4 ms·

Objectively, perhaps not. (I suppose I remember the early days of the Internet when it wasn't that popular.) My gist is that our implicit trust in the system/i

Objectively, perhaps not. (I suppose I remember the early days of the Internet when it wasn't that popular.) My gist is that our implicit trust in the system/infrastructure we rely on is undermined by this sort of revelation. And yet, as a whole, we de facto continue to trust in opaque entities that provide valuable yet likely compromised services because it is convenient.

notalaser 11y ago
This should not be a revelation though. Granted, back when the Internet wasn't so popular, the risk for people like you and me, or for small companies, was relatively low. Partly because the value of Internet-accessible information was relatively low, too -- twenty years ago, if I bought a backdoored home router, all the Evil Guys would get access to would be really bad code snippets and a few folders of porn pics. But the fact that people with access to your infrastructure also had access to your data was more or less well known ever since "the beginning", and it's also why internetworks other than the Internet were a thing for a long time. > And yet, as a whole, we de facto continue to trust in opaque entities that provide valuable yet likely compromised services because it is convenient. Don't forget the scarcity of alternatives though. It takes a lot of money to come up with a credible alternative to Juniper and Cisco. Siphoning personal data is what sells nowadays, not protecting it.
maxerickson 11y ago
What implicit trust? Phrases like If you want something to stay private, don't post it. are bandied about by the general public. Not just by single issue privacy advocates, but by people of all sorts.
rhizome 11y ago
The US government has had essentially unfettered access to landline communications since 1928[1]. See also: [2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States 2. http://scarinciattorney.com/olmstead-v-united-states-and-the-nsa-privacy-debate/ http://scarinciattorney.com/olmstead-v-united-states-and-the...

notalaser 11y ago

This should not be a revelation though. Granted, back when the Internet wasn't so popular, the risk for people like you and me, or for small companies, was relatively low. Partly because the value of Internet-accessible information was relatively low, too -- twenty years ago, if I bought a backdoored home router, all the Evil Guys would get access to would be really bad code snippets and a few folders of porn pics. But the fact that people with access to your infrastructure also had access to your data was more or less well known ever since "the beginning", and it's also why internetworks other than the Internet were a thing for a long time. > And yet, as a whole, we de facto continue to trust in opaque entities that provide valuable yet likely compromised services because it is convenient. Don't forget the scarcity of alternatives though. It takes a lot of money to come up with a credible alternative to Juniper and Cisco. Siphoning personal data is what sells nowadays, not protecting it.

maxerickson 11y ago

What implicit trust? Phrases like If you want something to stay private, don't post it. are bandied about by the general public. Not just by single issue privacy advocates, but by people of all sorts.

rhizome 11y ago

The US government has had essentially unfettered access to landline communications since 1928[1]. See also: [2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._United_States 2. http://scarinciattorney.com/olmstead-v-united-states-and-the-nsa-privacy-debate/ http://scarinciattorney.com/olmstead-v-united-states-and-the...