypt the traffic?
1
I see. Given that Wikipedia logs the IP address of everyone who edits it, and if they do not have an account, displays it publicly, I'd advise Mr. Wales to plug the holes in the bottom of his boat before he complains about everyone else not bailing fast enough.
2
Forward back to 1984.
6
If you're doing something in the privacy of your house, you have a right to privacy. But if you put it on the wire and send it out over the public internet (which was created *by* our government) you have no right or expectation of privacy. If you think about it, do you think if you got out a megaphone and screamed out things into the public outdoor air that it would be private? Of course not, the internet is like a giant megaphone, you're screaming everything you put on it into public space. It makes sense that it's listened to. It would be wrong if they monitored your personal computer, but right if they monitor your network traffic that goes outside your house.
2
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago that Americans have a right to expect privacy on their telephone calls. You do remember how the telephone operates, don't you?
2
You mean the same Wikipedia that Sarah Palin fans used to turn Paul Revere into a traitor after she claimed that he warned the British instead of the Americans?
The same Wikipedia that republicans made a group called American Rising just to alter information on democratic politician's pages?
The same Wikipedia that had to ban the US congress from editing because an "IP address within the US Congress, “due to disruptive editing originating from that address”.
The one that is noting but virtual graffiti and internet vandalism and that no person with an ounce of integrity ever cites? That Wiki? If anyone wants actual information there are credible sites that cannot be trolled and altered by every Tom, Dick and Harry with an internet connection and an axe to grind.
It is junk and everyone knows it, so why the article? Are they selling ads now? Why not just say stop spying on internet users, why single out Wikipedia?
The same Wikipedia that republicans made a group called American Rising just to alter information on democratic politician's pages?
The same Wikipedia that had to ban the US congress from editing because an "IP address within the US Congress, “due to disruptive editing originating from that address”.
The one that is noting but virtual graffiti and internet vandalism and that no person with an ounce of integrity ever cites? That Wiki? If anyone wants actual information there are credible sites that cannot be trolled and altered by every Tom, Dick and Harry with an internet connection and an axe to grind.
It is junk and everyone knows it, so why the article? Are they selling ads now? Why not just say stop spying on internet users, why single out Wikipedia?
2
You can, if you are interested, download the entire Wikipedia database, then query it locally. NSA won't have a clue what you are up to.
I am glad, Jimmy, as I am sure are you that we have this transparent Presidency. I am sure that there is nothing to worry about.
1
Wait. Are you telling me every time I watch an old episode of What's My Line and look up an old actor like Dirk Bogarde, someone at the NSA has to check a box on a possible subversive list? Do I get second check for Googling first to get me to Wikipedia? Omg - I'm watching What's My Line on YouTube, that's three. I mean I don't think Dirk Bogarde should get counted thrice. Oh man, maybe the Dorothy Kilgallen conspiracy theorists were right.
Well, lets just hope that wikipedia isn't forced into ssl (https) because anyone with half a brain knows that a false sense of security is just not good enough..which is what ssl provides.
1
Why doesn't Wikipedia and the ACLU sue China, Russia, and Egypt too? Do they not surveil Wikipedia users, and lock them up when they are viewing pages about, say, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke?
I use Wikipedia several times a day and I donate too. I do not have a problem with responsible surveillance of potential foreign threats to Americans' safety use of the service. I am under no illusions that such surveillance can reliably prevent any attack, but it can help track down those responsible for such acts and in that way prevent future ones. With the revelations of the last two years, I have yet to read of a single illegal use of the data collected, or any use that shocked my conscience. Unlike Edward Snowden's host, Vladimir Putin, our government does not murder its domestic political opponents, violently grab chunks of its neighbors' lands, nor freeze its neighbors inhabitants to keep them from opposing its land snatching, dissent suppressing ways. In short, any actions taken as a result of the selective revelations of a person who is welcome in the capitals of this world's most repressive regimes are ill advised, short sighted, and just a reflexive hatred of the system that allows those dissenting views to be expressed. Things like this are why I can no longer take the ACLU seriously.
I use Wikipedia several times a day and I donate too. I do not have a problem with responsible surveillance of potential foreign threats to Americans' safety use of the service. I am under no illusions that such surveillance can reliably prevent any attack, but it can help track down those responsible for such acts and in that way prevent future ones. With the revelations of the last two years, I have yet to read of a single illegal use of the data collected, or any use that shocked my conscience. Unlike Edward Snowden's host, Vladimir Putin, our government does not murder its domestic political opponents, violently grab chunks of its neighbors' lands, nor freeze its neighbors inhabitants to keep them from opposing its land snatching, dissent suppressing ways. In short, any actions taken as a result of the selective revelations of a person who is welcome in the capitals of this world's most repressive regimes are ill advised, short sighted, and just a reflexive hatred of the system that allows those dissenting views to be expressed. Things like this are why I can no longer take the ACLU seriously.
3
Ah, the "we are exceptional" argument.
1
Stuart Wilder is right to condemn the oppressive governments of Russia and China. He's also foolish to imply that the United States government's crimes are acceptable as long as they are less outrageous than those of Moscow or Beijing.
2
"Putin, our government does not murder its domestic political opponents" There's many people (american, and not) who believe they have, and unless you have high priority security clearance (everyone on the internet does these days huh?) you can't really claim they're wrong.
"violently grab chunks of its neighbors' lands" You've done this numerous times, lets forget the past 30 years America has helped Israel take more, and more control of the middle east. Since you claimed 'neighbors' lets forget the history on how white man came to america, but how about the 2 times your country invaded Canada (British colony at the time)? Oh no America has never done any of that.
"nor freeze its neighbors inhabitants to keep them from opposing its land snatching, dissent suppressing ways."
No you force NATO to put sanctions on other countries, even though you know the innocent civilians of those areas will suffer too, but who cares, Merica right?
"violently grab chunks of its neighbors' lands" You've done this numerous times, lets forget the past 30 years America has helped Israel take more, and more control of the middle east. Since you claimed 'neighbors' lets forget the history on how white man came to america, but how about the 2 times your country invaded Canada (British colony at the time)? Oh no America has never done any of that.
"nor freeze its neighbors inhabitants to keep them from opposing its land snatching, dissent suppressing ways."
No you force NATO to put sanctions on other countries, even though you know the innocent civilians of those areas will suffer too, but who cares, Merica right?
Build it and they will come. Develop technology and they will use it.
This suit is doomed to failure. Unfortunately our dear leaders have found a way around the Constitution: national security. They will claim there are secret files proving they must do this and that national security would be breached if they even told us why. Welcome to post-Constitutional USA.
9
You argue there are all sorts of risks of the government monitoring but fail to show one example of where those kinds of risks played out. Here is what I think. I think Snowden is a traitor. He may have forced some good outcomes because of his disclosures but he caused harm to America and violated his position's confidence. That makes him a traitor. And more importantly. We live in very dangerous times. Unlike in the past where wars were declared, enemies were known, and we mostly knew where borders were, all that has changed. We have a world of extremists at war with America. They are not inside one country but are spread out across many countries. Indeed there are some hiding within our midst as evidenced with the Boston Marathon bombing. Should we be concerned about our 4th amendment protection? Yes. Am I supportive of this lawsuit? No.
25
There is much to agree with in your post, but I think your well-meaning argument suffers from one major fallacy: You assume that the NSA and related government agencies are unequivocally acting in the best interest of the citizens of our country. Unfortunately you don't have to go very far back in our history to find countless instances where that wasn't the case, where benevolent intentions were corrupted by divergent economic and political interests. There is absolutely no reason to trust the NSA or any other agency with access to the broad swath of data that is being collected. Their power should not go unchecked.
4
You say "because of his disclosures . . . he caused harm to America and violated his position's confidence. That makes him a traitor." You could be describing J. Edgar Hoover - Hoover betrayed his position's confidence by (among other things) making disclosures about Dr. MLK. But calling Hoover, or Snowdon, a traitor is just name calling - it takes us away from what actually happened and doesn't shed any light.
7
Did you have any idea what was going on until he came forward? I doubt it. Traitor? Well, I wonder whether you (and others with your viewpoiint) can see the difference between traitor and whistleblower. Having said that, my problem with him is that he took a lot of data, put it into someone else's hands and simply walked away, expecting the journalists he trusted to parcel it out. Its just not that simple. He compromised safety of others and does not take responsibility. Take a look at Citizenfour and/or other documentaries regarding the NSA and then tell us you are ok with outright lying about the existence of these programs in testimony before Congress.
2
Wow. Does that mean looking up the the creator of Minecraft with my little seven year old grandson on Wikipedia makes us potential terrorists?
Thinking about how my generation either had to have an encyclopedia set in the home (with an annual update included in the initial price) or go to the library, I was just showing him an easy and maybe fun) (way to get info.
A way of today - Wikipedia.
Last day on earth I'd want him suspect to the N.S.A because I was just trying to show him another aspect of Minecraft and trying to pique his curiousity.
This is a sick world.
