This is really wonderful work by the EFF. Legal opinions are not dangerous. They don't disclose the locations of undercover agents or anything like that. It's a contempt to the legal profession to keep them secret so that their reasoning cannot be scrutinized by courts. A lawyer's job is to make the best possible argument for her client's position, but if the court says she's wrong--and it's within the court's sole provenance to say what the law is--then she must acquiesce.
> The U.S. Department of Justice today filed a motion to dismiss its appeal of a ruling over legal opinions about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the controversial provision of law relied on by the NSA to collect the call records of millions of Americans. As a result of the dismissal, the Justice Department will be forced to release a previously undisclosed opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concerning access by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to census data under Section 215.
By the government backing out, it _doesn't_ set legal precedent for the release or prevention of secret ruling. They lost a battle to continue the war.
Sometimes I wonder if the government should be required to follow all cases through to a court ruling, so that precedent can be established when appropriate.
Yes and no; There are already some rules governing case abandonment but we definitely don't need a government obligated to follow through every fool action it initiates.
If you found this encouraging, remember that donating to the EFF is a nice way to show appreciation. You can also set them up to benefit from amazon.smile if that strikes your fancy.
I would highly, highly recommend that you sign up for a recurring monthly donation of $10 or more. It's the cost of Netflix, but infinitely more valuable.
If you shop with Amazon.com, you can use the subdomain,
smile.amazon.com
to donate to your favorite charity, of which EFF is a part! So, if you'd like to 'passively' donate to the EFF, you can change your smile.amazon.com settings (and ensure you shop/checkout w/ the Smile subdomain) and a portion of your purchase will go to the EFF.
There are many organizations and charities that are a part of the Smile program, so choose whichever you'd like to support.
There's also a service called "Igive" which is even better & works with over 1000 different online merchants. Each merchant supposedly donates a percentage of your purchase to the cause you've chosen, which varies merchant to merchant. I've seen some who do as high as 20% while a majority are somewhere between 2-10%. Easy to use & much easier to add a nonprofit to if it's not already a choice. I was able to add Erowid & I'm not affiliated with them in any way. They have a great directory of all the supported merchants & even a discount/coupon code section. I'd be surprised if EFF wasn't already on it, but it could easily be added & you could use Igive to support them every time you shop online, which I think is awesome.
> donating to the EFF is a nice way to show appreciation
Showing appreciation is a minor detail (sorry to take your wording so literally; I'm just using it to make a point). This is essential work for everyone and for our democracy. Donating to and supporting the EFF (or similar organizations, if you don't happen to agree with the EFF) is a responsibility; it's doing (part of) your share.
The greatest problem in our (and every) democracy is not those who actively oppose progress, but the great majority who sit around and do nothing.
(The upside to that is, if you do get off your ass, then you have greatly disproportionate power over your community and nation. An organized, active minority can be very powerful -- look at the Tea Party, which I think only 10% of American support but which, by being very active and by being almost 50% of GOP primary voters, has great influence over the entire nation.)
I cannot support the EFF as long as they willfully and intentionally misrepresent basic facts about issues they're involved in.
The EFF's positions on both net neutrality and CISPA have been intentionally misleading, and until they correct their stance I will not consider it my "responsibility" to support them.
If you read their press release about CISPA, and then read the Wikipedia page, you'll find a number of direct discrepancies.
For example, the EFF claims that cyber intelligence is user data, when in reality it's IPs, domains, md5s, general behavior of threat actors. The EFF intentionally pretends like companies want to give away user information, when in reality, companies want to enable the US government to protect its citizens.
I highly second using smile.amazon.com to do your online shopping and selecting the EFF (or ACLU) as the beneficiary. There's no change in prices for you; as a result, Amazon only donates 0.5% but every little bit helps.
Personally I'm happy to see issues that the left and right can both agree on, and don't really see an issue with EFF doing this if it helps accomplish their goals.
