3 ms·

Recognizing the reality that a powerful entity will seize whatever power or advantage it can find, is not a value judgment that that conduct is OK. I'm not clea

by ds9 13y ago

Recognizing the reality that a powerful entity will seize whatever power or advantage it can find, is not a value judgment that that conduct is OK. I'm not clear on how you inferred such an endorsement from statements that people are going to resist by technical means. "[W]hy don't we also make the NSA's activities illegal and/or enforce existing laws which already state as much?" Who is "we" in your proposal? The people of the society? Some percentage don't mind the snooping - they think it is protecting us from terrorism. Another percentage object, and a third subset have little idea of what's going on. Maybe you imagine there is some approximation of democracy in the US. Why do you think so? How well do you think the legislators represent the interests of citizens? How many viable parties compete for votes? Can you even verify that the announced election results have any definite relation to the votes cast at electronic machines? Some elements in Congress have tried regulating the surveillance apparatus, at least since the Church committee in the 1970s. Obviously the effort has not succeeded, and I'm not perceiving much prospect of improvement on that front. The only realistic avenue to improving privacy and digital security is some combination of (a) securing endpoint systems (b) an open-standard, no-back-door solution for pervasive encryption of data in transit and (c) services that somehow offer secure communications hubs without the operators having to shut down, sell out or be imprisoned. These guys are working on (b), and I applaud their efforts.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>...not a value judgment that that conduct is OK. I'm not clear on how you inferred such an endorsement from statements that people are going to resist by technical means. By "OK", I don't mean that you agree with it. I mean that by assuming the posture that you are going to focus on defending yourself technically, you are effectively ceding that the government has the right to access whatever it can. You're telling the government that it's OK to get whatever you are unable to protect. It is absolutely the wrong posture and it's what the NSA wants. >Who is "we" in your proposal? The people of the society? Yes. Exactly. Who else would "we" be? What does it matter that some don't get it yet when there is some group that finds it objectionable and contrary to our fundamental rights? I mean, it's really a strange position to take when you think of it. If the government was coming after you with tanks and guns, would you go buy a shotgun and stronger locks for your doors? Or would you spread the word and work to check the government per the laws of the land? So, how about a grassroots campaign to change the public perception landscape? >Maybe you imagine there is some approximation of democracy in the US. An approximation of democracy is exactly what I think we have. Listen, you're preaching to the choir on the whole "our democracy is broken" thing. But, to the extent that there's anything left or any way back, fixing this democracy is our only hope. Again: grassroots. It boggles my mind that the response is to cede everything--broken democracy, surveillance state, etc.--then just dig in to prepare to defend oneself from his/her government. If you actually believe that you can defend yourself from government lawlessness, then you ought to believe that you can play a role in fixing the government. >Some elements in Congress have tried regulating the surveillance apparatus...I'm not perceiving much prospect of improvement on that front. And, how long have we been patching zero-day exploits, fending off viruses, etc.? Why are you so confident that you are capable of defending yourself from a determined government with unlimited resources? >The only realistic avenue to improving privacy and digital security is some combination of [technical solutions]". I am not advocating that we don't take prudent, precautionary technical measures. Of course we should. I'm saying that they should be secondary and we must lead with legal measures to have any hope of reclaiming our rights and putting an end to this. All of the things you listed sound great. But, in truth, we know that there are exploits and vulnerabilities everywhere. Ironically, as technologists, we want to believe in technical solutions. At the same time, we also know better than anyone that a determined adversary will find a way to pwn us. For instance, all of your technical "solutions" rely on an up-to-date OS with no zero-day vulnerability, perfect non-exploitable endpoint software, and even full knowledge of our hardware stack, firmware, etc. In general, what you propose is exactly what the NSA would want. And, you will lose. If you are fortunate enough to even know when you've been pwned, you'll patch things up until the next time. You'll just play cat-and-mouse while your information floats away. Then, at some point, you will say "Wait, this is what we normally do to defend ourselves against criminals. Why am I having to do this to defend against my own government?" At that point, you will realize that this is first and foremost a legal problem. Only then will you demand what I am advocating right now.

by ds9 13y ago

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>...not a value judgment that that conduct is OK. I'm not clear on how you inferred such an endorsement from statements that people are going to resist by technical means. By "OK", I don't mean that you agree with it. I mean that by assuming the posture that you are going to focus on defending yourself technically, you are effectively ceding that the government has the right to access whatever it can. You're telling the government that it's OK to get whatever you are unable to protect. It is absolutely the wrong posture and it's what the NSA wants. >Who is "we" in your proposal? The people of the society? Yes. Exactly. Who else would "we" be? What does it matter that some don't get it yet when there is some group that finds it objectionable and contrary to our fundamental rights? I mean, it's really a strange position to take when you think of it. If the government was coming after you with tanks and guns, would you go buy a shotgun and stronger locks for your doors? Or would you spread the word and work to check the government per the laws of the land? So, how about a grassroots campaign to change the public perception landscape? >Maybe you imagine there is some approximation of democracy in the US. An approximation of democracy is exactly what I think we have. Listen, you're preaching to the choir on the whole "our democracy is broken" thing. But, to the extent that there's anything left or any way back, fixing this democracy is our only hope. Again: grassroots. It boggles my mind that the response is to cede everything--broken democracy, surveillance state, etc.--then just dig in to prepare to defend oneself from his/her government. If you actually believe that you can defend yourself from government lawlessness, then you ought to believe that you can play a role in fixing the government. >Some elements in Congress have tried regulating the surveillance apparatus...I'm not perceiving much prospect of improvement on that front. And, how long have we been patching zero-day exploits, fending off viruses, etc.? Why are you so confident that you are capable of defending yourself from a determined government with unlimited resources? >The only realistic avenue to improving privacy and digital security is some combination of [technical solutions]". I am not advocating that we don't take prudent, precautionary technical measures. Of course we should. I'm saying that they should be secondary and we must lead with legal measures to have any hope of reclaiming our rights and putting an end to this. All of the things you listed sound great. But, in truth, we know that there are exploits and vulnerabilities everywhere. Ironically, as technologists, we want to believe in technical solutions. At the same time, we also know better than anyone that a determined adversary will find a way to pwn us. For instance, all of your technical "solutions" rely on an up-to-date OS with no zero-day vulnerability, perfect non-exploitable endpoint software, and even full knowledge of our hardware stack, firmware, etc. In general, what you propose is exactly what the NSA would want. And, you will lose. If you are fortunate enough to even know when you've been pwned, you'll patch things up until the next time. You'll just play cat-and-mouse while your information floats away. Then, at some point, you will say "Wait, this is what we normally do to defend ourselves against criminals. Why am I having to do this to defend against my own government?" At that point, you will realize that this is first and foremost a legal problem. Only then will you demand what I am advocating right now.