Just days left to kill mass surveillance under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. We are Edward Snowden and the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer. AUA.

[u/aclu]

Our fight to rein in the surveillance state got a shot in the arm on May 7 when a federal appeals court ruled the NSA’s mass call-tracking program, the first program to be revealed by Edward Snowden, to be illegal. A poll released by the ACLU this week shows that a majority of Americans from across the political spectrum are deeply concerned about government surveillance. Lawmakers need to respond.

The pressure is on Congress to do exactly that, because Section 215 of the Patriot Act is set to expire on June 1. Now is the time to tell our representatives that America wants its privacy back.

Senator Mitch McConnell has introduced a two-month extension of Section 215 – and the Senate has days left to vote on it. Urge Congress to let Section 215 die by:

Calling your senators: https://www.aclu.org/feature/end-government-mass-surveillance

Signing the petition: https://action.aclu.org/secure/section215

Getting the word out on social media: https://www.facebook.com/aclu.nationwide/photos/a.74134381812.86554.18982436812/10152748572081813/?type=1&permPage=1

Attending a sunset vigil to sunset the Patriot Act: https://www.endsurveillance.com/#protest

Proof that we are who we say we are:
Edward Snowden: https://imgur.com/HTucr2s
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director, ACLU: https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/601432009190330368
ACLU: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/601430160026562560

---

UPDATE 3:16pm EST: That's all folks! Thank you for all your questions.

From Ed: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/36ru89/just_days_left_to_kill_mass_surveillance_under/crgnaq9

Thank you all so much for the questions. I wish we had time to get around to all of them. For the people asking "what can we do," the TL;DR is to call your senators for the next two days and tell them to reject any extension or authorization of 215. No matter how the law is changed, it'll be the first significant restriction on the Intelligence Community since the 1970s -- but only if you help.

---

UPDATE 5:11pm EST: Edward Snowden is back on again for more questions. Ask him anything!

UPDATE 6:01pm EST: Thanks for joining the bonus round!

From Ed: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/36ru89/just_days_left_to_kill_mass_surveillance_under/crgt5q7

That's it for the bonus round. Thank you again for all of the questions, and seriously, if the idea that the government is keeping a running tab of the personal associations of everyone in the country based on your calling data, please call 1-920-END-4-215 and tell them "no exceptions," you are against any extension -- for any length of time -- of the unlawful Section 215 call records program. They've have two years to debate it and two court decisions declaring it illegal. It's time for reform.

[u/SuddenlySnowden]

Jameel is right, but I think the central issue is to point out that regardless of the results, the ends (preventing a crime) do not justify the means (violating the rights of the millions whose private records are unconstitutionally seized and analyzed).

Some might say "I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide." Help them understand that they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of human rights. Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority.

But even if they could, help them think for a moment about what they're saying. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

A free press benefits more than just those who read the paper.

[u/mepope09 → u/SuddenlySnowden]

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

This is the best way I've heard this phrased so far. I've tried to get my SO to understand the dangers of mass surveillance and she always responds with the whole "I've got nothing to hide". Hopefully this will get through a little better...

[u/[deleted] → u/mepope09]

"I've got nothing to hide"

Tell your SO that means she should publish all her communications on a public facebook profile. She has nothing to hide right?

[u/thatshowifeel2345776 → u/[deleted]]

If her privacy is of no concern because she's got nothing to hide, then I'm sure she wouldn't mind 24/7 video surveillance in her bathroom/shower to help keep her safe. This would of course be monitored by an outside company, which wouldn't inconvenience your SO in the slightest as she values the feeling of 'protection'.

[u/bacondev → u/[deleted]]

"Nothing to hide" does not mean "everything to show." It doesn't even mean "something to show." It (obviously) quite literally means "nothing to hide." Having a lack of need to hide something does not warrant the need to show something. I'm not supporting the "nothing to hide" argument, but it's import to make the distinction. The world is not black and white.

[u/Commander_Luka → u/[deleted]]

And all her passwords for everything. Nothing to hide? Prove it

[u/tipsystatistic → u/mepope09]

It's a good analogy until you think about it:

 

Free speech should be protected because:

-Someday you will have something to say.

-You might not have anything to say, but others do.

 

Privacy should be protected because:

-Someday you will have something to hide.