I've never donated money to a political organization before, but I started an annual gold membership with the EFF. Initially I was sceptical, because I don't want to meddle in US politics as a non-US citizen. But these are global problems and the EFF does have a global agenda. I'm also very impressed with the work they do, even on smaller things like Privacy Badger. I encourage everyone concerned with privacy to pick up their bank card and chip in. We need to make this organization as strong as it can be. Congratulations to the EFF.
The ability of the public to challenge the government in court and win on an issue like this is a large part of why America is so successful - the citizens are what removes government rot and keeps the system running well.
Oh how I wish I agreed with that. I recognize the huge value of a healthy justice system, but at the same time (a) there's so much we still cannot get through this type of legal process (National Security Letters, anyone), and (b) there's so much systemic rot that cannot be addressed this way (e.g., campaign financing) or in any other way that seems tractable to me.
It's quite tractable, stop voting for the same two parties that keep causing the problems over and over again. The trouble is, most of your voting neighbors don't mind so they perpetuate the problem - there's the downside of democracy, two wolves and a sheep.
Not sure why you got downvoted, but you make a good point.
Political parties change their "offerings" when they lose votes.
Analogy: When 2 large competing grocery chains start loosing business to small organic stores the big stores will start carrying organic food. The small organic store will never dominate the big stores but they can cause the big guys to
change.
C.G.P. Grey has an entire series on why our voting system forces a two-party system. The issue isn't getting your neighbour to change their voting habits, the issue is changing the system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=s7tWHJfhi...
I fully agree that voting for third parties is the way to go, but currently the public has been propagandized to believe that voting third party is wasting your vote, or even worse, causing harm.
They are convinced that their vote is wasted by a propaganda video going around that describes the US system as a "first past the post", in which it is impossible for third parties to win. They are convinced that third party voting is harmful as it supposedly causes a spoiler effect.
As long as people are brainwashed against voting third party by these flawed memes, the problem will remain intractable.
There are multiple factors that make it unlikely for a third party to win, and "first past the post" is a lesser contributor.
Of far more concern are ballot access laws that make even the formation of a third party a colossal waste of time, and partisan redistricting that even makes it impossible for the second party to win. I won't even delve into ridiculously insecure electronic voting tabulators, because I'm too likely to devolve into paranoid conspiracy nonsense from there.
Eliding over all that, the spoiler effect is what forces the two major parties to make changes to their platform in your locale. If a party believes that your vote for another party caused them to lose an election, they will certainly make an effort to kiss your ass at least once in the next cycle, becoming more like the party you voted for. It is easy to argue that voting for either of the two major parties means that you don't want them to change their platform or policies.
Voting for the party in power means you are happy with the status quo. If you are not happy, and you find the second party to be more objectionable, voting for a third party that puts you between them and the party in power on the political spectrum is the correct move. If that party is scared enough by votes bleeding from them to that party, they will shift in that direction, perhaps enough that you will be happy voting for them again.
You're getting into game theory territory. At present, it might be the case that voting for the third party helps to change the platforms of the dominant parties, but if this idea becomes well enough known to significantly impact voting behavior, then the dominant parties will likely pick up on it and adjust accordingly. That is to say that if they see (through polling, exit interviews and statistical analysis) that this is a significant effect, it also likely implies that the people who employ this strategy are significantly less gettable by platform changes, because a party that can taylor itself to the issues they feel strongest about will always be more attractive than the two parties that have to satisfy everyone. So you might see a Nash equilibrium develop that nullifies the effect of this strategy.
The current equilibrium is stuck at candidates pretending to be further from the political barycenter to win their party primary, then pretending to be closer to the barycenter in the general election. Any person holding a consistent position over the entire elections cycle--which is to say anyone that has non-negotiable personal principles--is eliminated from consideration. Campaign promises are rarely honored. Nothing of genuine importance--like debt, systemic unemployment, inflation, or even just passing a budget bill for the year--is ever seriously considered.
If a new non-optimal Nash equilibrium is reached, that's fine with me, because the one we have now is absolutely terrible, in my opinion. perhaps it will inspire new political strategies that do not leave huge segments of the populace effectively disenfranchised.
