3 ms·

Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter's not in the

Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter's not in the envelope, and educate them on what's going on in the digital world. Make insecure communications look outdated and simply uncool, as they already should be for a while. That is, unless you believe your government, ISP and their peer ISPs (including some US, Chinese or Russian ISP your e-postcard passes through) are totally trustworthy and good-mannered noblemen so they won't even accidentally peek onto your e-postcards if they're told they mustn't. Disclaimer: I'm not NZ citizen and unaware of exact situation. I'm Russian citizen, and we have SORM-2 for years. So, I've just shared my opinion on any government or corporate spying case out there. I just think it's pointless to legally forbid spying as this makes false sense of security without any real effect.

ihsw 13y ago
That's a technological solution to a political problem. We should always have an expectation of privacy.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  That's effective known-to-be-working solution, though, and it's intended to prevent harm from occuring in the first place, not just repair from it by legal repercussions. We live in a world where policies are known to be violated every single day. My point is, pre-Snowden US citizen believed their communications are private, because political solutions gave them false sense of security.
coldtea 13y ago
>Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter's not in the envelope That's a BS interpretation, based on a BS american law. One should always have an expectation of privacy -- ie nobody but the recipients should be legally allowed to read your email (except with a warrant or similar). That should be made into law (and it should be made so that there are severe penalties for anybody reading your mail without your consent, including employees in your email provider. It should also not be able to be used against you in court). That they can read electronic mail (e.g if it's plaintext etc) easily is not a concern at all. One can easily walk into someone's house and steal things, but it's not allowed all the same.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  Do you have expectation of security if you don't lock your house, then? I'll rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the premises just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so? I didn't meant it's OK to sniff upon anyone's plaintext communications (although I'm unsure whenever prohibiting so is more of a good or bad thing, but let's leave this thought aside). I meant that it's just extremely unwise to expect that nobody but the intended recipient will read your envelopeless postcard. Especially because we know governments really have a thing for that.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Do you have expectation of security if you don't lock your house, then? Of course. And if that expectation is violated, if the culprit, if caught, will very much go to jail. And in some places you can have a go at him yourself. >I'll rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the premises just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so? No, but I don't care about that much. I care about governments or corporations (e.g legal entities) going through our stuff, regularly, massively and legally. I want them to not be able to do it legally (and I want the law to try to enforce penalties if they try to bypass that). As for random hackers and such, those are not a systematic threat. That is, I'd like the same protections for my email that one has (or used to have) for his house: e.g no search without a warrant issued for a specific detailed reason. As for protection from burglars, I know how to lock my door, and even if I forget that, those people will be breaking the law and be held responsible by it.

ihsw 13y ago

That's a technological solution to a political problem. We should always have an expectation of privacy.

drdaeman 13y ago
That's effective known-to-be-working solution, though, and it's intended to prevent harm from occuring in the first place, not just repair from it by legal repercussions. We live in a world where policies are known to be violated every single day. My point is, pre-Snowden US citizen believed their communications are private, because political solutions gave them false sense of security.

coldtea 13y ago

>Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter's not in the envelope That's a BS interpretation, based on a BS american law. One should always have an expectation of privacy -- ie nobody but the recipients should be legally allowed to read your email (except with a warrant or similar). That should be made into law (and it should be made so that there are severe penalties for anybody reading your mail without your consent, including employees in your email provider. It should also not be able to be used against you in court). That they can read electronic mail (e.g if it's plaintext etc) easily is not a concern at all. One can easily walk into someone's house and steal things, but it's not allowed all the same.

drdaeman 13y ago
Do you have expectation of security if you don't lock your house, then? I'll rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the premises just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so? I didn't meant it's OK to sniff upon anyone's plaintext communications (although I'm unsure whenever prohibiting so is more of a good or bad thing, but let's leave this thought aside). I meant that it's just extremely unwise to expect that nobody but the intended recipient will read your envelopeless postcard. Especially because we know governments really have a thing for that.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Do you have expectation of security if you don't lock your house, then? Of course. And if that expectation is violated, if the culprit, if caught, will very much go to jail. And in some places you can have a go at him yourself. >I'll rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the premises just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so? No, but I don't care about that much. I care about governments or corporations (e.g legal entities) going through our stuff, regularly, massively and legally. I want them to not be able to do it legally (and I want the law to try to enforce penalties if they try to bypass that). As for random hackers and such, those are not a systematic threat. That is, I'd like the same protections for my email that one has (or used to have) for his house: e.g no search without a warrant issued for a specific detailed reason. As for protection from burglars, I know how to lock my door, and even if I forget that, those people will be breaking the law and be held responsible by it.