3 ms·

I know. We're all so gullible and dumb right? Tell me. You're speaking with a friend in a public square or park in your town. You're not speaking in code with

I know. We're all so gullible and dumb right? Tell me. You're speaking with a friend in a public square or park in your town. You're not speaking in code with your friend. Judging by what you just said I expect you assume your every conversation is being monitored. We have certain expectations of privacy and basic human decency. Just because it's possible to wiretap and hoover up all unencrypted communications I wouldn't have concluded that the spooks are doing so because I would have thought they wouldn't stoop to this behaviour. Sure there was a little bit of info here and there but there's nothing like hard evidence (Snowden-style) for changing ones mind. You don't have to show us all how smart you are, we know already -- so you can keep these types of comments to yourself.

cookiecaper 13y ago
>Tell me. You're speaking with a friend in a public square or park in your town. You're not speaking in code with your friend. Judging by what you just said I expect you assume your every conversation is being monitored. You should be aware of the possibility that someone may be eavesdropping in this situation, yes. >We have certain expectations of privacy and basic human decency. Our expectations of privacy are valid in private contexts, like a home or business. Public contexts, like a busy shopping center or the internet, do not contain inherent guarantees of privacy. Even though one can normally assume that no one dangerous is listening in, it's a risk you always take when you engage in any conversation or behavior in a visible location. >Just because it's possible to wiretap and hoover up all unencrypted communications I wouldn't have concluded that the spooks are doing so because I would have thought they wouldn't stoop to this behaviour. This is pretty naive. Whenever there is a large benefit:cost ratio in play, people should expect that someone at some point _will_ stoop to that level. The ability to record and filter huge portions of worldwide communication is obviously hugely beneficial to all nation-states, so they're obviously going to do it. There are even some who would argue that this is not fundamentally immoral, so it's an even less clear-cut case than things that are obviously fundamentally immoral, meaning it should've been even more expected. These monitoring programs have been occurring for a long time, most likely since Snowden was a child. >You don't have to show us all how smart you are, we know already -- so you can keep these types of comments to yourself. I think just the opposite. We should be using this as an opportunity to educate everyone on the critical importance of encryption (analogous to placing your comms in a sealed envelope, instead of leaving them bare on a postcard), not express moral outrage that some people would "stoop so low". I guess if you're into that, you can do that too (I find it trite, personally), but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the resolution to this problem, which is widespread adoption of full client-side encryption.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Our expectations of privacy are valid in private contexts, like a home or business. Public contexts, like a busy shopping center or the internet, do not contain inherent guarantees of privacy. Even though one can normally assume that no one dangerous is listening in, it's a risk you always take when you engage in any conversation or behavior in a visible location. Or even if you talk in your house with your door wide open. Does anyone else remember Star Trek VI? But either way we also don't expect every conversation we make outside to be monitored as a matter of course. To the extent that NSA is doing this we are right to be very upset. The flipside is that even before email there were few options for communications between third-parties that could not be intercepted at all (without a full warrant) by the U.S. government within the U.S. Probably USPS was it (though later telephones received that same protection). And there were about zero methods if you were talking international communications (maybe diplomatic pouch was safe, probably nothing else was). So in that regard modern comms are still an improvement. But I do agree with you that things people need to have private, need to be encrypted, as there are more threats out there than just the NSA.
MichaelGG 13y ago
First, I don't see you really addressing my point, which is that this behaviour dates back a long time (Carnivore was public knowledge before Snowden even worked for the NSA), and it doesn't even take a very powerful entity to implement it. (Jeez, I regularly get customers sending me traces of their customers (metadata+voice contents) just for troubleshooting purposes.) Advances in massively deployed array microphones aside, I don't find speaking in a park to be remotely similar to transmitting over a large public network. On the Internet, you are willing handing your data off to multiple third parties. You have little control over which third parties, or even which countries, your data flows through. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm simply questioning why anyone assumes they've got privacy other than "because it feels like it should". And, hey, that might be a good argument and something to get enshrined in law. (Although, I'd be surprised if the USG backs down at all, except perhaps to concede to some more oversight audits.) Snowden's "hard evidence" is great because it gives bigger, solid ammunition to argue against mass surveillance. But it's not like anything has suddenly changed, nor should anyone's behaviour change (other than to use encryption when possible). P.S. Your comment would be better without the sarcasm. I'm being honest and serious in my attempt at commenting here.