History - while America has always been governed primarily by two parties, that set of two has changed a couple of times.
Originally, it was the Whigs and the Democratic Republicans. In the mid-1800s, the Republicans were a new party, and Lincoln wound up being the first president from that party.
Interesting to note that the guy who freed the slaves was a Republican, while it was the Democrats who tried to maintain slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, the parties got confused about who their core constituencies were, leading to the major shift leading to the alignment we see today.
While I'm far from confident that it's happening, it's entirely possible that today's problems like ubiquitous surveillance, brutality of a militarized police force, etc., together make up enough of a sea change in public opinion that the Parties are again susceptible to getting lost. Witness flip-flop of many people in condemning GWB while failing to protest Obama's own similar actions, or vice-versa.
My comment above yours might answer that (a "wasted" vote isn't wasted if it causes change).
A few years ago I watched a TV program about Ralph Nader and it changed the way I voted.
Like most people, I had been voting for the least worst guy who I thought could win. I think that you probably do so as well. I probably did that for the first 20+ years. Now ask yourself: "How is that working out for me? Has it made a long term positive difference?"
The major parties really can't afford to cater to our interests, at least not in deed. We frankly can't pay them enough. Unless they are independently wealthy, they can't afford to run for another term if they don't satisfy the wishes of their donors [their true constituents]. Side with your voters against the guys funding your campaign(s) - no more money for you!
If you voted based on mathematics, you would see that you are mistakenly conflating your individual vote with the behavior of the general populace. For example, with the presidential vote, except in a couple small districts in swing states, your vote is completely irrelevant. Your single vote is both not enough to swing the state you are in, and even if it were, it's within the error margins for that state. If it ever got close enough to where one vote decides it (and it never has), it would be a court deciding the vote anyway.
So since your individual vote doesn't matter, you might as well vote your conscience and not pragmatically.
They're a facade, a ruse to convince the american's that they still have a say in the matters of the US Government. This should have been obvious when they took the hot air of their contributors and flew it over the NSA HQ.
But it means significantly more than nothing. Incremental improvement matters, and each success paves the next step toward the big important goals. There isn't a magic switch to just flip this enormous machine on its head. It's a crude, long, and brutal slog beating back the nonsense and cruft built up allowing such personal liberty injustices, and this is just another step.
You can't protect whistleblowers if you can't know about them or the reasons they were thrown in jail. This is a step to getting that information and working on a legal vaccine. (IANAL, but I am a cautious optimist.)
The Berlin Wall was not felled by bombs and guns, but the slow attrition of wall by the will of the public (and mistake over travel permissions by a civil servant). ;-)
Here's why census data is relevant: If you receive an extended survey from the U.S. census, you are legally required to fill it out with all sorts of personal data. If you don't return it, a census rep will hound you until you do.
The "Privacy Policy" for this data is on the U.S. Census website here:
Note the statement that "the statistics we release do not identify individuals or businesses".
During the last census, it became pretty obvious that this would be an effective way for the U.S. Government to compel information from people who were suspected of something. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, after all, gives the government carte blanche to obtain any "tangible" thing.
IMHO... the interesting questions to ask when this legal opinion is released are:
1. Was there ever any accuracy to the U.S. Census "Privacy Policy"? Were the privacy policies of the U.S. Census misrepresented to the public, and in particular to those who were required to complete an extended survey?
2. Does the legal opinion address the "third-party doctrine" when the information provided is provided under legal compulsion, and in particular with potential (if commonly unused) penalties for non-cooperation?
A very interesting test case would be for someone to sue the government, in light of the upcoming 2020 census, to test the constitutionality of the criminal liability for not completing the extended survey in light of the government using the information provided for potential law enforcement purposes. It should be easier than usual to establish standing since anyone can be forced to complete one of these extended surveys.
