5 ms·

I think I would agree to what you are saying as to the logical conclusion of what is happening now, but I hope no one will conflate such a possible outcome with

I think I would agree to what you are saying as to the logical conclusion of what is happening now, but I hope no one will conflate such a possible outcome with it's probable effectiveness as long as the technical capabilities allow for governments, corporations, and individuals to subvert such systems. Would citizens of the EU have faith in such a candidate anyway who will basically play the same game as their predecessors? Would anyone with the technical capabilities to develop and use encryption/steganography software for things they deem necessary to encrypt, put any trust in such a candidate over themselves? Seems like a growing market to sell people on privacy as a service, which means there will be a growing market for those who want to subvert such…

Silhouette 12y ago
All valid points, but I would add two more. Firstly, the means to make mass surveillance significantly more difficult and expensive already exist, we just don't use them routinely as a society. This lack of security and privacy awareness is harmful for many reasons, only a few of which are related to potential abuses by government organisations, but part of the reason they haven't been used more is because of the pressures imposed formally and no doubt less formally by governments. There is always going to be a balance here, because obviously there are bad people in the world and governments are expected (reasonably or otherwise) to protect their citizens and organisations against those bad people. I doubt any government is going to willingly give up all possibilities to intercept communication, but I think you could have a situation with much more transparency and oversight than we have today to keep that power in check and directed to its intended purposes. Secondly, one of the most disappointing things about this whole affair is that our own intelligence and security services (I'm in the UK) seem to be more concerned with covering their backsides and keeping tight with their US chums than they are with actually, you know, providing for the security of their own country. In an era when foreign surveillance is a significant threat to everyone and so-called allies are among the prime culprits, the duty of our services is to treat those allies as hostile to the extent that their observed behaviour demonstrates they are hostile, and to respond proportionately. US spying on all our citizens' data? Promote encryption as standard and advise businesses on how to keep their data out of US jurisdiction. If allies have legitimate grounds for wanting sensitive information about British people (and I'm certainly not saying they won't have legitimate grounds for doing so from time to time) then let them request that information through proper channels and in compliance with our laws (and make sure our laws provide for assisting allies appropriately but with appropriate controls and oversight as well). Ultimately, you can't rationally expect governments to protect their people without allowing them to use the technical tools and legal powers necessary to do so, but neither can you rationally protect your society and way of life by destroying it. This debate is all about resolving that inherent conflict in as fair and practical a way as possible, and to that extent, I think some fresh views in politics could improve the current situation considerably.
- cinquemb 12y ago
  Firstly, the means to make mass surveillance significantly more difficult and expensive already exist, we just don't use them routinely as a society[…]but I think you could have a situation with much more transparency and oversight than we have today to keep that power in check and directed to its intended purposes. One has to acknowledge that it is also not presently in the interests of those who have kept it so. Transparency is a two way street, if everyone as individuals had access to such information that is in the hands of the few to leverage, many aspects of our society could also be made better. After all, "encrypt all the things" makes one wonder about the effort exerted is worth it all, especially if it enables individuals to deceive/mislead/exaggerate to others in the name of privacy. Secondly, one of the most disappointing things about this whole affair is that our own intelligence and security services (I'm in the UK) seem to be more concerned with covering their backsides and keeping tight with their US chums than they are with actually, you know, providing for the security of their own country. I question how much "security" there needs to be when governments, corporations and individuals go to such lengths to hide such information from others to maintain the asymmetry of information from individuals of the public, and wonder if they're would be more "security" provided if the public who funds such boondoggles had access to such infrastructure. I'd rather have API keys than the hand-waving/profiteering/"we know whats best for you" media/policy makers and it's enablers tell us what they think we, the public, should know of what they do on our behalf, because only they should be responsible for protecting us, and not ourselves as individuals? I never have expected any government to protect "their" people, when all of them to some degree are actively harming them and continue to do so through various means unaccountably with claims onto behalf of the public.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    Just in case it wasn't clear, when I wrote "providing for the security of their own country", I was referring to protecting their own citizens and organisations from unjustified mass surveillance by foreign powers (whether or not those powers purport to be allies). If the press releases and government statements are any indication, there seems to be more emphasis right now on collaborating with those foreign powers and even helping them to conduct their surveillance than in reining them in or applying technological measures to prevent or deter acts that are not permitted under our laws.

