4 ms·

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate but I'd gently suggest that you worry less about what I think and more about the lawless agency that appears to h

• hga 13y ago
  I'm not talking about what you think but what you've said in this discussion, or rather haven't said, that "you hadn't made the case" the NSA is lawless. Which I think is a very important point: if they are subject to the rule of law, we have a variety of legal means to deal with them, some of which I've outlined. If they are truly lawless, our options shrink down to the unpalatable choices of avoiding getting stomped on (which neither of us chose, given our participation in this discussion) or by definition extra-legal action. I'm not going to suggest that's what you're saying, but if you truly do believe they're lawless, do you have any ideas for action vs. "worry" and other forms of inaction?
  • ferdo 13y ago
    > "you hadn't made the case" the NSA is lawless. I don't need to. Their actions define them. They're not acting lawfully so therefore they must be lawless. I have my own methods for keeping a low profile on the net. I wish I felt comfortable sharing them in a public forum, but I don't.
    • samstave 13y ago
      Please email me. My contact is in my profile
    • e3pi 13y ago
      > I have my own methods for keeping a low profile on the net. The Five Rules of surviving today's total surveillance information personal property cleptocracy: 1) Don't think. 2) If you think, don't speak. 3) If you think, and speak, don't write. 4) If you think, speak, and write, don't sign. 5) If you think, speak, write and sign, be prepared to escape to Hong Kong.