3 ms·

The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think t

by pstuart 13y ago

The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted. It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered. Edit: replying to fotbr below Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.

nathan_long 13y ago
A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
fotbr 13y ago
It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works -- anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined. Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed. As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down. I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.
- brokenmusic 13y ago
  I completely agree with you on not accepting the violent way of changing things and on the fact the system has gone too far to be changed through instituted processes. One non-violent way of changing things I see is to use Bitcoin for saving and transactions as much as possible, because I don't feed the system with my tax money and confiscation through inflation. It's not perfect, but to me it's far superior to anything we have so far. Look at it this way. If a thief on the street approaches you and tries to rob you, you have three ways: 1) beg him to not rob you (wouldn't work) 2) fight (would work, but you can get hurt) and 3) pretend you don't have any money (in which case he might as well decide to not bother with you if you can convince him you really don't have it).
fotbr 13y ago
In reply to your reply: Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not matter in the long run. The figurehead at the top matters, yes, but not nearly as much as people think - the bulk of the power resides in congress, which is one of the reasons that nothing really changes when the presidency changes clothes and puts on the (R) robes or the (D) robes. I'll freely admit that my cynicism and pessimism get in the way at times. On the other hand, I'm right about the actions of the government far more than I'm wrong. I've been around long enough to see multiple administrations from both parties. I get the impression that you were not politically active prior to gwb, or if you were, it was not long beforehand -- if that is incorrect, I apologize. If I'm correct, then feel free to write me off as a lost-cause, a bitter old man, etc. because to you, that's what I am. Either way, cherish that idealism, for when it's gone, you can't get it back.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Would marching in peace marches in the 60s count as being politically active? I consider myself to be politically engaged, thank you very much. I'm well aware of the limitations and powers of government and recognize that in many ways it doesn't matter who is in office, but in many ways it does. As much as Mr. Obama has been a disappointment (and that's without buying into the "hope" b.s.), I know that President Palin's administration would be significantly worse. By the way, GWB does deserve special attention due to the fact that he was one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had.

by pstuart 13y ago

nathan_long 13y ago

A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.

fotbr 13y ago

It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works -- anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined. Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed. As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down. I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.

brokenmusic 13y ago
I completely agree with you on not accepting the violent way of changing things and on the fact the system has gone too far to be changed through instituted processes. One non-violent way of changing things I see is to use Bitcoin for saving and transactions as much as possible, because I don't feed the system with my tax money and confiscation through inflation. It's not perfect, but to me it's far superior to anything we have so far. Look at it this way. If a thief on the street approaches you and tries to rob you, you have three ways: 1) beg him to not rob you (wouldn't work) 2) fight (would work, but you can get hurt) and 3) pretend you don't have any money (in which case he might as well decide to not bother with you if you can convince him you really don't have it).

fotbr 13y ago

In reply to your reply: Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not matter in the long run. The figurehead at the top matters, yes, but not nearly as much as people think - the bulk of the power resides in congress, which is one of the reasons that nothing really changes when the presidency changes clothes and puts on the (R) robes or the (D) robes. I'll freely admit that my cynicism and pessimism get in the way at times. On the other hand, I'm right about the actions of the government far more than I'm wrong. I've been around long enough to see multiple administrations from both parties. I get the impression that you were not politically active prior to gwb, or if you were, it was not long beforehand -- if that is incorrect, I apologize. If I'm correct, then feel free to write me off as a lost-cause, a bitter old man, etc. because to you, that's what I am. Either way, cherish that idealism, for when it's gone, you can't get it back.

pstuart 13y ago
Would marching in peace marches in the 60s count as being politically active? I consider myself to be politically engaged, thank you very much. I'm well aware of the limitations and powers of government and recognize that in many ways it doesn't matter who is in office, but in many ways it does. As much as Mr. Obama has been a disappointment (and that's without buying into the "hope" b.s.), I know that President Palin's administration would be significantly worse. By the way, GWB does deserve special attention due to the fact that he was one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had.