Silhouette 12y ago

All valid points, but I would add two more. Firstly, the means to make mass surveillance significantly more difficult and expensive already exist, we just don't use them routinely as a society. This lack of security and privacy awareness is harmful for many reasons, only a few of which are related to potential abuses by government organisations, but part of the reason they haven't been used more is because of the pressures imposed formally and no doubt less formally by governments. There is always going to be a balance here, because obviously there are bad people in the world and governments are expected (reasonably or otherwise) to protect their citizens and organisations against those bad people. I doubt any government is going to willingly give up all possibilities to intercept communication, but I think you could have a situation with much more transparency and oversight than we have today to keep that power in check and directed to its intended purposes. Secondly, one of the most disappointing things about this whole affair is that our own intelligence and security services (I'm in the UK) seem to be more concerned with covering their backsides and keeping tight with their US chums than they are with actually, you know, providing for the security of their own country. In an era when foreign surveillance is a significant threat to everyone and so-called allies are among the prime culprits, the duty of our services is to treat those allies as hostile to the extent that their observed behaviour demonstrates they are hostile, and to respond proportionately. US spying on all our citizens' data? Promote encryption as standard and advise businesses on how to keep their data out of US jurisdiction. If allies have legitimate grounds for wanting sensitive information about British people (and I'm certainly not saying they won't have legitimate grounds for doing so from time to time) then let them request that information through proper channels and in compliance with our laws (and make sure our laws provide for assisting allies appropriately but with appropriate controls and oversight as well). Ultimately, you can't rationally expect governments to protect their people without allowing them to use the technical tools and legal powers necessary to do so, but neither can you rationally protect your society and way of life by destroying it. This debate is all about resolving that inherent conflict in as fair and practical a way as possible, and to that extent, I think some fresh views in politics could improve the current situation considerably.

cinquemb 12y ago
Firstly, the means to make mass surveillance significantly more difficult and expensive already exist, we just don't use them routinely as a society[…]but I think you could have a situation with much more transparency and oversight than we have today to keep that power in check and directed to its intended purposes. One has to acknowledge that it is also not presently in the interests of those who have kept it so. Transparency is a two way street, if everyone as individuals had access to such information that is in the hands of the few to leverage, many aspects of our society could also be made better. After all, "encrypt all the things" makes one wonder about the effort exerted is worth it all, especially if it enables individuals to deceive/mislead/exaggerate to others in the name of privacy. Secondly, one of the most disappointing things about this whole affair is that our own intelligence and security services (I'm in the UK) seem to be more concerned with covering their backsides and keeping tight with their US chums than they are with actually, you know, providing for the security of their own country. I question how much "security" there needs to be when governments, corporations and individuals go to such lengths to hide such information from others to maintain the asymmetry of information from individuals of the public, and wonder if they're would be more "security" provided if the public who funds such boondoggles had access to such infrastructure. I'd rather have API keys than the hand-waving/profiteering/"we know whats best for you" media/policy makers and it's enablers tell us what they think we, the public, should know of what they do on our behalf, because only they should be responsible for protecting us, and not ourselves as individuals? I never have expected any government to protect "their" people, when all of them to some degree are actively harming them and continue to do so through various means unaccountably with claims onto behalf of the public.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  Just in case it wasn't clear, when I wrote "providing for the security of their own country", I was referring to protecting their own citizens and organisations from unjustified mass surveillance by foreign powers (whether or not those powers purport to be allies). If the press releases and government statements are any indication, there seems to be more emphasis right now on collaborating with those foreign powers and even helping them to conduct their surveillance than in reining them in or applying technological measures to prevent or deter acts that are not permitted under our laws.