The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff, being substantial felonies enshrined in statutory law, not just a nonbinding "policy" or an informally-binding "regulation" or a downright insulting backroom "interpretation". They may conflict with privileges people assume under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but they were not repealed with the passage of the Patriot Act. They are explicitly and repetitively opposed to the contents of the Census surveys being used against the respondent in any law enforcement capacity. In a talk I attended, the ranking US official in charge of the Census at the time, Rebecca Blank, fielded questions incredulous of this point. The cost of being able to collect the data credibly is not being able to use it for any legal purpose in the context of the individual.
Census officials, employees, or associates who cooperate with the NSA on breaching privacy need to go to prison under these provisions for them to mean anything; They have always pitted the Census against other agencies that would like to feast on that data. The laws are not required to protect against Amazon marketting, they are required to protect against the IRS, FBI, DEA, ICE, NSA, et al, and ensure that the Constitutional duty to enumerate the populace cannot be contravened by the respondent's fear of repression. Perhaps the Patriot Act immunizes the FBI from asking, but if it immunizes the Census Bureau from answering, we might as well not have a Census Bureau at all.
An intelligence agency that keeps a list of demographic minorities for the purposes of spying & persecution is Holocaust-precursor-grade stuff, and something we have fought against for most of our existence since our inception as a country.
I fortunately (or unfortunately) was the target of one of the "extended survey" forms in the last US Census.
I ignored the mail. A Census worker came to my address and I would not let him in, multiple times (the first time, he was without any ID).
Fortunately for me, there is a way for the Census worker to complete each blank on his form with "declines to answer" (he did it by pressing Shift-F11 if that helps you).
Of course, that is at the whim of the Census Bureau, and is not the same as legal protection against Census surveys. In other words, I ultimately sat down with the Census worker and we went through the questions outside my address. I had him press Shift-F11 for each answer, he thanked me for my time, and that was that.
It helps to be courteous and considerate (I offered him a cold drink). It probably made the difference in getting him to admit there was a Shift-F11 option.
Japanese internment camps. McCarthyism. Blacklisting. Post-9/11 legislation.
I would only be willing to grant a government more power under two conditions. It is independently verifiable at any time that it is both ethical and competent. The power could be revoked if it fails to be either ethical or competent.
Grant of personal information is a non-revocable act. And the current government structure appears to me to be either competent or ethical, and sometimes neither, but very rarely both. I often watch videos from independent blogger-journalists where a person will conduct a lawful request to view public records while recording, and be subjected to physical force or punitive arrest as a result.
You want me to disclose my personal information? Stop keeping nasty secrets about how you really run things. Stop stonewalling freedom of information act requests. Stop the "parallel construction" nonsense that turns the fruit of the poisonous tree into jelly and spreads it on justice's breakfast toast.
And perhaps be able to name a single thing I might consider to be good, that was made possible only through availability of long-form survey information. For all the supposed potential benefits, I have difficulty actually identifying any. Wait. Here's one.
Census survey income data were used to identify relatively poor areas for the Community Reinvestment Act. Fannie Mae was subsequently directed to buy more loans for mortgaged properties in those areas. So it lowered its standards for qualifying loans, particularly with respect to documented incomes. A lending boom resulted, followed by a fraud- and greed-driven bust that wiped out all the equity I had in my house (which was bought with a 25% cash down payment). THANKS, CENSUS.
No, I prefer not to encourage any "help" from the government. Ethics and competence first, please.
That would all be more reassuring if the Census Bureau hadn't assisted in rounding up Japanese Americans during WWII. Whether or not intelligence agencies track minorities now is irrelevant. If Congress ever decides all Arab Americans, or Japanese Americans, or Mexican Americans, or any other hated minority de jour, are a threat to National Security, they'll repeal the laws protecting census data again, and the FBI will have those records within days.
This threat is obvious to everyone who supports the Census. That's why the laws were created - to establish the principle and tradition that Census data is sacrosanct, and ensure that nothing short of overt repeal (such as interpretations, regulations, policies, executive orders, politely worded requests, or FISA orders) will unseal the files. If we breach those laws in the midst of a perceived crisis, especially without punishment for the violators, we are essentially giving up the opportunity to have honest Census responses for several generations.
