Join the largest online protest since SOPA to stop NSA spying
callforfreedom.org
callforfreedom.org
Now here they are on this issue, with a prominent donate button, and asking for your email. The put the email request in the middle of a form asking for name and address. They need the later because they are writing Congress on your behalf. They do not need your email for that, and so putting the email in the middle of that form smacks of a trick to get you onto their mailing list.
Of course, it was a complete lie. You were just added to their mailing list, and all you received was a message confirming that.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51959
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51392
Please sign. And as always, email your MP.
Egypt's mass protests are something completely different. They had reasons which are some orders of a magnitude more grave.
With that kind of turnout, voters in the US could change this policy using only normal "democratic" channels...
You can't say they don't listen if you don't try to talk to them.
That's not to say everything is hunky dory. But it's far from too late for people to pull their socks up and take on the responsibility of forcing their elected representatives to act on their behalf.
Sorry, but change means getting off your fat ass.
If they aren't afraid of you burning down their palace, they are not about to change.
Why do people in the US think that change comes from meaningless, one-click bullshit? In Egypt, the military says GTFO. In Syria, they can take up arms and say GTFO and have it not work. You didn't see arabs using twitter for the "retweet this if you want change." It was the get over to street a and b and mob.
Peaceful sit-ins on unused public land, out of the way of the entrenched interests is something to lampoon... nothing to be afraid of. You can't put a poster of Ghandi up on the wall and be taken seriously.
Peaceful resistance is standing in the way of the tank and letting the entrenched powers present themselves to the horror of the world. They will either turn popular sentiment strongly enough that they are taken away, changed, of they will stand down from stupidity.
It's like not forcing legislators to actually filibuster on their feet. Tweet-it-in resistance is worthless.
Stand up, step in, and cross the line if you mean it. Otherwise STFU and GTFO.
It would seem Twitter and FB have figured out a way to monetize that.
If you are similar or the same in fundamental, value/moral terms, others are able to identify with you and see how your plight/demands and their aspirations for themselves are the same.
Online petitions are worthless. You need videos that tell the story - like Mitt Romney and his 47%. You need students getting pepper-sprayed. Overreach and douche-baggery strengthen resolve for the believers and give second-thought to anyone trying to reconcile their better selves with the crappier elements of their own side.
Non-violence means little if you are not causing people to deal with you. Nobody is called to account for an online petition or a peaceful protest covered lightly as a hippie revival.
You have to push the envelope and make it uncomfortable - something requiring answers.
Not even Ghandi's movement was non-violent by your definition.
[1] https://usa.brianstaskforce.com/task/386/stop-unwarranted-su...
"Stop massive surveillance" , or "control NSA abuses" are probably better.
And we know most people won't.
To start of with, (1) I don't think that Google et al were intimidated by users' potential wrath in the face of SOPA passing, and (2) do not think that lobbyists countering those in favor of the legislation had any notable effect.
To the first part, few people said they were threatening to boycott Google or Facebook, and their threats would not have been credible. Additionally, the list of companies who eventually came out against SOPA do not spend very much on lobbying.
SOPA might have been a help to incumbent market participants, because while it would have been feasible for them to implement protections, it would have been an enormous barrier to entry for any new competitors based on user-generated content. So, I agree that it is surprising that they eventually came out against SOPA, and that it may have been for the sake of public relations as much as for sincere ideological compatibility.
And yet, still, many of the most powerful lobbies have influence through the large number of members who follow through when the group decides to send letters expressing outrage about some pet issue as much as from financial power, which is ultimately used for financing ads in attempt to influence people's votes.
Anyway, I'd encourage people to watch one of the talks Aaron Swartz gave on the subject,[1] where he specifically talks about the unprecedented number of calls into Congress and how surprised people on the Hill were about seomthing that seemed to come out of nowhere.
There is no argument that those in favor of SOPA blamed the overwhelming popular reaction on Google and others somehow bamboozling people, but they aren't arguing that it wasn't the popular reaction that mattered. Of course, they also can't explain why Google cared more about SOPA than people who would eventually be the source of that user-generated content that SOPA would block.
Anyway, that's a long way at getting to what may really matter when it comes to privacy and the ability of people to communicate with eachother off-the-record. So far the equation most politicians must see is that they will be blamed whenever a future attack occurs if they stood up against something advocated by people deep in national security.
It would be interesting to see a poll of people who came out against SOPA, since I think it was a pretty nuanced issue. Unfortunately, the value of privacy seems like a pretty nuanced issue as well. In one sense, it doesn't limit you to be patted down in the airport, but it does to have all of your conversations recorded and on record. And yet, the former is the one most likely to upset many people.
While I thought SOPA would prevent innovation on the internet, I think that the repository of communication will become increasingly dangerous as computing power progresses and data analysis methods improve. Since all progress, whether it is sociological or technological necessarily involves change, there will be established powers that have an interest in being able to use that repository to impede progress.
