3 ms·

This sounds great. Even has a slight geurilla ring to it, that appeals to the freedom-fighter in all of us. But, as many have noted on this thread, they will s

This sounds great. Even has a slight geurilla ring to it, that appeals to the freedom-fighter in all of us. But, as many have noted on this thread, they will simply find ways around these obstacles. So, it's just another form of cat-and-mouse in a game we are destined to lose, as their resources are virtually unbounded. In all, it really goes the long way around getting done what really needs to be done: change and clarify laws which bring the NSA back under heel. IMO, pursuing anything else outside of legal redress as a primary goal (including pure technical solutions like encryption) is simply assuming the wrong posture. It concedes their right to do these things, as long as they can skirt the chestnuts we try to shovel into their path. In this, we allow ourselves to be put at odds with our own government and abandon the rule of law, as well as the very principle that our government works for us.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Agreed. It's an attempt to circumvent democratic process. That may be deemed necessary but then isn't there a larger issue - that you have a pseudo-democracy in which the only way for the populus to combat rogue agencies within the state government is to perpetrate acts of aggression against their own infrastructure? The infrastructure those same people are paying taxes to implement? Basically you're saying that USA democracy has broken to such an extent that the people need to initiate war - of a form - against the government's agencies.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Exactly. And, if our democracy is broken to that extent and the people are so apathetic about fixing it, then why should we expect that they would line up behind such "guerilla" action as proposed by this article?
- DennisP 13y ago
  No, it's part of the democratic process. The action proposed is to pass state laws, not to commit acts of sabotage.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > It's an attempt to circumvent democratic process. How is passing a state law circumventing democratic process? Isn't it more of a circumvention if all of the locals vote against the NSA, but the NSA still moves in?
dsuth 13y ago
Agreed, the first thing that comes to mind is "careful what you wish". At present, the NSA has an obvious vulnerability in that their data centres are somewhat in the open, and scattered around. If this scheme actually worked, they'd simply use it to enforce even higher secrecy, and complete autonomy from local state utilities. This is a dangerous path to go down, essentially assuming the role of aggressors against the state, and causing them to harden their defences. It would completely subvert the key concepts of democracy, and end bloody. Change the law, change their oversight, work within the system to improve it.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Agreed. It's an attempt to circumvent democratic process. That may be deemed necessary but then isn't there a larger issue - that you have a pseudo-democracy in which the only way for the populus to combat rogue agencies within the state government is to perpetrate acts of aggression against their own infrastructure? The infrastructure those same people are paying taxes to implement? Basically you're saying that USA democracy has broken to such an extent that the people need to initiate war - of a form - against the government's agencies.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Exactly. And, if our democracy is broken to that extent and the people are so apathetic about fixing it, then why should we expect that they would line up behind such "guerilla" action as proposed by this article?
DennisP 13y ago
No, it's part of the democratic process. The action proposed is to pass state laws, not to commit acts of sabotage.
darkarmani 13y ago
> It's an attempt to circumvent democratic process. How is passing a state law circumventing democratic process? Isn't it more of a circumvention if all of the locals vote against the NSA, but the NSA still moves in?

dsuth 13y ago

Agreed, the first thing that comes to mind is "careful what you wish". At present, the NSA has an obvious vulnerability in that their data centres are somewhat in the open, and scattered around. If this scheme actually worked, they'd simply use it to enforce even higher secrecy, and complete autonomy from local state utilities. This is a dangerous path to go down, essentially assuming the role of aggressors against the state, and causing them to harden their defences. It would completely subvert the key concepts of democracy, and end bloody. Change the law, change their oversight, work within the system to improve it.