Thinking about how my generation either had to have an encyclopedia set in the home (with an annual update included in the initial price) or go to the library, I was just showing him an easy and maybe fun) (way to get info.
A way of today - Wikipedia.
Last day on earth I'd want him suspect to the N.S.A because I was just trying to show him another aspect of Minecraft and trying to pique his curiousity.
This is a sick world.
1
Mr. Wales, if you examine the article and others, is deemed a co-founder along with Larry Godwin. He is not a creator. Many people are creating Wikipedia, but Mr. Wales does not edit the substance, or rarely, because when he does, he doesn't abide by the standards. (see the Will I Am fiasco, for example).
What does it say about the type of state we live in when 91% of Americans worry they have lost control of their privacy, and the President responds with a bill that effectively legalizes and protects corporate surveillance? The President has turned away from the need for us to be protected from commercial intrusions on our privacy.
2
N.S.A. surveillance of internet traffic?
A citizen in a country where the internet becomes the most important means of communication and the medium where knowledge is contained (rather than, say, in paper books) is at least today increasingly living a paranoid and uncertain life, one which is difficult to tell from a mentally ill state of mind. Advance of technology in general has made life such that a person greatly dependent on internet and on complexity of technology even in construction of home is hostage to any number of ears and eyes and manipulation of his or her life.
The average person, I would say, is completely helpless and the notion of law helping the person is an absurdity. You cannot stop this or that interest from bugging your home, from manipulating your possibility to get a job, from representing themselves in false manner to friends or family to spy on you or gather information on you. You cannot be sure of expression or recompense for an original idea. You can be sure of nothing really.
I am not sure how a person can locate, "place" an entity, an interest, which has compromised one's life as to freedom of expression or rights or dignity much less redress such by law. Money, advance of technology, coupled with questionable human nature seems to breed a democracy of intrusive possibility. To complain of it is to perhaps not only be called paranoid but to be classed mentally ill, which further deepens spiral of one's impotence in face of technology.
A citizen in a country where the internet becomes the most important means of communication and the medium where knowledge is contained (rather than, say, in paper books) is at least today increasingly living a paranoid and uncertain life, one which is difficult to tell from a mentally ill state of mind. Advance of technology in general has made life such that a person greatly dependent on internet and on complexity of technology even in construction of home is hostage to any number of ears and eyes and manipulation of his or her life.
The average person, I would say, is completely helpless and the notion of law helping the person is an absurdity. You cannot stop this or that interest from bugging your home, from manipulating your possibility to get a job, from representing themselves in false manner to friends or family to spy on you or gather information on you. You cannot be sure of expression or recompense for an original idea. You can be sure of nothing really.
I am not sure how a person can locate, "place" an entity, an interest, which has compromised one's life as to freedom of expression or rights or dignity much less redress such by law. Money, advance of technology, coupled with questionable human nature seems to breed a democracy of intrusive possibility. To complain of it is to perhaps not only be called paranoid but to be classed mentally ill, which further deepens spiral of one's impotence in face of technology.
Unfortunate as it may be, for the N.S.A. to go on with its surveillance of all and any information out there, it is a fact of life in our current technological prowess and marvel. And even if the N.S.A. tries to remain hidden, all it takes is another 'Snowden' (no judgement, either way, intended) for that 'info' to filter into the hands of a repressive state (of which there are too many), and harm the freedom, and possibly life, of human beings trying to do their thing. Trouble is, as fundamentalist extremist groups are using the Internet to distribute widely their venom and even recruit 'lost souls', it lends an excuse for widespread surveillance, beyond their initial scope and intent. Wikipedia is such a rare jewel, that any attempt to control it, may damage the 'goods' it contains, and so generously tries to share. And once tainted, it may dissuade us from using it, and even, horror, look elsewhere.
1
Not surprising it's a "not for profit" entity behind this editorial. Other companies mentioned as NSA targets in the piece Gmail and Facebook and myriad other US social media and high tech companies who have either cooperated in supplying back doors to NSA or had them placed in their systems unknowingly are in absolutely no mood to keep this embarrassing and potentially financially disastrous discussion going. The unintended consequence of these NSA spying activities and their revelation has been and will continue to be an enormous headache for US firms seeking to penetrate and/or sustain current market share in foreign markets because foreign governments are now for obvious and undeniable national security reasons going to favour the development of local champions. Almost all international trade agreements have a national security clause that allows signatories to opt out of any responsibilities under an agreement without penalty if they need to for typically undefined "national security" reasons. So preferential treatment for local companies or demanding foreign companies hand over code, store data in your country etc... is okay if its for national security reasons. The national security clause was introduced by the US after WWII because congress did not want to cede sovereignty to those "world government nuts" in the first series of UN agreements. Watch for these clauses to start getting a workout as gov.s around the world start saying "no thanks" to US Hi tech firms.
1
I applaud your efforts to get the Genie back in the bottle. While we all certainly appreciate the need for intelligence to thwart potential attacks on american and other soils, it has to be performed within the parameters of our constitutional rights. By creating this spying monstrosity, we are laying the groundwork for any repressive regime to easily crush any opposition by identifying the "rebels" , knowing their plans and arresting/ assassinating their members. Those who say it can never happen in my country are either forgetting or haven't studied their History. Further, as the author notes, we are currently sharing this information with repressive regimes who are certainly using it to locate their opposition. Which american citizen wants their tax money used for that purpose?
7
Yes, it's wrong, but no one will do anything to stop it, there is too much information to ignore, to many possibilities to miss, the personal political gains too tempting to go back to protecting citizens from their own government.
Disconnect from the web if you must, buy newspapers, remember even the Library tracks who reads what, so it may be too late
Disconnect from the web if you must, buy newspapers, remember even the Library tracks who reads what, so it may be too late
3
WAY too late.
1
'remember even the Library tracks who reads what'
The library does not track who checks out what. At least, ours doesn't; I asked. Once you return a book, it goes back into the collection and off your record.
However, the perception that the library does track you persists. Some years ago I began writing an essay on extremism and the paranoid mindset, and whether there might be such a thing as reasonable extremism. Primary works I wanted to consult included the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the novel The Turner Diaries and Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber manifesto. I never wrote the essay, because I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about my reading those books. (Murder mystery novelists must have a terrible time researching their works.) Pity - I might have come up with an interesting insight.
You know who DOES track your reading choices? Amazon. *Very* closely. So does Barnes & Noble. Not to mention your credit card provider or your bank, which has the records of your debit card use, cheques, etc. And which any hacker can get. Unless, like Kaczynski, you live off the grid, your consumer choices, and intellectual choices, are an open book.
My personal feeling is that Wikipedia's reliability is questionable enough as it is, without discouraging the contributions of people who might actually know something about the subjects of the articles they edit.
The library does not track who checks out what. At least, ours doesn't; I asked. Once you return a book, it goes back into the collection and off your record.
However, the perception that the library does track you persists. Some years ago I began writing an essay on extremism and the paranoid mindset, and whether there might be such a thing as reasonable extremism. Primary works I wanted to consult included the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the novel The Turner Diaries and Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber manifesto. I never wrote the essay, because I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about my reading those books. (Murder mystery novelists must have a terrible time researching their works.) Pity - I might have come up with an interesting insight.
You know who DOES track your reading choices? Amazon. *Very* closely. So does Barnes & Noble. Not to mention your credit card provider or your bank, which has the records of your debit card use, cheques, etc. And which any hacker can get. Unless, like Kaczynski, you live off the grid, your consumer choices, and intellectual choices, are an open book.
My personal feeling is that Wikipedia's reliability is questionable enough as it is, without discouraging the contributions of people who might actually know something about the subjects of the articles they edit.
It's been a few months since I donated to Wikipedia. Going to do it again now!
7
This is indeed wonderful news, but it is extremely unlikely that you will prevail, and even if you did, the Five Eyes Alliance has already anticipated this individual national action,and dealt with it through the creation of this alliance.
Presumably you are aware that the 24/7/365 surveillance is now effectively complete in that there is not one iota of electronic interaction, between any two entities that is not collected, tabulated, and stored indefinitely.
The NSA storage center in Utah, on its own, can currently store it all, and they already have plans to build several other such sites, all planned to be even more sophisticated.
If you have not already done so, hire Bruce Schneier as a consultant; his book, "Data and Goliath", exposes nearly all of the clearly illegal acts that the NSA, and all of their partners are engaged in.
It is also likely that before a ruling, this government and others will be successful in making thir actions legal, and will in fact have the public clamoring for such, after some international false flag event.
Presumably you are aware that the 24/7/365 surveillance is now effectively complete in that there is not one iota of electronic interaction, between any two entities that is not collected, tabulated, and stored indefinitely.
The NSA storage center in Utah, on its own, can currently store it all, and they already have plans to build several other such sites, all planned to be even more sophisticated.
If you have not already done so, hire Bruce Schneier as a consultant; his book, "Data and Goliath", exposes nearly all of the clearly illegal acts that the NSA, and all of their partners are engaged in.
