This motivated me to sign up for ProtonMail. Now I want to send Mike Pompeo a congratulatory email! He seems like a decent guy. Does anyone know where to send an encrypted email to the incoming cia director?
Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
41–50 of 93 posts
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#42I feel that the gun debate and the encryption debate have a shared argument: in a world where X is outlawed, only the outlaws will have X.
No. Not really. And frankly, it scares me that this is even confusing to people.
That you probably are not in favor of strong gun rights, doesn't mean the situations don't have similarities.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#43>> "America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat." >> "Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcas…
No kidding. I expect gov to keep me reasonably safe, and not absolutely safe.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#44Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
> Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? Of course we did, we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president. However sometimes before you can rebuild you need to burn the existing structure to the ground first. We're tired of the status quo and want significant change in how we're represented. Sometimes you have to endure a little pain befo…
>think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.
Oh? How do you see this happening? Both parties are still here, alas.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#45I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
Is locking your door a red flag?
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#46 -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
jA0ECQMCX9WYuCpLunPh0p8B8UjjI5k5Eb409Ldvw7lYYR/vVDk6FBYhIqJRDdto
NWnCEfK4EuPgx1d7+Peh4f042QsFJt3n2cHoOGJYy7Iw+5nnvaGms9kDp3xEZ8s1
4h7eJW0mRxZgtXnY4InnwMLVqER1kMcKGhk8xm+8kwYP4MpZBd1QfCwfiWxhChhX
2kuH2TezknR6/yVOjiDAjkGprotHbKCjGyKVBq0gO7k=
=au89
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is similar to the "nothing to hide" argument. People shouldn't be flagged just for wanting privacy.
Not really. I'm saying that it's one of many factors, some typically benign (like "gun owner"), and some not benign ("has a brother fighting for IS in Syria"). To do a better job at intelligence, our government needs to look at these holistically. My argument also extends to things like the TSA. We all like to complain about having to wait in line for security at the airport. Why can't they do better threat assessmen…
Why should anybody be subject to anything more than a magnetometer?
Locked doors stop boxcutters.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#48>> "America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat." >> "Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcas…
No kidding. I expect gov to keep me reasonably safe, and not absolutely safe.
I also expect to be kept safe from the government; overbearing surveillance isn't going to do that for me.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please elaborate?
You can't kill people with encryption. In fact, encrypted communications has saved many lives.
The same can be argued pertaining to guns. Guns have saved many lives.
Guns and encryption are amoral. How and what they are used for determines if they are "good" or "bad".
EDIT: Encryption may have been used by bad people to secretly carry out bad things with the end result of people dying (because the "good people" couldn't decrypt their communications). We all want only the "good" people to have guns and encryption. Who gets to define "good"?
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#50I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
Is locking your door a red flag?
Probably not, but hand delivering/receiving packages in secret probably is.