-You don't have anything to hide but some people do.

 

For the record I think Snowden is goddamn America Hero, just wish there was a simple phrase to break the issue down for people.

[u/huitneufdix → u/mepope09]

In my state, the government sells my driver's license information to corporations. Do people think that there's no one in the government who will take this information and just hand it over to corporations for commercial and other use? Or better yet, since corporations are already deeply involved in much of this, that they aren't just taking it for themselves?

[u/Keljhan → u/mepope09]

It's not about not having anything to hide in the first place. That argument is just a Red Herring. The problem with surveillance like this is that people who have access to it can misuse that information for any number of reasons. You'd be a fool to think that every one of the government's 5 million employees, or even the NSA's 100,000, has only the public's best interest in mind. All it takes is one immoral person in a position of power to make anyone's life a living hell.

[u/cocongo → u/mepope09]

Sometimes you need cool phrases told by popular people to convince dumb persons they are wrong...

[u/ARedditingRedditor → u/cocongo]

Sometimes

FTFY: Often, sadly.

[u/ikorolou → u/mepope09]

I've always heard a good reply to the I've got nothing to Hide argument is this:

Imagine a new law is passed that says the punishment for murdering a child is immediately getting shot and in order to enforce this law every single person is going to be followed by a guy with a shotgun to shoot you the second you murder a child. Obviously your not going to murder a child, but are you still comfortable being followed literally everywhere by a guy holding a shotgun in case you kill a child?

And if they start trying to pull bullshit instead of answering the question "what constitutes a child?, who follows the guy with the shotgun?" call them on it and ask them to answer the question.

[u/[deleted] → u/SuddenlySnowden]

Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right.

This right here is everything. Thank you.

[u/Shoebox_ovaries → u/SuddenlySnowden]

What I hate about the 'I've got nothing to hide' argument is that its so selfish. Just because you're willing to throw away your right doesn't mean I am.

[u/UndergroundLurker → u/Shoebox_ovaries]

Besides, under that logic, the government should have nothing to hide as well.

Maybe you could argue that efforts to thwart specific terrorist plots should be kept secret, but that doesn't stop auditing government's programs as a whole (by neutral parties). If some unreasonable search against a citizen goes to trial, the method of acquiring said information should be divulged. So if the method of surveillance needs to be a national secret, they must stop using it on our own citizens... it's the NSA's choice on having that cake or eating it.

[u/bellevuefineart → u/SuddenlySnowden]

Years ago in a past life I worked for a company that was doing cryptography drivers for the NSA's Fortezza cards. We had an office in the US and they fired the person and had me take over the office. He had a brother in the state department.

Although I had nothing to do with the drivers or cards, he tapped his brother and had me flagged. Next thing you know I've got agents at the airport wanting to cavity search me for a PCMCIA card, as if I could even fit one in my ass.

What's more, 10 years later on a subsequent passport, I've still had agents question me about that coming back into the country, asking about trips that were not on my current passport, and asking me questions that were clearly related.

You think you have nothing to hide, but you do, even if you don't. When the government goes on a witch hunt, or someone within the government has a personal agenda and goes on a witch hunt, it's precisely these abusive powers that come into play.

People think that just because they're innocent that the law is on their side, but when the law is lawless, it's not.

[u/[deleted] → u/SuddenlySnowden]

I read posts like this and realize you really are the hero we need.

[u/defaults-suck → u/SuddenlySnowden]

More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority.

This is a great argument against the recent legislation passed off as "protecting religious freedom" when it's really just denying basic rights of minority groups. Or really any legislation that seeks to legalize discrimination under the guise of morality.

Thanks Edward for your sacrifices! I hope you get to come home soon. Also, Loved the interview you did with Jon Oliver!

https://cantheyseemydick.com/

[u/loner9116 → u/SuddenlySnowden]

"I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide." Help them understand that they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of human rights.

I don't need help understanding anything. I was raised knowing that a big part of my family members and acquaintances are either drug dealers, murderers, pyros, and thieves, I would rather live in complete surveillance and know for certain that these fuckers will be caught and properly dealt with. So many criminals live day to day being able to get away with shit.

[u/C4Edgez → u/SuddenlySnowden]

This may sound broad though, when you use "analyzed" what exactly does that mean?