It is also likely that before a ruling, this government and others will be successful in making thir actions legal, and will in fact have the public clamoring for such, after some international false flag event.
1
I wish people could see beyond the "First Black" stuff and see that Obama is working for the Banks, Wall Street and the 1%.
Obama has continued the Insane Policies of Bush/Cheney because he is the same as they are - Just Black.
We got stuck with this cheap hustler for a President because the white liberals have this racist idea that no Black could ever do anything wrong.
Obama has continued the Insane Policies of Bush/Cheney because he is the same as they are - Just Black.
We got stuck with this cheap hustler for a President because the white liberals have this racist idea that no Black could ever do anything wrong.
3
Not so much that they have the idea that being black he couldn't do anything wrong, as that admitting he has done anything wrong makes them racists. Many liberals don't like to admit they voted for him in 2008 more as a symbol than as an individual, and not so much because they thought he'd be a good president as because voting for him allowed them to congratulate themselves on what good people they are. From there on in, having identified 'support for Obama' with 'good' and non-support with 'evil racist', they had to keep riding the horse they bet on. It helped, of course, that the GOP in both elections ran tickets of such surpassing loathsomeness that even those of us who (like me) were not enchanted with Obama were compelled to vote against McCain/Palin and against Romney/Ryan rather than for Obama/Biden. (We remembered 2000 and what happened when the 'progressives' couldn't settle for Gore, clad themselves in absolutist virtue, and cast just enough Nader votes to toss Florida into limbo - and the White House to Bush/Cheney.)
Why is our President not protecting us against this? Where are our leaders?
2
With all these surveillance, how did they miss the Boston Bombers?
3
Snowden is facing decades in jail because he exposed a lie. He informed Americans the NSA was spying on them at a time the Director of Intel., Congress and the President said it was not. It has absolutely nothing to do with releasing classified information and everything to do with informing us about what the government is doing to us.
Last week, Gen. Patreaus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and will serve not a day in jail for releasing troves of top secret and higher than top secret information to his girlfriend. Information that is much more sensitive than that released by Snowden. Why wasn't he prosecuted and spending 25 years in prison like Chelsea Manning who released much less sensitive material with the goal of actually educating Americans.
There is no justice in America and we are the pawns. If you are a General, head of the CIA (remember Panneta released classified info. to the maker of Zero Dark Thirty), or the Direc. of Intel., you can lie with impunity or release top secret information with impunity. However, if you are just a citizen trying to inform your fellow citizens of the evils your Government is committing in your name, you are off to the brig for decades.
The Pres. should be forced to answer for this lack of justice.
Last week, Gen. Patreaus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and will serve not a day in jail for releasing troves of top secret and higher than top secret information to his girlfriend. Information that is much more sensitive than that released by Snowden. Why wasn't he prosecuted and spending 25 years in prison like Chelsea Manning who released much less sensitive material with the goal of actually educating Americans.
There is no justice in America and we are the pawns. If you are a General, head of the CIA (remember Panneta released classified info. to the maker of Zero Dark Thirty), or the Direc. of Intel., you can lie with impunity or release top secret information with impunity. However, if you are just a citizen trying to inform your fellow citizens of the evils your Government is committing in your name, you are off to the brig for decades.
The Pres. should be forced to answer for this lack of justice.
20
The NSA is clueless, and this is the icing on the cake. Their theory is wrong - you can't predict all the bad/illegal stuff people will do. They missed 9/11 and all of the acts of terror that happen on average every 35 days on our soil. And their data is being used to harass people that have done nothing wrong, in secret so we don't know their mistakes. Even worse, they could make a mistake and disrupt ALL communications in the US and around the globe. I can only imagine the bad practices an audit of their activities would discover - the visible ones are bad enough already.
116
If the NSA is monitoring things like Widipedia how could they not have a complete record of all of Hillary Clinton's emails?
1
I dunno...because Mrs Clinton's emails didnt go through Wikepdia, perhaps?
1
Gary, pretty interesting logic. You're right that no one can predict every future act of terrorism, but your conclusion that the NSA shouldn't try to stop any since it can't predict them all is pretty questionable. Oh and by the way, contrary to your comment, the NAS, the FBI and other security services routinely stop bad people from doing bad things before they get the chance, 9/11 not included.
This is not an idle concern. Let's say you are concerned about some issue and you research it online, possibly using Wikipedia. You want to make the issue known to others, but you are afraid of retaliation and maybe losing your job. If the NSA cares about your particular issue, and is watching traffic pertaining to it, then you are indeed at risk of who knows what consequences. The issue could be anything, e.g. corruption in your local government. You are not in any way a "terrorist", but it is known that the NSA and other government agencies are using surveillance for activities other than terrorism.
I don't know if the NSA surveillance was initially intended to squash activism, but that's the effect. "Activism" is almost a bad word to most Americans, but it is badly needed. I wish Democrats would get active so that we could have Democratic candidates that truly represent the people. I wish for more privacy activists, more activists supporting worker rights and public schools.
But you are now in danger of who knows what kind of retaliation just based on your web searches. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is that the NSA cares about your little issue (if it is little). It is still a specter hanging over us. People often comment on it in comments. People are self-censoring. This is anti-democratic and will tend to maintain those who already have power at the expense of those who are most vulnerable and can't afford the risk.
I don't know if the NSA surveillance was initially intended to squash activism, but that's the effect. "Activism" is almost a bad word to most Americans, but it is badly needed. I wish Democrats would get active so that we could have Democratic candidates that truly represent the people. I wish for more privacy activists, more activists supporting worker rights and public schools.
But you are now in danger of who knows what kind of retaliation just based on your web searches. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is that the NSA cares about your little issue (if it is little). It is still a specter hanging over us. People often comment on it in comments. People are self-censoring. This is anti-democratic and will tend to maintain those who already have power at the expense of those who are most vulnerable and can't afford the risk.
14
I'd be more interested in having a gander at the NSA's device that counts the number of water molecules passing over the lip of Niagara Falls each second, because given the number of employees the NSA has that would be a job just for one guy, all the thing is doing is counting water molecules. The other 37 million+ NSA employees handle the spying-on-the-internet thing. Their overtime bonus is incredible, but they don't get any days off to spend cruising the Potomac in their new boats because, you know, the spy gig keeps taking up more time as they themselves are having to hire and train more people to build new power plants and data storage facilities to hold the data where it waits to be analyzed. The story to watch is the one where most of the private land in Maryland and Virginia has now been purchased for this purpose. Nothing is sacred in this pursuit, why even George Washington's home Mount Vernon is giving up land right up to the very walls of the house for data storage facilities and NSA employee housing. By 2032 they predict they'll be able to do a real time sift, with budget allocations to hire one fourth of the US population to spy on the rest of the country. Because that very scenario worked wonders for our old Cold War nemesis, East Germany. And they accomplished this wonder with just tons and tons of file cabinets! Is this the future that George Kaplan.. whoops, I mean Ed Snowden, portends for America? That wind blows north by northwest..
5
It seems that much of this so-called lawsuit is based speculation. Nothing solid here. Besides, if you're not doing anything wrong, communicating with the bad guys, I see nothing wrong with the NSA "spying" on this activity. If it leads to the apprehension of a terrorist plotting to attack America then that's great!Perhaps the NSA can help cleanup Wikipedia as much of its content is incorrect. Cheers!
4
Problem: we don't all agree about who the bad guys are.
1
Anybody who opposes the United States of America is a bad guy. It is as simple as that.
Mary, you've got to remember.. Unless your American, and you believe in everything they say, you're just a threat to the government as those terrorists.
1
Any place on the internet that may reveal the user's interests is subject to monitoring by a government that seems to be afraid what people are thinking about. Moreover, when presented in certain ways large numbers of people will agree with it.
If you framed this debate in a way to assert that this kind of surveillance would help the government expose child pornographers, abusers, racists, sexists, smokers, opponents of abortion, people who are mean to puppies, warming denialists, Obama haters and others of this ilk you will find an uptick in progressives and leftists wondering if it's such a bad thing.
On the other hand if you framed it in a way to assert that it would help the government expose leftist subversives, perverts, Marxists, homosexuals, environmental fanatics, progressives and people who want to take our guns you would find an uptick in conservatives and patriots wondering if it's such a bad thing.
The fact is that it's bad for everyone, selective outrage aside, and the sooner we end this practice the better it will be. Either we are all safe from an increasingly Stasi-like surveillance state or none of us are, no matter whose interests it serves in the short run.
If you framed this debate in a way to assert that this kind of surveillance would help the government expose child pornographers, abusers, racists, sexists, smokers, opponents of abortion, people who are mean to puppies, warming denialists, Obama haters and others of this ilk you will find an uptick in progressives and leftists wondering if it's such a bad thing.
On the other hand if you framed it in a way to assert that it would help the government expose leftist subversives, perverts, Marxists, homosexuals, environmental fanatics, progressives and people who want to take our guns you would find an uptick in conservatives and patriots wondering if it's such a bad thing.
