Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Where Form 8815 Amended

Instructions and Help about Where Form 8815 Amended

Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans no sir it does not not wittingly there are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not not wittingly you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide there was a common defense of government mass surveillance Edward Snowden faced during an ask me anything session on reddit - this Snowden responded with 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 he just gave the right to free speech in the right to privacy equal standing but in the digital world privacy and free speech are even more closely related than that online and privacy is free speech if it wasn't commercial internet would have never taken off and we wouldn't have online banking or even services like Facebook Amazon or Android but in the 1990s the government fiercely attacked online privacy by classifying encryption software as ammunition and regulated it as biological weapons or firearms exporting encryption was heavily restricted required a government license and made its implementation on the Internet virtually impossible at the dawn of the commercial Internet the digital realm was a war zone between hackers who believed computer technology should be free from centralized control and the alliance of the US government with big telco corporations who wanted to impose that control the US government successfully launched a crackdown on hackers as a publicity stunt to claim more powers and control over the Internet encryption became the public enemy of the law enforcement in the government agencies were granted expensive authority of her distribution of computer technologies but the resistance was far from over in 1991 Phil Zimmermann developed his first version of an encryption program called pretty good privacy designed to secure email communications files or even in tighter disks two years later Zimmerman was under criminal investigation for exporting munitions without a license and was barred from sharing his software on the Internet but the father of modern encryption who knew better Zimmermann published the whole PGP source code in a hardcover book distributed by MIT press in a digital form PGP was an outlawed piece of software printed in a book it was a free speech protected by the Constitution this exceptionally brilliant case of trolling and the lack of consistent principles the US government hand went regulating the Internet but the government was not challenged in court over this case and it continued to the practice of restrictive exports on encryption in 1994 a graduate student and a University of California daniel bernstein was developing an encryption algorithm that he intended to publish distribute and share openly on public lectures and on the internet however the US Department of State classified his cryptographic software under the arms Export Control Act in the International traffic in arms regulations Bernstein was threatened with 1 million dollar fine and even prison time if he was to proceed to publish his encryption source code and related documents Bernstein thought this was a violation of his First Amendment rights and he went on to challenge the government in court after several years of legal battles the court eventually decided that the Bernstein's source code is protected by the Constitution the judge ruled that a computer language used to build encryption tools is no different from German or French or even music and mathematical equations the case Bernstein versus the United States thus set a long lasting precedent code is speech by the 2000s export restrictions on were relaxed in commercial encryption was no longer accounted as ammunition this was a major victory that freed the internet economy from burdensome government regulations years of encryption could no longer be considered illegal so the only way for the government to gain access to online communications was to go around it the government's wildcard became the Patriot Act that granted the National Security Agency backdoor access to data centers of major tech companies and wiretap fiber optic cables to monitor Internet traffic but the encryption is still there you are still allowed to use deploy and distribute strong encryption to secure your data and it's thanks to the enduring will of privacy advocates to win the case Burstein versus the United States so why are these old cases still relevant today because the argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide still resonates it sounds like common sense but it's a fallacy free speech and privacy are not separable mass surveillance is a backdoor to the First Amendment when it can monitor what everybody does on the internet you can censor speech or manipulate discourse on a massive scale online privacy protects you from censorship encryption allows you to express yourself publicly but anonymously it lets a develop and try ideas before you are comfortable to share them with others it gives you a space with your own borders where you are free from judgment and control the First Amendment grants you the right to encrypt its speech the goal of mass surveillance is to build the government back door into encryption software so that they always have full access to your data but it's technologically impossible to build a secure encryption with a universal key being held by a third party it would fundamentally undermine encryption and thus would strip people from their rights to encrypt it communication free speech is essential it's standing up to power and authority but some people I'd not be able to exercise this right on the internet if doing so would create a permanent record tied to their real-world identity you shouldn't be forced to disclose your identity along with a record of your entire digital presence every time you want to express their opinion what if speaking up against your