3 ms·

Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted, what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over internet

Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted, what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over internet again? Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the government on their own field, you always lose.

lovemenot 13y ago
Agreed. I am surprised there are few comments of this nature on sites like HN. Perhaps spammers could be unlikely allies in a future wave of data obfuscation / poisoning?
dllthomas 13y ago
No, we need to push hard on both fronts. A government which does not respect the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.
- anovikov 13y ago
  Good point. We are heading into a direction of a new society which put a lot less trust on institutions, a p2p society, sort of. Nothing which isn't independently and technically verifiable will be trusted, and government will encircle itself, being put out of the loop in most transactions, personal and business (which includes paying taxes, too). Except PRISM, other point were the banks - this isn't visible from the U.S. much, but when Greek bonds were defaulted it was done in a way which avoided the technical default - so, credit-default swaps were not triggered, and people and banks who bought them lost everything. After that, Cyprus banks bankrupted but also in a way avoiding the legal bankruptcy - instead, government instituded a 'tax' on their deposits. All lies! Which means banks also cannot be trusted any longer. With the banks and governments out, what remains?
- a3n 13y ago
  Yes, this absolutely. I'm not so personally worried about intercepted communications, as distasteful as that is. The danger is in having a government that is wholly unconstrained by the Constitution. These are not spot violations by corrupt individuals. These are government programs supported by billions of dollars. This isn't individuals, it's policy. That's horrifying.

lovemenot 13y ago

Agreed. I am surprised there are few comments of this nature on sites like HN. Perhaps spammers could be unlikely allies in a future wave of data obfuscation / poisoning?

dllthomas 13y ago

No, we need to push hard on both fronts. A government which does not respect the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.

anovikov 13y ago
Good point. We are heading into a direction of a new society which put a lot less trust on institutions, a p2p society, sort of. Nothing which isn't independently and technically verifiable will be trusted, and government will encircle itself, being put out of the loop in most transactions, personal and business (which includes paying taxes, too). Except PRISM, other point were the banks - this isn't visible from the U.S. much, but when Greek bonds were defaulted it was done in a way which avoided the technical default - so, credit-default swaps were not triggered, and people and banks who bought them lost everything. After that, Cyprus banks bankrupted but also in a way avoiding the legal bankruptcy - instead, government instituded a 'tax' on their deposits. All lies! Which means banks also cannot be trusted any longer. With the banks and governments out, what remains?
a3n 13y ago
Yes, this absolutely. I'm not so personally worried about intercepted communications, as distasteful as that is. The danger is in having a government that is wholly unconstrained by the Constitution. These are not spot violations by corrupt individuals. These are government programs supported by billions of dollars. This isn't individuals, it's policy. That's horrifying.