The fact is that it's bad for everyone, selective outrage aside, and the sooner we end this practice the better it will be. Either we are all safe from an increasingly Stasi-like surveillance state or none of us are, no matter whose interests it serves in the short run.
4
You make it sound as if some kind of KGB runs America.
7
Yes.
The problem isn't the NSA sharing information back to other governments. The problem is regimes around the world spying on their own citizens domestically. NSA captures the traffic coming in. Others read the stuff going out of their country, and most of the time, the things posted and sent within their own borders.
Wikipedia is late to this fight, too. Wikipedia is run by a few thousand volunteer editors working full time to control Wikipedia content. Anytime a debate between article editors becomes too heated or too healthy, a senior editor will step in to bully and brow-beat and even ban people into silence. Wikipedia has no problem with totalitarianism when it serves its purposes.
I don't understand why Wales refers to Snowden as a "whistle-blower" either. Snowden never attempted to work through channels at the NSA or anywhere else before posting his content to the Internet. Likewise, he has revealed not just programs that are controversial, but numerous, valuable, legal programs that are widely accepted as legal and necessary.
Wikipedia is a valuable source for some information, but the more controversial the subject becomes, the less reliable it is. It also slants left harder than even the editorial pages of the New York Times.
Wikipedia is late to this fight, too. Wikipedia is run by a few thousand volunteer editors working full time to control Wikipedia content. Anytime a debate between article editors becomes too heated or too healthy, a senior editor will step in to bully and brow-beat and even ban people into silence. Wikipedia has no problem with totalitarianism when it serves its purposes.
I don't understand why Wales refers to Snowden as a "whistle-blower" either. Snowden never attempted to work through channels at the NSA or anywhere else before posting his content to the Internet. Likewise, he has revealed not just programs that are controversial, but numerous, valuable, legal programs that are widely accepted as legal and necessary.
Wikipedia is a valuable source for some information, but the more controversial the subject becomes, the less reliable it is. It also slants left harder than even the editorial pages of the New York Times.
3
I suggest Wiki users worried that the NSA will learn what encyclopedia entries they are reading should add another layer of aluminum on their headpieces.
2
Robert, I'm puzzled why you think they're not monitoring their Wikipedia use. If 500 million people are going there monthly to get/give information, wouldn't that seem to make it a perfect place to monitor? And if you're going to monitor a site like that, wouldn't you then look for keywords that might raise an eyebrow or two? Why bother if you weren't going to do just that?
2
"aluminum on their headpieces." Oh right because conspiracy theorists are wrong all the times right?
Here are some proven right..
The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).
The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.
MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.
Here are some proven right..
The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).
The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.
MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.
Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to ’70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.
Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years.
Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years.
Apparently, there exists a group of people among us that don't want the public to use Wikipedia, which is a service I use frequently, particularly when in doubt about certain historical events or to gain insight about certain subjects on which I wish to comment, wihout coming across as a clueless dim-wit. Now, this too is threatened, and will forever be in the back of my mind, knowing that whatever knowledge I seek from Wikipedia will be subject to scrutiny. Guess I'lll have to revert to the old method, and dust off my hard copies...like we did before the Internet.
70
That's assuming one has hard copies. But many times we don't and we just need a small piece of information about a subject and that I find is what Wikipedia and other sources are good for. Why own a whole book when what you want to know is just on one page?
Wikipedia is useful as a jumping-off point, click-through to other sources, or to remind you of something you know but can't quite put your finger on (what year was that treaty signed? What was that guy's middle name?) But relying on it as a primary source or one-stop information shopping is a very good way of ensuring you do come across as a clueless dimwit. I will occasionally cite to Wikipedia in these comments ... but only on subjects for which I already have a knowledge base from other, reliable sources, so that I know it's reasonably on the mark. I would never, ever consult it to enlighten myself on a subject of which I was ignorant.
1
How sad; The terrorists have won. The openness and freedom enjoyed for so long, despite the "communist menace," "red peril," etc. is now subject to police state scrutiny under the guise of "national security." Don't think matters are any better in the Northern Marches.
Perhaps, if Mr. Wales cares so much about users and editors not being tracked, he could see to it that the IP of any non-account holder is no longer publicly displayed for all to see in the article history?
1
So, let's say tomorrow, the NSA "says" OK, we won't spy on you anymore. Will you drop your lawsuit? Let's go further, let's say you win your lawsuit, and they are 'forced' to stop, do you really think they will stop? This seems like a pointless waste of money and everyone's time to me.
2
You nail it Rob W, if Wikipedia loses the case will they than consider closing shop? Better use time and money on encryption progress.
Besides that, Is there a special reason why Wikipedia does not use SSL on all domains. Only https://wikipedia.org is working. A secure connection might not stop the NSA, there are many parties in the data collecting business.
Wikipedia is OK but you can never post or edit stuff only you seem to know, and nobody else. Who has time for battle with moderators.
Besides that, Is there a special reason why Wikipedia does not use SSL on all domains. Only https://wikipedia.org is working. A secure connection might not stop the NSA, there are many parties in the data collecting business.
Wikipedia is OK but you can never post or edit stuff only you seem to know, and nobody else. Who has time for battle with moderators.
I agree with everything Judy from Vermont said.
The best legacy Obama could leave would be to issue a complete pardon to Edward Snowdon on his final day in office. Anything less is sad.
The best legacy Obama could leave would be to issue a complete pardon to Edward Snowdon on his final day in office. Anything less is sad.
46
A pardon for what? He's not been convicted of anything, AFAIK.
Hate to break it to you, but no one depends on Wikipedia.
1
I do.
Signed, "No one."
Signed, "No one."
1
500,000,000 per month. Do you really think he is lying?
2
I think that people depending on Wikipedia is not the issue. The issue is Wikipedia being spied on by our government.
Having Wikipedia at one's fingertips is a very nice thing to have, since trawling the internet for the information on subjects isn't always reasonable for those of us who simply want an overview of a subject. For example, I often use Wikipedia to let me know all I want about all the old time movie actors/actresses I used to watch in the late 30s and 40s. If the government finds that subversive, so be it.
Having Wikipedia at one's fingertips is a very nice thing to have, since trawling the internet for the information on subjects isn't always reasonable for those of us who simply want an overview of a subject. For example, I often use Wikipedia to let me know all I want about all the old time movie actors/actresses I used to watch in the late 30s and 40s. If the government finds that subversive, so be it.
1
I do the NY Times crossword puzzles regularly.
On occasion, I need to look up things for the answers I cannot pull from memory, or I want to learn more about someone whose name is mentioned but about whom I know very little. These things can include the name of an author of communist theory, a Nazi commander in WWII, a leader of the Spanish Inquisition, the head of a Palestinian group, or an African dictator.
By seeing that I am looking these people, the NSA cannot determine that it is simply intellectual curiosity driven by my obsession with crossword puzzles rather than a desire to torture, maim, or commit genocide. In the eyes of the wrong analyst, I could be flagged as a dangerous, violent person. I am not such a person, and sincerely hope that the level of spying on people who use or contribute to Wikipedia does not go to the Orwellian extremes that are well within the world of possibilities that this article raises.
We live in a dark and paranoid world, and the gap between the rich and rest of us is not the exception to the rule. There is also the gap between innocent citizens and government and corporate interests that want to know more about their habits and preferences in order to leverage their power. In the same manner as we have little power to protect ourselves from terrorists, and rely on responsible and vigilant people in our government to help protect us, we hope that there are laws and ethics in place to protect us from those who watch over us.
On occasion, I need to look up things for the answers I cannot pull from memory, or I want to learn more about someone whose name is mentioned but about whom I know very little. These things can include the name of an author of communist theory, a Nazi commander in WWII, a leader of the Spanish Inquisition, the head of a Palestinian group, or an African dictator.
By seeing that I am looking these people, the NSA cannot determine that it is simply intellectual curiosity driven by my obsession with crossword puzzles rather than a desire to torture, maim, or commit genocide. In the eyes of the wrong analyst, I could be flagged as a dangerous, violent person. I am not such a person, and sincerely hope that the level of spying on people who use or contribute to Wikipedia does not go to the Orwellian extremes that are well within the world of possibilities that this article raises.
We live in a dark and paranoid world, and the gap between the rich and rest of us is not the exception to the rule. There is also the gap between innocent citizens and government and corporate interests that want to know more about their habits and preferences in order to leverage their power. In the same manner as we have little power to protect ourselves from terrorists, and rely on responsible and vigilant people in our government to help protect us, we hope that there are laws and ethics in place to protect us from those who watch over us.
71
But there's good side to your plight (being flagged as a dangerous, violent person.) It means that the gov't will have to investigate you. Let's multiply that by, say, 1,000,000. Soon the NSA will collapse with exhaustion.
During the Vietnam war we ladies banded together to decoy the FBI which was then investigating draft-dodgers. We did this by sending letters to the draft board saying, for example, "This is to let you know that I, R. T. Travis of 272 Atlantic Ave, Smithtown, New Jersey absolutely will not agree to be drafted." R. T. Travis was Ruth T. Travis, of course. However every one of those letters had to be investigated.
