Baseless Calls to Expand Surveillance Fit Familiar, Cynical Pattern

Obviously cynicism isn't a finite resource.

While true, moving the entire web to HTTPS with PFS-enabled configurations, secure cipher suites, and key-pinning is a huge challenge.

In any case, the strategy lately has been to force consumer ISPs to keep logs of who is connecting where (The UK government wants ISPs to log the URI of every plaintext page you visit, and will no doubt eventually want DNS logs and TLS SNI and TCP connection logs for other kinds of connectivity).

The best you can do today is ensure your TLS deployment is A+ rated at SSL Labs[0] and offer a Tor hidden service for your visitors. That said, if governments and ISPs legislate/cooperate to do active MITM attacks, then there's nothing we can really do to help Joe Public that wouldn't constitute a crime or get you put on a watchlist yourself.

[0] https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

No it can't, but laws against crypto can be used to mandate that only certain crypto be used in "professional" settings. That crypto will of course have to be certified, which will lock anyone but Fortune 500 companies and products certified by expensive consultants out of essentially all enterprise markets. Your browser will have to be certified to talk to certified SSL servers, etc. So forget about open source, open platforms, open standards, and startups competing with big companies in the enterprise.

That may well be the real objective. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if big players are lobbying behind the scenes for the government to mandate a new kind of FIPS for all consumer crypto, which would lock smaller players out of the market and of course make us all safer from 'terr (right?). Remember how SOPA was lobbied for by GoDaddy so they could sell a new expensive premium class of domain registration?

Using bloody crimes and tragedies to lobby for unfair market advantage. It's how business is done in Washington (and probably other capitols too).

What's surprising to me is that even the liberal media doesn't seem to question the assumption behind the questions that they're asking. They ask questions like should we give up our privacy in order to gain security? But of course this question assumes that it's possible to gain security by giving up privacy which is clearly false. Just look at totalitarian regimes - are they free of terrorist attacks? No.

Perhaps the argument is that they couldnt keep a close enough eye on the "known perps".

I feel like it is a fair/valid argument to support expanded/enhanced wiretapping of those with warrants ("known perps"). One could argue either way if it is the person's right to know if they are on a watchlist.

I DONT feel like the argument for expanded/enhanced wiretapping for everyone is fair/valid. Aside from the fact that it feels draconian and cowardly, there isnt any hard data to back up its effectiveness.