Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Newly Declassified Documents Show How the Surveillance State was Born (newrepublic.com)
178 points by tokenadult on Sept 29, 2013 | hide | past | favorite | 37 comments


This article is about a collection of previously classified documents spanning most of the twentieth century about advice to various United States presidents on secret surveillance programs in the interest of national security. The article was a more interesting read than I expected when I first saw it on my Google News page. President Franklin Roosevelt was advised to violate a specific Supreme Court holding about intercepting telegraph communications with persons outside the United States.[1] The history, across multiple administrations, has often been a history of security concerns trumping individual liberty concerns.

But on the whole the history is also hopeful. A key idea from the article that really connects to me is "just as the book shows how that apparatus has been built up, it also tells a second story: of how public outrage, loud and sustained, can tear it back down." Countries have been in danger from external enemies before, and countries have been in danger from their own leaders and complacent citizens before. When the people mobilize, they can still rein in the government.

[1] From the article: "In his opinion, Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy had little hesitation about validating the president’s authority to intercept electronic communications to parties abroad. There was just one problem: The Supreme Court had explicitly held that the Communications Act barred such a move."


On the mobilization front, this rally is aiming to be a large display of support for reforming the surveillance apparatus: http://rally.stopwatching.us


Any idea why the SSL certificate for that site would be invalid? I'd rather not connect to a site, given the nature of the content, if I can't know who maintains the site and where a valid SSL certificate is a good first step in due diligence.


I'm getting a valid certificate so maybe you are being MITM'd?


I'm getting a valid cert.

http://i.imgur.com/FQ4Yb94.png


If/when this happens again, run this command and paste the output:

    $ openssl s_client -showcerts -connect rally.stopwatching.us:443


Why would you care about an invalid cert if you aren't handing over any credentials?


An invalid cert could indicate a MITM attack. Even if you're not sending anything down, who knows what they're sending back?


Because someone might alter the content, eg: changing the date of the rally (so some people don't turn up on the right day), or making the event much look more unconvincing so you don't bother going.


I still don't understand how a rally will do anything beyond making the news. The effort might be better spent identifying specific senators, and representatives, and encouraging people to vote them out of office through campaigning.


People aren't going to vote for a congress member based on an issue they don't care about. You have to get people to care first, that's what the rally and associated media attention are for.


The USG actually started on its electronic surveillance career in the 1860s, when Lincoln approved routing all the telegraph connections thru the office of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [1]. The first electronic (?) MITM, maybe.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveilla...


Maybe it would be acceptable to do something like that "in a time of war". The problem with today's government is that it seems to define everything in terms of an endless war. Cyber-attacks? "We're at cyberwar". Terrorism? "We're at war with all the nations harboring terrorists". Domestic terrorism? Well there's already the "war on drugs", so they probably don't care that much about that one, as long as they still get all the powers they need inside the country, too. 9 in 10 NSL's are used for drug cases, actually. Surprised?

Such sustained surveillance - indefinitely - is simply unacceptable, and people need to fight back against it. If the nation really is at some sort of "long term war" with multiple enemies, then maybe the nation is doing something very wrong, and should look at the root cause of what's causing those enemies to react, rather than trying to fix the problem later with surveillance.

The problem is maintaining the war status quo is so very profitable for certain people and companies.


I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.


> I believe it said Roosevelt was advised against the wiretapping but went ahead with it anyway.

That case (wiretapping, advice against from Attorney General Robert Jackson) is different from the one tokenadult is referring to (intercepting telegrams, advice in favor from Assistant Solicitor General Charles Fahy).


>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal

It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.


To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.


In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated -- from Obama's push for strikes, to Kerry's press conference 'fumble' [1] -- given how clearly and cleanly it allowed Russia/Syria to concede to world demands without losing face. (Indeed by appearing to be the bigger/better/more sane people.)

[1] Wherein Kerry facetiously offered the supposedly-unacceptable path to avoiding conflict, allowing Putin to 'call' that bluff by actually agreeing to it.


Exactly. Let's not forget the "oops, sooo the British actually aren't with us on this one" part either. But everyone sacrifices a little bit to gain something much more important.

- Obama took one on the chin and temporarily looked inept, but in the long run, no one will remember the war he didn't start, and both parties get to forget about that awkward time they were forced to advocate for positions opposite of traditional party lines.

- Russia lost a the ability to prevent any action against its increasingly isolated stoolpidgeon, but got some much needed diplomacy cred, and a distraction from its very public human rights issues.

- Assad doesn't risk provoking a multilateral military action against his government, but also gains a pretext to prevent proliferation of weapons that have become a huge liability, and some much needed legitimacy as the "grownup" in Syria.

I'm not a new world order guy, but I do absolutely think that there are times when unfriendly nations work through the backchannels to prevent things that are just awful for everyone.


> In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated ...

I remember thinking, as it was all unfolding, that it all seemed planned out well in advance and that the way everything happened was just a bit too "convenient" (not sure if that's the right word I want to use).


Obama didn't have to wait for congress in the case of Libya, he already had their support.


Congress never authorized anything regarding libya.


They may never have authorized anything as would be necessary for a more escalated conflict, but they certainly supported intervention:

> 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.


>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal

This wasn't about the constitution it was about making sure the blame was well spread around for any actions taken.

When you are entering a war that will last past the end of your term it is good for you and the party. People don't like change during war so unless you really screw up you and your party are safe for that election. If you start a war that is unpopular and you can't extend it past the end of your term then you and your party won't win the next round.

I'm pretty party agnostic, and there are things I both like about Obama and things I very much dislike. But he is a good at playing crowds and making decisions based on polling. That's what was done here.


Racist fuck.

Oh I can't make baseless claims on the internet? What's your excuse?

Look I don't really like how Obama has handles anything but laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded when these programs have been in the works for decades.


The New Republic's owner and Editor-in-Chief is Chris Hughes, Facebook founder who coordinated Obama's online campaign for presidency, so I'd reassess your read of whatever racism you're seeing.


There wasn't any. Did you not read my post? I was trying to point out that you can't just make baseless claims like that.


I did read your post. Perhaps you need to step back and consider carefully what techniques for communicating are most effective, given the reactions to your post by many in the intended audience.


The article doesn't make that claim:

In expanding the surveillance state and the White House’s wartime authorities, Obama has continued a grand and unfortunate presidential tradition—fresh details of which have quietly come to light.


Of course, none of that happened. Although President Obama could have reined in the surveillance state, as we all know, he did not.

On the NSA, Obama has made the opposite calculation.

Seems like it does to me.


In the part you quoted, it's clear that Obama didn't start the surveillance state. He just didn't "rein it in".


Whhat does that have to do with my post or the article?


You said "laying the blame on him is pretty fucking retarded", but no one is laying the blame on him.


So I've got to ask... What part of the article did you feel was racist?


"You disagree with Obama on issue <XYZ>? Must be your inherent racism..."

I'd love it if I hadn't actually met people (plural) who believe such things...


None of it... I think you missed the part about baseless claims I was getting at.


Looks like it backfired.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: