3 ms·

I think that many people accept that there are some forms of monitoring occurring on the networks owned by their institutions. Unfortunately, many folks do not

I think that many people accept that there are some forms of monitoring occurring on the networks owned by their institutions. Unfortunately, many folks do not have clear knowledge about exactly what gets monitored and what capabilities the monitoring allows. In the USA, at least, "owners" of a network can do anything they want with the traffic going through it including providing fake certs for the purpose of clear-text search of https traffic, storing communications for however long they want, and providing these communications to whomever they please. So much for a "free country".

sillysaurus3 11y ago
So much for a "free country". I was going to type a response, then remembered the guideline against introducing classic flamewar topics. I'll just say this is myopic at best. If you want to protect yourself, then protect yourself. You live in a country where this is even possible.
- crispyambulance 11y ago
  Not interested in flamewar at all. My point is that people (the public) don't actually understand the extent and implications of network monitoring, and almost no one is speaking out about it. As an example consider that there are folks on this very thread asking about whether or not https is "safe" on a network which is owned by someone else. If there is a lack of knowledge _HERE_, imagine what the situation is for everyone else who doesn't even know what a MITM "attack" is. You can't "protect yourself" if you don't know what the threat is. I am glad that the UC community is raising a stink about this.