During the Vietnam war we ladies banded together to decoy the FBI which was then investigating draft-dodgers. We did this by sending letters to the draft board saying, for example, "This is to let you know that I, R. T. Travis of 272 Atlantic Ave, Smithtown, New Jersey absolutely will not agree to be drafted." R. T. Travis was Ruth T. Travis, of course. However every one of those letters had to be investigated.
1
"We live in a dark and paranoid world, and the gap between the rich and rest of us is not the exception to the rule.". So true, but it is never too late to get this back in control of "We The People".
I use Wikipedia regularly out of curiosity for more information on something I read in an article. Last night I watched "Triumph Of The Will" because there was a reference to it in a story I was reading. I'd love to know what the NSA would think about that and many of the other things I've read.
9
>
The NSA and the rest of the peepers are not going to stop. In fact, the NSA will only increase its surveillance efforts, technologies, and capabilities. This is what happens when reason is not policed.
You live in Orwell's nightmare, and it is just beginning and there is no waking up from it.
But hey what do you care, March Madness is starting up or there is a sale at Victoria Secrets etc....
This is exactly what Ben Franklin meant when he said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The NSA and the rest of the peepers are not going to stop. In fact, the NSA will only increase its surveillance efforts, technologies, and capabilities. This is what happens when reason is not policed.
You live in Orwell's nightmare, and it is just beginning and there is no waking up from it.
But hey what do you care, March Madness is starting up or there is a sale at Victoria Secrets etc....
This is exactly what Ben Franklin meant when he said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
66
That is not at all "exactly what Ben Franklin" meant. Ben Franklin was talking about taxes and funding a military campaign (the word "purchase" is very literal if you look at the original context). This topic in fact has only the vaguest relationship with what Ben Franklin meant when he wrote that, and the quote is as a result routinely taken entirely out of context to defend a whole range of wild and extremist views.
That said, in this case, I like the quote taken out of context, and I agree with the basics of your overall point. I don't think we're quite yet in "Orwell's nightmare," but there are chilling similarities between our current situation and 1984. An overbearing government surveillance complex, a state of more or less permanent war used to justify the state's overreaching...it's not unfair to compare this stuff to Orwell.
That said, in this case, I like the quote taken out of context, and I agree with the basics of your overall point. I don't think we're quite yet in "Orwell's nightmare," but there are chilling similarities between our current situation and 1984. An overbearing government surveillance complex, a state of more or less permanent war used to justify the state's overreaching...it's not unfair to compare this stuff to Orwell.
2
Give them bait! Give them lots of bait! False bait, of course. Maybe there's a chance that we can wear them down.
I agree that you have seen the problem. However, you can't rely on the legal system to do anything effective or timely about it. You can only move in the direction of protecting your users and taking some lessons from Snowden.
Specifically, if the information comes from a multitude if sources, they can't do anything about it. (Picture the British intelligence agency literally torching the Guardian servers while the sinister documents were already arrayed across the internet.)
Specifically, if the information comes from a multitude if sources, they can't do anything about it. (Picture the British intelligence agency literally torching the Guardian servers while the sinister documents were already arrayed across the internet.)
5
Does the NSA or anybody else REALLY care about you or your information or me or mine? NO, they do not.
1
Obama "transparency version 2009" is a much different animal than his 2015 actual applied version that we now live under!
How sad for all American's!
How sad for all American's!
32
How sad is it, really? Wouldn't it be much sadder if we had Boston-marathon style bombings throughout the nation?
Obama was not responsible for the Patriot Act.
2
Stop worrying. And stop alerting homicidal nuts, jihadis, bomb-makers and all the other crazies that they are being watched. Calm down and get back to work.
17
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
And apparently @I'm Just Sayin' Los Angeles, CA, you are one of them.
And apparently @I'm Just Sayin' Los Angeles, CA, you are one of them.
2
1. The jihadis already know.
2. The thing that differentiates us from them is that we follow the constitution. Us trampling on it in order to "defeat" them is the *point* for them.
They are laughing at us, while we cravenly give away the rights and freedoms for "safety." Freedom isn't free, it takes work--something you supposedly think we ought to be doing.
2. The thing that differentiates us from them is that we follow the constitution. Us trampling on it in order to "defeat" them is the *point* for them.
They are laughing at us, while we cravenly give away the rights and freedoms for "safety." Freedom isn't free, it takes work--something you supposedly think we ought to be doing.
1
I think everyone is aware that they're being watched by this point. It didn't take a Wikipedia lawsuit to make them aware. The Wikipedia lawsuit reminds us that someone has the fortitude to take on entities like the NSA.
But fear not - next time you express outrage about a liberty near and dear to your heart, we'll be here to encourage you to stop worrying, calm down and get back to work.
But fear not - next time you express outrage about a liberty near and dear to your heart, we'll be here to encourage you to stop worrying, calm down and get back to work.
Lot's of criticism here of Obama. Have we forgotten that this legislation was Republican legislation? That the so-called "lovers of freedom and liberty", the conservatives! and Republicans, are the ones who brought us the legislation enabling all this spying on the American people. And we've seen all the Republican action to get NSA out of our homes--Crickets!
90
Mr. Obama has had six years to change any Bush policies he does not agree with. Accordingly, he owns any policies that remain.
17
Nice try. The NSA is an executive dept. Obama can change it anytime he wants.
2
Some of us voted for Obama because he led us to believe he'd dismantle Bush era surveillance. He hasn't so the criticism is merited.
2
I appreciate the thank you note I received for my small donation to Wikipedia and I appreciate the site, it's a fantastic thing. Furthermore I appreciate Wales & Tretikov filing the lawsuit mentioned here, even though I expect them to, and rather much hope they lose.
If you want an ready made online argument, defend NSA data surveillance. Opinions on it and by natural extension a guy named Snowden peel off into "absolutely for" and "absolutely against" faster than month old bananas. As a life long Lefty I've had a heck of time pointing out that Mr Snowden is not a whistleblower as he divulged nothing "illegal or dishonest" however disconcerting, and that NSA work is constitutional as evidenced by the fact that it is ongoing. I have been able to do it rather neatly, the law being one of those things that is easily researched. You don't find an "Outrage Hobbyist" (as I like to call his fans) who's read Smith vs Maryland (1979). Conversely I don't join the rabid crowd who believes he's a "traitor." I take a middle position that appreciates what our intelligence community is trying to do while giving Snowden a break for motivation and youth.
The utility of data collection is in the collation. If someone is researching "ammonium nitrate bomb" AND incessantly calling Yemen, and renting Ryder trucks and one-way buying plane tickets out of the country, I tend to presume there is useful anti terrorism work to be done taking a look at that person.
If you want an ready made online argument, defend NSA data surveillance. Opinions on it and by natural extension a guy named Snowden peel off into "absolutely for" and "absolutely against" faster than month old bananas. As a life long Lefty I've had a heck of time pointing out that Mr Snowden is not a whistleblower as he divulged nothing "illegal or dishonest" however disconcerting, and that NSA work is constitutional as evidenced by the fact that it is ongoing. I have been able to do it rather neatly, the law being one of those things that is easily researched. You don't find an "Outrage Hobbyist" (as I like to call his fans) who's read Smith vs Maryland (1979). Conversely I don't join the rabid crowd who believes he's a "traitor." I take a middle position that appreciates what our intelligence community is trying to do while giving Snowden a break for motivation and youth.
The utility of data collection is in the collation. If someone is researching "ammonium nitrate bomb" AND incessantly calling Yemen, and renting Ryder trucks and one-way buying plane tickets out of the country, I tend to presume there is useful anti terrorism work to be done taking a look at that person.
11
"NSA work is constitutional as evidenced by the fact that it is ongoing. "
What? They're doing it therefore it can't be illegal/unconstitutional? I'm guessing you are trying to be funny.
What? They're doing it therefore it can't be illegal/unconstitutional? I'm guessing you are trying to be funny.
20
"NSA work is constitutional as evidenced by the fact that it is ongoing"
LOL. Wotta knee-slapper. I hope you aren't a lawyer.
LOL. Wotta knee-slapper. I hope you aren't a lawyer.
1
And in order to get at these very few individuals, our Five Eyes Alliance needs to watch what everyone, literally everyone, is doing.
That's ludicrous; you know it, and they know it.
The planet is now a panopticon, and they are the watchers.
Their raison d'etre is to know, not only everything, but, among other things, to use the information gleaned, so they can be prepared to deal with any protest or resistance movement that may be gaining traction with the people.
They see this ability as necessary due also to the finite nature of resources, and their belief that conflict over such will be the norm; the idea that people should work together to preserve and protect the planet is foolishness, from their perspective.
That's ludicrous; you know it, and they know it.
The planet is now a panopticon, and they are the watchers.
Their raison d'etre is to know, not only everything, but, among other things, to use the information gleaned, so they can be prepared to deal with any protest or resistance movement that may be gaining traction with the people.