cookiecaper 13y ago

>Tell me. You're speaking with a friend in a public square or park in your town. You're not speaking in code with your friend. Judging by what you just said I expect you assume your every conversation is being monitored. You should be aware of the possibility that someone may be eavesdropping in this situation, yes. >We have certain expectations of privacy and basic human decency. Our expectations of privacy are valid in private contexts, like a home or business. Public contexts, like a busy shopping center or the internet, do not contain inherent guarantees of privacy. Even though one can normally assume that no one dangerous is listening in, it's a risk you always take when you engage in any conversation or behavior in a visible location. >Just because it's possible to wiretap and hoover up all unencrypted communications I wouldn't have concluded that the spooks are doing so because I would have thought they wouldn't stoop to this behaviour. This is pretty naive. Whenever there is a large benefit:cost ratio in play, people should expect that someone at some point _will_ stoop to that level. The ability to record and filter huge portions of worldwide communication is obviously hugely beneficial to all nation-states, so they're obviously going to do it. There are even some who would argue that this is not fundamentally immoral, so it's an even less clear-cut case than things that are obviously fundamentally immoral, meaning it should've been even more expected. These monitoring programs have been occurring for a long time, most likely since Snowden was a child. >You don't have to show us all how smart you are, we know already -- so you can keep these types of comments to yourself. I think just the opposite. We should be using this as an opportunity to educate everyone on the critical importance of encryption (analogous to placing your comms in a sealed envelope, instead of leaving them bare on a postcard), not express moral outrage that some people would "stoop so low". I guess if you're into that, you can do that too (I find it trite, personally), but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the resolution to this problem, which is widespread adoption of full client-side encryption.

mpyne 13y ago
> Our expectations of privacy are valid in private contexts, like a home or business. Public contexts, like a busy shopping center or the internet, do not contain inherent guarantees of privacy. Even though one can normally assume that no one dangerous is listening in, it's a risk you always take when you engage in any conversation or behavior in a visible location. Or even if you talk in your house with your door wide open. Does anyone else remember Star Trek VI? But either way we also don't expect every conversation we make outside to be monitored as a matter of course. To the extent that NSA is doing this we are right to be very upset. The flipside is that even before email there were few options for communications between third-parties that could not be intercepted at all (without a full warrant) by the U.S. government within the U.S. Probably USPS was it (though later telephones received that same protection). And there were about zero methods if you were talking international communications (maybe diplomatic pouch was safe, probably nothing else was). So in that regard modern comms are still an improvement. But I do agree with you that things people need to have private, need to be encrypted, as there are more threats out there than just the NSA.

MichaelGG 13y ago

First, I don't see you really addressing my point, which is that this behaviour dates back a long time (Carnivore was public knowledge before Snowden even worked for the NSA), and it doesn't even take a very powerful entity to implement it. (Jeez, I regularly get customers sending me traces of their customers (metadata+voice contents) just for troubleshooting purposes.) Advances in massively deployed array microphones aside, I don't find speaking in a park to be remotely similar to transmitting over a large public network. On the Internet, you are willing handing your data off to multiple third parties. You have little control over which third parties, or even which countries, your data flows through. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm simply questioning why anyone assumes they've got privacy other than "because it feels like it should". And, hey, that might be a good argument and something to get enshrined in law. (Although, I'd be surprised if the USG backs down at all, except perhaps to concede to some more oversight audits.) Snowden's "hard evidence" is great because it gives bigger, solid ammunition to argue against mass surveillance. But it's not like anything has suddenly changed, nor should anyone's behaviour change (other than to use encryption when possible). P.S. Your comment would be better without the sarcasm. I'm being honest and serious in my attempt at commenting here.