5 ms·

Your example illustraTes the weakness of these articles. The internet is nothing like a house. Your example would make more sense if the NSA was secretly spying

by b1daly 13y ago

Your example illustraTes the weakness of these articles. The internet is nothing like a house. Your example would make more sense if the NSA was secretly spying on your non internet connected computer, by secretly placing key loggers that transmitted over the air. The internet is a huge netWork, and you don't control the route of your message. I tHink it should more be considered like talking loudly in a public space. I also see that the problems of surveillance on the internet are related to the fact that it is a big network. The more players you have the less secure the whole thing becomes. But it's the huge number of nodes with reasonably low friction that define it. Let's just accept that if you want to keep something private don't put it on the internet, or on the discuss in private space only, this would solve the problem.

joshuak 13y ago
So you suppose that we don't (or shouldn't) put information on the internet that is the equivalent of someone photographing the inside of your house? That the internet, despite having password protected accounts is more akin to a 'public space' then a locked house? You assert that there should be zero expectation of privacy? Really, that is your position? I find that remarkable. You also believe that we have reached a steady state, in which we wouldn't want to keep increasing amounts of or personal information on the internet? Or perhaps you mean we are putting more and more personal information on the internet but that in the future we should have less privacy then we enjoy now? I do not agree. I consider password protected accounts by the very nature of keyed entry to cary an expectation of privacy. Weather they are effectively secure is not the issue, the fact that your back door lock is broken doesn't cause you to lose constitutional protection. I still think my example is an apt,and predominately accurate (if simplified) "common man's guide" as to why they should care about the NSA's activities.

by b1daly 13y ago

joshuak 13y ago

So you suppose that we don't (or shouldn't) put information on the internet that is the equivalent of someone photographing the inside of your house? That the internet, despite having password protected accounts is more akin to a 'public space' then a locked house? You assert that there should be zero expectation of privacy? Really, that is your position? I find that remarkable. You also believe that we have reached a steady state, in which we wouldn't want to keep increasing amounts of or personal information on the internet? Or perhaps you mean we are putting more and more personal information on the internet but that in the future we should have less privacy then we enjoy now? I do not agree. I consider password protected accounts by the very nature of keyed entry to cary an expectation of privacy. Weather they are effectively secure is not the issue, the fact that your back door lock is broken doesn't cause you to lose constitutional protection. I still think my example is an apt,and predominately accurate (if simplified) "common man's guide" as to why they should care about the NSA's activities.