They see this ability as necessary due also to the finite nature of resources, and their belief that conflict over such will be the norm; the idea that people should work together to preserve and protect the planet is foolishness, from their perspective.
4
Can you, please, add every single company that you are forced to do business with to the list. I personally don't care if the government monitors my emails. I'd prefer they focused on finding the psychos posting be headings. However, I care very much about corporate America. I also care very much about having a video taken of me without my knowledge and posted for a laugh or spite or cruelty. I especially care about someone posting a photo of my child on the Internet without my permission which has happened. These are my fellow citizens. I don't go on Facebook by choice because I am disgusted with the narcissism and pretty horrified by its origins of shaming girls who didn't like them.
9
Lynne, you do realize that the heart of the Snowden critique of NSA is that they are getting some elements of private sector data on us and storing it. We are fine with private companies holding this data but certainly not our elected leaders.
Why is it that the people who are so outraged about the NSA never say ANYTHING about corporate data miners? Do they have tunnel vision?
1
If the Wikipedia information is lodged on Hillary Clinton's server, it will be safe and secure from any prying eyes.
Oops - perhaps not - maybe NSA has collected all of her emails too - and it may not be necessary to wait on her to produce her records.
Oops again - maybe NSA has a hands-off policy for "special people" like Hillary Clinton - but unfortunately, not for ordinary regular people, like the ones who use Wikipedia.
Oops - perhaps not - maybe NSA has collected all of her emails too - and it may not be necessary to wait on her to produce her records.
Oops again - maybe NSA has a hands-off policy for "special people" like Hillary Clinton - but unfortunately, not for ordinary regular people, like the ones who use Wikipedia.
26
You should be much more concerned about those foreign donations, the ones she pledged NOT to take.
Even if the lawsuit is successful, it seems that it would only create a false sense of security for internet users because internet users would still be at risk of being spied on by their own country or by non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals who have an agenda. It does not seem that the lawsuit could stop the NSA from spying on these other agencies, organizations, and individuals for the purpose of gathering from them the same information that the lawsuit seeks to prohibit the NSA from gathering directly from internet users.
3
You go after these agencies one at a time. This is the United States - we go after the NSA. People of other nationalities will have to go after their own monitors. If you don't do it soon you will have nothing.
I'm in a (restricted) occupation. I have had to answer to (restricted) and have had them in my house because of things I have done on the internet in the course of my employment. They inventoried my bookshelves. This in what purports to be a society with freedom of expression. I didn't like it very much.
I'm in a (restricted) occupation. I have had to answer to (restricted) and have had them in my house because of things I have done on the internet in the course of my employment. They inventoried my bookshelves. This in what purports to be a society with freedom of expression. I didn't like it very much.
53
There's no point in suing NSA, CIA or FBI, they'll win with their hands tied behind their backs.
The only way for Wikipedia is to follow what Silent Circle, Apple, Google, Facebook at al are doing; develop new and stronger encryption technologies.
This whole sad thing is unfolding the way me and my friends talked about when the Snowden leaks hit the news; the snooping and mass surveillance doesn't stop or decrease, it'll stay the same or increase. Even our Finnish government wants to join the party.
The only ones to do something about it are the companies with a financial interest in keeping the data and communications of their customers safe and secure.
It is sad but true.
The only way for Wikipedia is to follow what Silent Circle, Apple, Google, Facebook at al are doing; develop new and stronger encryption technologies.
This whole sad thing is unfolding the way me and my friends talked about when the Snowden leaks hit the news; the snooping and mass surveillance doesn't stop or decrease, it'll stay the same or increase. Even our Finnish government wants to join the party.
The only ones to do something about it are the companies with a financial interest in keeping the data and communications of their customers safe and secure.
It is sad but true.
25
Its the governments way of job creation and keeping taxes high !
2
Book reading is private. One book, one reader, one location. Internet sites are available to billions and anything read on the internet can easily be monitored. When you visit an internet site, unless you pay, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. We all know our viewing is tracked. That's the cost of internet use. The internet is public and what you do in public has no Fourth Amendment protection. The only way to get privacy protection is to pass a law. And that's appropriate. A law regarding privacy on the internet is long overdue.
25
But what do we do about librarians, is there a way we can legislate that only the blind can work in libraries!?! Same with law enforcement surveillance, nobody mentions that they can follow me in my car or get a phone tap approved by court order....can someone explain why if the discussion turns to the internet its dominated by the paranoid and we cannot reach the consensus on balancing rights and security that has taken place elsewhere in our lives?
Yes, book reading is "private", i.e., more secure, BUT only if you paid cash for that book at a bricks a mortar bookstore. If you used a credit card or bought your book online someone just might be on to you.
1
"Book reading is private."
Not if you buy the book online.
Not if you buy the book online.
3
This is an important issue that our leadership has failed to address adequately. What has President Obama done to rein in the NSA? How about Congress? What does presumed Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton think, and what policy measures does she propose? All I hear are crickets...
49
It's an important issue, but it has been quite thoroughly addressed. Congress spent weeks on the matter and decided that no change was needed. Obama has made small changes but he, too, supports the status quo.
6
Even if you win in court, the NSA will continue to find and implement ways to spy on us. Its masters will simply look congress and the public in the face and lie that it has stopped.
And, putting aside legitimate national security issues, the tantalizing potential of the power to control the masses, derived through surveillance of technologies we have willingly chained ourselves to, is a siren song in itself.
Alas....
And, putting aside legitimate national security issues, the tantalizing potential of the power to control the masses, derived through surveillance of technologies we have willingly chained ourselves to, is a siren song in itself.
Alas....
27
In the internet era privacy should not be treated as holy. Don't forget that agency's like NSA are not spying for the sake of spying or for some kind of perverse pleasure - they spy on certain people to protect all of us against violence, child pornography, terrorist attacks and other dark activities that became much easier since the advent of the world wide web. My main worry is actually that these agencies do not have enough capacity, not that they are looking at me visiting the NYT website.
8
First of all NSA does not spy on certain people they spy on everyone. I remember a scene from the German movie "The Lives of Others" in which the Stasi agent investigates a suspect and uses some information about the daughter of the neighbor of the suspect to intimidate her to get some information. Can you really be sure that NSA never does such things? If this is OK how come USA is different than any other country? Do you think other countries spy on their citizens just for perverse pleasure? Do you think Stasi agents or KGB agents were spying on exemplary DDR or Soviet citizens who were loyal subjects of these regimes? If not does this make these countries free? Who will define "dark activity"?
19
"In the internet era privacy should not be treated as holy."
What makes this era different than any others? Because I'm on a computer right now, my privacy is somehow less vital than when I only interacted with the world on a landline telephone? Heck, there was violence, child pornography, terrorist attacks then. Why not just listen to all the phone calls and sort them out later? Additionally, we've been lied to repeatedly about the extent of this monitoring, pretty much from day 1.
There was, btw, the latitude to monitor electronically prior to The Patriot Act. The difference was that its need had to be shown in court, and even then, that could be done retroactively.
If you're under the impression that "these agencies do not have enough capacity," I suspect that you don't know enough about the capacity they do have.
What makes this era different than any others? Because I'm on a computer right now, my privacy is somehow less vital than when I only interacted with the world on a landline telephone? Heck, there was violence, child pornography, terrorist attacks then. Why not just listen to all the phone calls and sort them out later? Additionally, we've been lied to repeatedly about the extent of this monitoring, pretty much from day 1.
There was, btw, the latitude to monitor electronically prior to The Patriot Act. The difference was that its need had to be shown in court, and even then, that could be done retroactively.
If you're under the impression that "these agencies do not have enough capacity," I suspect that you don't know enough about the capacity they do have.
5
As long as Eric Holder is around, you can expect nothing better. If he's going to spy on journalists like James Risen and Sharyl Atkisson, OF COURSE he's going to monitor Wikipedia.
Google is already kowtowing to Holder like it did to Red China.
Sometimes I think the shifty operators take advantage of Mr. Obama's aloofness to pursue their own snoopiness - just as Hillary had 900 FBI files to comb through for political ammunition. These people cannot leave the West Wing soon enough, secret email servers and all!
Orwell said it all in Animal Farm - that the people can have no secrets from our masters while they need never cooperate with the law.
Google is already kowtowing to Holder like it did to Red China.
Sometimes I think the shifty operators take advantage of Mr. Obama's aloofness to pursue their own snoopiness - just as Hillary had 900 FBI files to comb through for political ammunition. These people cannot leave the West Wing soon enough, secret email servers and all!
Orwell said it all in Animal Farm - that the people can have no secrets from our masters while they need never cooperate with the law.
14
I'm not posting to say Eric Holder is a saint in this but if you think Attorneys-General under Bush's administration were any better, you're very mistaken. You speak as if all of this started when Holder came along.
Less germane to this topic: Why is it that you refer to the President as "Mr. Obama," but the Secretary of State is called by her first name?
Less germane to this topic: Why is it that you refer to the President as "Mr. Obama," but the Secretary of State is called by her first name?
2
Wikipedia is awesome and I hope they win their lawsuit. I wish them good luck.
108
Would this be the time to remind ourselves of our values and ask what the founding fathers would say?
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" -- Ben Franklin
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" -- Ben Franklin
194
Yes! This is the most insightful comment yet posted. We are yielding our most precious values because we fear the jihadists. For that we may be very sorry. Governments always embrace anything that enhances government power. We have seen it happening. We have seen how Obama holds onto NSA's abilities so he will be more successful finding jihadist threats. We like that. We support that, but we might be very sorry someday when a president does not like our way of thinking. ...then comes the knock on your door at midnight.
Have courage, Americans. Fight your fears. Protect your precious values.
Have courage, Americans. Fight your fears. Protect your precious values.
11
Our founding fathers actually said that we needed organized militias to provide temporary security for the States. Their limitations on how intrusive those militias could be were superficial at best. Today, we live with the reverberations of those policies by people who wave the 2nd Amendment - and their guns - in the faces of those who are more honest about what our founding fathers said and intended.
By the way, Ben Franklin was not one of the signers of the Constitution. In fact, he was not held in high esteem by very many of those who did sign it. Nice thought though.
By the way, Ben Franklin was not one of the signers of the Constitution. In fact, he was not held in high esteem by very many of those who did sign it. Nice thought though.
1
This mass surveillance by the US government on everyone and everywhere is very frightening. It seems in stark contrast to the freedoms forever expounded by the Americans and their own Constitution. Moreover, it seems to me doubtful that anyone can actually analyse all this data in any meaningful fashion. Hence,d the real purpose of spending all this money, except perhaps to further bloat an ever expanding government apparatus that behaves like an unstoppable chain reaction, is quite elusive.
It's also quite amazing that Obama who prides himself on his liberalism happily goes along and abides with all this spying. Such hypocrisy in high places!
It's also quite amazing that Obama who prides himself on his liberalism happily goes along and abides with all this spying. Such hypocrisy in high places!
47
"Hence,d the real purpose of spending all this money, except perhaps to further bloat an ever expanding government apparatus that behaves like an unstoppable chain reaction, is quite elusive."
Not quite. All that is required is to store all your data for years. Perhaps 20 years out it can all be recalled, analyzed and used against you.
ps, I have no doubt that my posts to the NYTimes when take together and analyzed allow a picture of me to be put together that knows more about me then I do.
Not quite. All that is required is to store all your data for years. Perhaps 20 years out it can all be recalled, analyzed and used against you.
ps, I have no doubt that my posts to the NYTimes when take together and analyzed allow a picture of me to be put together that knows more about me then I do.
34
Arydberg,
If you have not read Bruce Schneier's latest, "Data and Goliath", do so; it is much, much, more pervasive than you suspect.
If you have not read Bruce Schneier's latest, "Data and Goliath", do so; it is much, much, more pervasive than you suspect.
'...This mass surveillance by the US government on everyone and everywhere is very frightening...'
There is no 'mass surveillance...on everyone', there is searching of metadata by huge computer programs for specific phrases and words.
No one cares about your grandmother's secret pie recipe and no one is reading your personal emails, so let's tone down the hysteria.
That said, anyone who does not understand that all communications over the internet are inherently insecure is a fool and an idiot.
There is no 'mass surveillance...on everyone', there is searching of metadata by huge computer programs for specific phrases and words.
No one cares about your grandmother's secret pie recipe and no one is reading your personal emails, so let's tone down the hysteria.
That said, anyone who does not understand that all communications over the internet are inherently insecure is a fool and an idiot.
The government spying on us is nothing new. It only seems new to those too young to have experienced it before or those too uninvolved not to have noticed it before. What is new is the ease with which corporations can spy on us. That is the much bigger danger.
The government has some measure of accountability to the American people. Corporations have none. You can vote politicians out of office, but we are stuck with Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Sheryl Sandberg, et al.
The government may on occasion share or even sell the data it collects, but corporations simply live to do that. If the government lies, it may become a public issue. If a corporation lies, its investors consider it good business. If a government employee sells info to foreigners, they can be charged with espionage, even treason. If a corporation does such, it is likely to be considered just another business deal.
As imperfect as it is, there is the Freedom Of Information Act to find out what the Feds have on you. There is no such recourse with Google, Twitter, Facebook, and those others who simply and shamelessly sell us to the highest bidder.
Yes, work to keep the government in line, but while you are buying a gadget or logging in to an online connection, keep some perspective. The government has some measure of accountability to Americans; corporations have none.
The government has some measure of accountability to the American people. Corporations have none. You can vote politicians out of office, but we are stuck with Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Sheryl Sandberg, et al.
The government may on occasion share or even sell the data it collects, but corporations simply live to do that. If the government lies, it may become a public issue. If a corporation lies, its investors consider it good business. If a government employee sells info to foreigners, they can be charged with espionage, even treason. If a corporation does such, it is likely to be considered just another business deal.
As imperfect as it is, there is the Freedom Of Information Act to find out what the Feds have on you. There is no such recourse with Google, Twitter, Facebook, and those others who simply and shamelessly sell us to the highest bidder.
Yes, work to keep the government in line, but while you are buying a gadget or logging in to an online connection, keep some perspective. The government has some measure of accountability to Americans; corporations have none.
176
Companies ARE subject to the law every day. But Your Dept. of Justice gets orders for release of documents and simply dismisses them, and any lawsuits the government loses are appealed.
Today's great quote: ''Oh, yeah - we always appeal to the 9th Citcuit. They always side with the government eventually.'' - said about a $14 million judgment against the BLM out West in a case that has lasted 20 years already.
You'll never see a company stonewall like you see the government does EVERY day.
Today's great quote: ''Oh, yeah - we always appeal to the 9th Citcuit. They always side with the government eventually.'' - said about a $14 million judgment against the BLM out West in a case that has lasted 20 years already.
You'll never see a company stonewall like you see the government does EVERY day.
19
I seriously don't understand why our government would get involved selling its arbitrary monitoring to others.
That's pretty serious conspiracy theory.
The biggest threat is most certainly not U. S. corporations (which risk big lawsuits and publicity disasters in today's social media) but foreign governments like the PRC who will happily steal your social security and bank account information for who knows what.
That's pretty serious conspiracy theory.
The biggest threat is most certainly not U. S. corporations (which risk big lawsuits and publicity disasters in today's social media) but foreign governments like the PRC who will happily steal your social security and bank account information for who knows what.
3
To avoid providing information requested under the FOIA, they routinely cite national security, as prohibiting compliance.
Even if you had the resources for a legal battle, the task is formidable.
Even if you had the resources for a legal battle, the task is formidable.
1
Americans who value their privacy and liberty owe Edward Snowden a greater debt of gratitude than we will ever be able to repay. We must counter the state of cognitive dissonance that allows so many to appreciate the importance of what he has done for us while simultaneously reviling him as a traitor for revealing classified information. He is a true American patriot and hero.
311
Then stop voting for the people who approve these programs, judging by the last election, Americans do not consider this an issue worth their vote, hence the status quo will remain as it is.
It really is that simple, you get the government you deserve.
It really is that simple, you get the government you deserve.
2
Don't make me gag. I certainly don't believe Snowden is evil or a traitor. I think he overreached because he was young and naive. And you, too, are naive if you think the NSA shouldn't collect metadata.
1
@ Judy: "He (Snowden) is a true American patriot and hero."
The most popular post in this far-left wing arena, truly unrepresentative of most Americans, even Obama!
The most popular post in this far-left wing arena, truly unrepresentative of most Americans, even Obama!
2
I am a Wikipedia editor, you've likely read some of my stuff.
Jimbo does not sue in my name.
Jimbo does not sue in my name.
3
You don't explain why. Why??
11
Touche!
The working assumption here is that if the NSA can do it, they will do it. Fair enough, however, if they can monitor Wikipedia, they can also monitor just about any other website as well. There's nothing exclusive about Wikipedia in this respect. Let's also assume the NSA could probably care less about the vast, vast majority of information that appears on Wikipedia - in other words, no reason to go giving users paranoid delusions simply because they routinely use Wikipedia as a reference. The key kernel here is to ask: is the NSA working collaboratively with repressive governments? If so, we have a much bigger problem than the NSA's surveillance of Wikipedia users.
13
Agreed. However, today's "repressive governments" are tomorrows allies. If the NSA picks their own targets, even the "good guys" can become targets -- destroyed by government trolls.
5
Who made the amazing illustration? Can't find any credit..
Will the NYT join the lawsuit since one can presume that comments to the NYT and other papers are also monitored?
57
Whoever taught President Obama constitutional law
should be fired, ....if they're still around.
At the very least they should hang their heads in shame.
should be fired, ....if they're still around.
At the very least they should hang their heads in shame.
44
His law professor Laurence tribe has also begun to disagree with some of Obama's unconstitutional actions.
6
Politics and science is never a good mix.
Before we know it we the people are corralled beyond an imaginary boundary so freedom can't escape.
Before we know it we the people are corralled beyond an imaginary boundary so freedom can't escape.
10
There is no question that the NSA and the system that spawns it has no respect for anything other than their own goals. A lawsuit--which even if they lost would never be complied with-- like protests, petitions are feel-good moves that works in their favor as it makes the petitioners believe they are doing some good. An outraged public could use their own dirty tricks against them. Throw in the keywords that their computer are programmed to flag with every inquiry, foreign email--"bomb, attack, terror, etc.." perfectly legal, of course, and allows them waste time and effort sniffing after nonsense--unless you believe the NSA's heavy-handed efforts make any real contribution to national security--which is a joke..
6
Since traditional heritage is rather rich fantasy security will remain a hoax as well.
It's a miracle not more folks go completely nuts, granted; a bloody one.
It's a miracle not more folks go completely nuts, granted; a bloody one.
1
In his popular book The Gift of Fear, security expert Gavin de Becker pretty much explodes the notion that words per se, without context, are helpful, through a hypothetical example, linguistic analysis of two paragraphs.
One, an innocuous account of a boring car trip, includes the words 'bomb', 'mutiliate', 'murder', etc. Another, sent by a stalker to the woman he plans to kill, includes such pharases as 'pretty flowers', 'happy', and 'peace'.
When you read the actual passages with the words in context, as opposed to brute-force analysis for specific red-flag words, it becomes clear which is which. (And is even more easily gotten around with a simple substitution code, in which 'birthday cake' means 'bomb', 'girlfriend' means 'sniper', etc.).
I'm not scared so much of Big Brother as of the Cops that Couldn't Shoot Straight. I might forgive heavy-handedness if it at least resulted in competence, but I see no evidence the NSA is even efficient in keeping us safe - we're just fortunate that, with the exception of that single astonishing stroke of (for them, not us) luck on 9/11, the terrorists are even less competent than our side.
One, an innocuous account of a boring car trip, includes the words 'bomb', 'mutiliate', 'murder', etc. Another, sent by a stalker to the woman he plans to kill, includes such pharases as 'pretty flowers', 'happy', and 'peace'.
When you read the actual passages with the words in context, as opposed to brute-force analysis for specific red-flag words, it becomes clear which is which. (And is even more easily gotten around with a simple substitution code, in which 'birthday cake' means 'bomb', 'girlfriend' means 'sniper', etc.).
I'm not scared so much of Big Brother as of the Cops that Couldn't Shoot Straight. I might forgive heavy-handedness if it at least resulted in competence, but I see no evidence the NSA is even efficient in keeping us safe - we're just fortunate that, with the exception of that single astonishing stroke of (for them, not us) luck on 9/11, the terrorists are even less competent than our side.
Ironic that "the land of the free" should become Big Brother. Just shows you what's really underneath the surface.
64
I agree with the sentiment of Jimmy's concerns, however I don't think we should be focusing only on the NSA for this particular subject.
Americans get very upset at the NSA, and they should, but the rest of the world does too, when really the rest of the world should be worrying about their own country's surveillance programs. The dirty secret is that everyone has so much outrage for the NSA, and the NSA gets so much press coverage and attention, when practically every country has an NSA-like program.
Wikipedia is a crucial resource in countries whose regimes would like to hide or censor certain topics. So if you are outside the USA where certain topics are extremely sensitive, whether atheism in Saudi Arabia, the King in Thailand, Tiananmen Square in China, or Ukraine in Russia, you should protect yourself from your government first, nevermind the NSA. Your own government should be your biggest concern in terms of your safety.
If you are reading or editing sensitive Wikipedia pages, you should be using Tor, a VPN, or some other service or methodology that obscures your identity.
I know that Wikipedia bans repeated abusive edits by IP address, but I hope that Wikipedia has some sensitivity to the fact that some of those IPs are exit nodes that might be shared by spamming antisocial trolls, and genuine dissidents in danger with valuable contributions. It's a tricky balance.
Good luck and let's toast to a future world where our governments respect our rights.
Americans get very upset at the NSA, and they should, but the rest of the world does too, when really the rest of the world should be worrying about their own country's surveillance programs. The dirty secret is that everyone has so much outrage for the NSA, and the NSA gets so much press coverage and attention, when practically every country has an NSA-like program.
Wikipedia is a crucial resource in countries whose regimes would like to hide or censor certain topics. So if you are outside the USA where certain topics are extremely sensitive, whether atheism in Saudi Arabia, the King in Thailand, Tiananmen Square in China, or Ukraine in Russia, you should protect yourself from your government first, nevermind the NSA. Your own government should be your biggest concern in terms of your safety.
If you are reading or editing sensitive Wikipedia pages, you should be using Tor, a VPN, or some other service or methodology that obscures your identity.
I know that Wikipedia bans repeated abusive edits by IP address, but I hope that Wikipedia has some sensitivity to the fact that some of those IPs are exit nodes that might be shared by spamming antisocial trolls, and genuine dissidents in danger with valuable contributions. It's a tricky balance.
Good luck and let's toast to a future world where our governments respect our rights.
73
It's not much of a secret, but the number of regimes and the plethora of things they may monitor for is exceedingly complex. For example dissing the monarchy in Thailand, or having an interest in witchcraft in Saudi Arabia, it goes on and on, far beyond the capacity of the limited staff at Wikimedia Foundation to evaluate and offer exemptions to blocking of Tor to. My impression is that all Saudi and Gulf traffic is actively monitored by their governments. They seems to pass though a few ips which I assume their governments have complete access to. Wikipedia has some capacity to offer exemptions to users in mainland China, but it doesn't scale to all global users.
Fully opening up to all anonymizing software would result in of lot of senseless busywork for volunteers, particularly dealing with the endless nonsense generated by spambots, which plague any unmonitored wiki.
Fully opening up to all anonymizing software would result in of lot of senseless busywork for volunteers, particularly dealing with the endless nonsense generated by spambots, which plague any unmonitored wiki.
2
Defeating abusive behaviors security was , unless there are equations that can deduce the inclinations of electron flows , as simple as briefly unplugging your modem . This forces an effort , at minimum , in the identification and assignment of an IP address for a "New" location .
Supporting basic exercises of discipline amongst the streams of eyes that belong to every stripe of individual eventually has as basic a fundamental mechanism as the ludicrous idea of when you may cry Movie ! in a firehouse or Fire ! in a movie house .
Deciding why an individual has become identifiable as an outlier in any time frame tinged with fact based , if maniacal , paranoia , is an interesting insight into personal dynamics . Adopting risky behaviors for marginal degrees of promoting whatever insights offered , are a bit problematic . Understanding the attention seeking behaviors of cynical actors in whose aping of corporate behaviors is underlined by the understanding that there is no such thing as bad publicity , is a bit simpler .
Any routine sublimation of the idea of 'Citizens and Rights' for the exercise of 'Order and Security' in the current politics as entertainment , based on the continuing successful execution of the theory of politics understood as permanent campaigns has traction . The safety found in coffee cup trenches reflecting commitment to a savagely simplified theory of ‘peace is warfare’ maturing into a profitable ideology , might be the real danger here .
Supporting basic exercises of discipline amongst the streams of eyes that belong to every stripe of individual eventually has as basic a fundamental mechanism as the ludicrous idea of when you may cry Movie ! in a firehouse or Fire ! in a movie house .
Deciding why an individual has become identifiable as an outlier in any time frame tinged with fact based , if maniacal , paranoia , is an interesting insight into personal dynamics . Adopting risky behaviors for marginal degrees of promoting whatever insights offered , are a bit problematic . Understanding the attention seeking behaviors of cynical actors in whose aping of corporate behaviors is underlined by the understanding that there is no such thing as bad publicity , is a bit simpler .
Any routine sublimation of the idea of 'Citizens and Rights' for the exercise of 'Order and Security' in the current politics as entertainment , based on the continuing successful execution of the theory of politics understood as permanent campaigns has traction . The safety found in coffee cup trenches reflecting commitment to a savagely simplified theory of ‘peace is warfare’ maturing into a profitable ideology , might be the real danger here .
How do you fight an enemy that hide among us and do as we do -- use social media, internet, cellphones, take pictures of targeted buildings, ride planes and buses, study or teach in our colleges, etc.? How do ISIS recruit our youth?
Present day war is no longer just guns and tanks. Wars nowadays permeate through our homeland, the way we live and do business, a fight for our minds and hearts. Monitoring and spying them, unfortunately, also mean spying on ourselves to some degrees.
In our judicial system, due process meant to protect our rights can be exploited by bad guys to get off. I imagine privacy laws meant to protect our privacy can be used by terrorists to hide their actions. Our openness, though definitely a virtue, can also a weakness terrorists attack us through.
Transparency of our government is important because they potentially can and have abused their power. But sometimes, in a war, certain things do need to stay secret. Washington Post had reported that CIA secretly changed the bomb recipes on the terrorists websites so the bombs would not work. Why report this?
It is not easy to have a nuanced conversation on this because we don't trust our government and we don't want to admit that security and privacy will always have some trade off.
We can't be totally safe and private at the same time.