3 ms·

What you're complaining about is not a solvable problem, and has nothing to do with privacy. Today, in this world we live in at this very moment, I can communi

What you're complaining about is not a solvable problem, and has nothing to do with privacy. Today, in this world we live in at this very moment, I can communicate in such a way so as to prevent the US government from reading/hearing what I say. So, unless you have specific evidence that this isn't the case, people should listen to what you're saying with the same attention they give every other conspiracy theorist.

ebrenes 14y ago
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but what I was stabbing at had everything to do with privacy. As does the whole point the OP mentioned of having communications monitored. Whether or not the US government can at this point in time read/hear what you say is somewhat irrelevant if they're monitoring it and recording it and there exists a non-0 chance of they being able to then crack it. I was also not attempting to draw up some huge conspiracy theory that the US government is out to get you or any particular person. I'm merely trying to point out that the more information and communications the US Government (or any other entity) records, then the greater their capacity to infringe on our privacy. And that in some use cases the actual contents are irrelevant in so far that the monitoring itself can inconvenience us and harm us due to information that is inadvertently leaked or signalled through our communication patterns. But to be honest, I'm glad there exists a way for someone to have every single method of communication go through secure means that are impervious to any manner of eavesdropping.
- diminoten 14y ago
  > Whether or not the US government can at this point in time read/hear what you say is somewhat irrelevant if they're monitoring it and recording it and there exists a non-0 chance of they being able to then crack it. No, that's completely wrong. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's accessible. That's what warrants are for, and if it's unlawful for the government to ever see that information, then the warrant will never be granted. We were talking about whether or not people are able to communicate privately, and you claimed it was impossible. This is factually inaccurate, as I've been trying to point out. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the government is capable of breaking currently considered secure encryption? If not, shut the fuck up.

ebrenes 14y ago

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but what I was stabbing at had everything to do with privacy. As does the whole point the OP mentioned of having communications monitored. Whether or not the US government can at this point in time read/hear what you say is somewhat irrelevant if they're monitoring it and recording it and there exists a non-0 chance of they being able to then crack it. I was also not attempting to draw up some huge conspiracy theory that the US government is out to get you or any particular person. I'm merely trying to point out that the more information and communications the US Government (or any other entity) records, then the greater their capacity to infringe on our privacy. And that in some use cases the actual contents are irrelevant in so far that the monitoring itself can inconvenience us and harm us due to information that is inadvertently leaked or signalled through our communication patterns. But to be honest, I'm glad there exists a way for someone to have every single method of communication go through secure means that are impervious to any manner of eavesdropping.

diminoten 14y ago
> Whether or not the US government can at this point in time read/hear what you say is somewhat irrelevant if they're monitoring it and recording it and there exists a non-0 chance of they being able to then crack it. No, that's completely wrong. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's accessible. That's what warrants are for, and if it's unlawful for the government to ever see that information, then the warrant will never be granted. We were talking about whether or not people are able to communicate privately, and you claimed it was impossible. This is factually inaccurate, as I've been trying to point out. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the government is capable of breaking currently considered secure encryption? If not, shut the fuck up.