Anyway, I think it is counter productive to achieving public policy aims to treat the hurdles as insurmountable and ignore the successes of popular constituencies of all types. There would be no history because nothing would ever change if everything were the results of infallible puppetmasters.
On a more philosophical level, I suppose the argument to be made is that there will be a lot of change in the future, and that while some disasters will definitely occur, past trends certainly suggest that that things generally improve over time. In other words, even if the shutdown of free, unfettered, unrecorded communication prevented some disasters, it would come at the expense of limiting progress as well once better and better analytics make it a better tool for sabotaging change.
It's in your hands.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html;jsessionid=58...
However, I agree that Reddit in particular could be doing more to spread the word.
People are calling this the 'largest online protest since..' but I'm not actually seeing much in the way of protest. I'm skeptical that those not interested in the subject are seeing anything.
That situation hasn't changed.
For violating the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the politicians are willing to do that to CYA.
Yes, the Patriot Act, etc. are likely unconstitutional, and voters can scream that to the politicians, but the politicians still just want to CYA against another Boston bomber or a charge of "soft on terrorism".
But the US founding fathers saw this situation: Someone with 'standing' brings a legal case, and eventually the case makes it to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) which can accept the case and rule on the constitutionality of the laws. So, the politicians just took advantage of this solution and hit the ball, the hot potato Cthey didn't want to handle, across the street to the SCOTUS.
Standing? Maybe 120 million Verizon customers have standing. Maybe there is a huge class action suit on behalf of all US Internet users. And apparently Google has started a suit. So, maybe there are enough suits with standing.
Then if the SCOTUS strikes down the Patriot Act, etc., the politicians can blame the SCOTUS and still have their CYA.
Uh, politicians tend to be 'chicken hawks': Talk like a hawk (tough on terrorism), walk like a chicken (CYA).
"Peck a little. Talk a little. Peck a little. Talk a little. Peck, peck, peck, talk a little more." -- extra credit for the source!
Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of the supreme court in Marbury vs. Madison. Madison was his secretary of state.
Here is his reasoning:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves"
It's difficult to consider the counter-factual of the court not being created and common law having been continued, but it's useful to understand that there was opposition, and why, so that if you support it, you can use this knowledge to make it better.
In more modern times, partisanship does seem to be a problem, with many of the most important decisions are made 5-4 on party lines.
As you have brought up, another problem is that, contrarily, that it may be that the supreme court isn't actually not be powerful enough. If the U.S. is using the U.K. to spy on Americans, isn't that a blatant end-run around the constitution? But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything?
At the same time, it's not "Just the supreme court's" job to uphold the Constitution. Ultimately, it's the people's, and our most direct representatives are the House. They take an oath to uphold the responsibility, and they can't simply subcontract it, it doesn't work that way.
If we take Jefferson seriously, then for the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, etc., the SCOTUS is not really a superior arbiter and not the last word but just one stop on the way to the voting citizens.
Sounds like time to revise the letter I have under draft, waiting for the SCOTUS to make their unique contribution to the constitutionality, quit deferring to and waiting on the SCOTUS, warm up my FAX modem, send to my Representative and two Senators, and tell them that the final arbiter here is the voting citizens, that I vote, and that my decision on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and whatever else the NSA has been using and generally the means, direct or indirect through London or wherever, is "No" -- not constitutional, and, thus, I expect them to correct the situation with legislation.
So, as a voting citizen, the attitude for me to take here is not to quibble over fine points of law or the precise wording of the First or Fourth Amendments but just to state, from my power and authority as one voting citizen, that this NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, whatever Federal Government under the table, around the world backwards and into the back door, spying on my Internet usage, my USPS usage, my FedEx or UPS usage, my license plate locations, my favorite French or Italian wines, my cell phone tower usage, the items I buy at A&P, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, the items I charge on a credit card, my purchases at Amazon, who visits me, whom I visit, my Internet posts, my garbage items, what my kitty cats eat, etc. is unconstitutional and, besides, unacceptable as in torques me off, and I herewith demand that they pass laws that will shovel out the stalls of the NSA, FBI, etc. and stop that stuff where stuff is not the only word I have in mind.
They can't "subcontract", send the ball, or hot potato, to the SCOTUS, and have to do some real work themselves -- find ways to protect the US within the Constitution.
"But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything?"
Apparently someone thought that that was a cute Catch 22, but I don't think it will wash. So, if the FBI shows up at my Web site server farm (when and if I get it built!), hands me a double secret, triple top secret, national security letter (NSL), where the first rule of NSL is never to talk about NSL, I just say:
"I have not told anyone about your NSL; still, I've already consulted with my lawyer about any such thing, and he advised me to say that we will see you in open court. Have a nice day. I've got to get back to work. Oh, gee, it looks like my kitty cat has made a mess on your nice NSL -- here, you can have it back."
Maybe by the next 4th of July we will have this mess cleaned up.
The Music Man, isn't it?
That movie is awash in insight into cultural manipulation in US society.
Besides, the piano teacher-librarian is just gorgeous!