> If we breach those laws in the midst of a perceived crisis, especially without punishment for the violators, we are essentially giving up the opportunity to have honest Census responses for several generations.
After seeing the hysteria after 9/11, and the power of propaganda, I don't think that what you mentioned will deter people.
> An intelligence agency that keeps a list of demographic minorities for the purposes of spying & persecution is Holocaust-precursor-grade stuff
Exactly. And that's how Jacob Appelbaum sees it too:
“There is just a very real historical awareness of how information can be used against people in really dangerous ways here,” Poitras says. “There is a sensitivity to it which just doesn’t exist elsewhere. And not just because of the Stasi, the former East German secret police, but also the Nazi era. There’s a book Jake Appelbaum talks a lot about that’s called IBM and the Holocaust and it details how the Nazis used punch-cards to systemise the death camps. We’re not talking about that happening with the NSA [the US National Security Agency], but it shows how this information can be used against populations and how it poses such a danger.”
> The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff
So are those for torture, domestic spying, and many other things. It is well established at this point that the U.S. government will not hold its officials accountable, except for leaking information to the press. In other countries, presidents go on trial (Israel and France come to mind); it's unthinkable in the U.S. Even Nixon was pardoned.
> > The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff
> So are those for torture, domestic spying, and many other things.
Not so much torture. The only US federal law on torture per se applies only outside of the United States, and expressly excludes civil liability (and, therefore, private action), and uses a limited definition of "severe mental pain and suffering" to limit the scope of prohibited torture (identical to those in the US reservations to the Convention Against Torture itself.)
There's a long-standing loophole in the census: there is no way they can make you reply to the questions accurately. Tens of thousands of women repeatedly lying about their age on census forms are an easy testament to that fact, several of them in my own family. And a long-form census form can be filled out by anyone in the household, not per-person. When I was in college, my off-campus house got the long-form for the 2000 Federal Census and God only knows what my roommate who got the mail that day wrote down for answers about the other three of us. Guess I'll find out details in 2072.
Do they have the mathematical power to say it's unidentifying information? Is it just that that information, on its own, isn't identifying, or is the test that, with all the other information on the internet, it's still not identifying?
Do I have to respond to the American Community Survey (ACS)?[0]
Yes. You are legally obligated to answer all the questions, as accurately as you can.
The relevant laws are Title 18 U.S.C Section 3571[1] and Section 3559,[2] which amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221.[3]
As I read that, it's an infraction, with a fine of not more than $5,000 and/or imprisonment of five days or less.
I imagine such sanction would be easy enough to evade by questioning the jurisdiction, if you do not live in Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or on a military base, or work as a federal employee.
But in order to question jurisdiction, you will likely have to do so pro se, without an attorney (who is an officer of the court). And U.S. Attorneys can be tenacious, if needed "pour encourager les autres", so it's usually a better idea all around to just avoid their attention altogether.
The only question you really need to answer is the number of people domiciled at your mailing address on Census Day. I got the long form in 2010, and answered "four people live at this address" with no subsequent in-person harassment or prosecution.
The person who eventually arrived at my door was unaware that census data were used to place Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War 2, and subsequently declined to ask me my race again, or any other questions. I didn't even get to bring up post-9/11 legislation.
It turns out that the arguments I had planned on making back then were well-founded. I won't let it go to my head, on the off chance that I was checking a stopped clock at just the right time of day.
If the temp employee persists, it might be useful to ask how many people have actually been fined, since 1970, under the laws they threaten you with. You should already know the answer, so that your questions will be rhetorical. It's zero. In the last five censuses, no one has been fined for failure to respond, even though 2-3% are prime candidates.
And very much in practice. Census reps -- all those temp workers that provide a reliable employment spike -- are instructed to pay multiple home visits to anyone who hasn't completed a questionnaire, extended survey or not. They are also instructed to remind holdouts of criminal liability for not responding. And they do!
Also census reps must take an oath to not disclose individual information:
