NSA Leaks About Spying Are Scaring Some Americans Away From The Internet

[bemildred]

In Louisiana, the wife of a former soldier is scaling back on Facebook posts and considering unfriending old acquaintances, worried an innocuous joke or long-lost associate might one day land her in a government probe. In California, a college student encrypts chats and emails, saying he's not planning anything sinister but shouldn't have to sweat snoopers. And in Canada, a lawyer is rethinking the data products he uses to ensure his clients' privacy.

As the attorney, Chris Bushong, put it: "Who wants to feel like they're being watched?"

News of the U.S. government's secret surveillance programs that targeted phone records but also information transmitted on the Internet has done more than spark a debate about privacy. Some are reviewing and changing their online habits as they reconsider some basic questions about today's interconnected world. Among them: How much should I share and how should I share it?

Some say they want to take preventative measures in case such programs are expanded. Others are looking to send a message — not just to the U.S. government but to the Internet companies that collect so much personal information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/nsa-leaks-spying-internet_n_3633510.html

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[bemildred]

2. I think this is where the real trouble is going to come.

There is an egregious betrayal of trust here, and it will not be dissembled away.

Edit: and also ...

1.) Our special position in internet affairs is an historical accident, and we have thrown that away, for good too.

2.) So we do not actually have the leverage we are trying to apply, economically, or any other way.

So we had this invaluable, accidental advantage, based in history and residual trust from WWII and the Cold War, and we just threw it away for this fatuous War On Terror.

[snappyturtle]

8. +1 nt

[Catherina]

12. +2 n/t

[bemildred]

15. PRISM: Tech Companies Keep Trying to Gain Back Trust

Like this.

This past week there has been an avalanche of news regarding tech giants that are trying to convince the American authorities to improve transparency around surveillance efforts, as well as to give them the chance to disclose more details about the data requests made by the government.

Microsoft, for instance, took the opportunity to once more iterate that it has not been giving the NSA direct access to its servers and that all products it offers are completely safe.

The statement brings nothing new to the table and is basically the same as the one given over a month ago, when the scandal had just started, although perhaps it sounded a bit more irate at all the fuss made by the media.

In an effort to show that they want more transparency, companies that have been specifically named in the NSA PRISM documents, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and Apple have been trying over and over again to gain back some of the trust they lost when Edward Snowden’s leaked documents hit the press.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/PRISM-Tech-Companies-Keep-Trying-to-Gain-Back-Trust-369621.shtml

[Mojorabbit]

41. Too late. Lay down with dogs get up with fleas. Great article. nt

[bemildred]

42. I'd fire their asses for ever getting in bed with this myself, all of them.

Trust is all you have on the internet. It represents severe lack of clue to not see this coming.

[NealK]

63. +3 n/t

[Thinkingabout]

3. Some time back there was warnings of posting comments on Facebook because potential employers was

searching to find information about potential employees. This did not start when Snowden revealed his crimes, it was already known.
I guess now his fans will give him credit for this also.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. That shit needs to stop.

We've come to accept that employers can treat you like a possession. Used to, you had to be working for a security company or government intelligence to have so much intrusion into your personal life. Now they monitor your social life and they can drug test you anytime they like. They can even dictate what you can do in your own home, even legal activities. Some corporations tell people they can't smoke in their own houses, and there's nothing you can do about it. The courts will side with your employer. This situation is at least as bad as all the government surveillance.

[Thinkingabout]

20. When a person chooses to put their comments on social sites it becomes public. Don't blame the

employers or the sites, blame the person posting. It is too much "poor me" and not enough responsibility for one"s actions. On the smoking issue, I don't like to smell an employee coming to work smelling like cigarette smoke so again responsibility belongs to everyone.

[Cronus Protagonist]

40. You would curtail someone's freedoms because you don't like the SMELL?

Damn. Noted in the building.

[LuvNewcastle]

58. It's amazing to me that some people around here not only

have these attitudes, but are quite willing to tell you they do. It's absolutely sickening.

[Thinkingabout]

74. Why don't I have some freedoms also? Why should others infringe on my air? Why do I have to

smell stale cigarette smoke? Freedoms should be working for others.

[Cronus Protagonist]

77. I'm sure you go to the bathroom to fart, right?

And then you fart through your carbon odor neutralizer so that people in the bathroom won't have to smell your fart, right?

Didn't think so.

Oh, and by the way, your armpit odor is offensive to me.

[Thinkingabout]

137. WTH are you infringing on my airspace of my armpit, I guess you are into a new excitement, hope it

Brings you pleasure but stay away from my armpit,

.

[Quantess]

130. What does this have to do with the smell of stale cigarette smoke? Answer: nothing.

Using poor analogies when the topic is easily discussed at face-value is a passive agressive maneuver. It also means your on-topic arguments are lousy.

[LuvNewcastle]

54. Understand this.

The world doesn't revolve around you and what you like to smell. I might not like your cologne/perfume, but that doesn't give me the right to forbid you to wear it, and I certainly don't get to tell you what legal activities you might enjoy while you're in the privacy of your own home. I might not like some of your sexual proclivities or your religion, for instance. If we are going to have a free society, then we must have tolerance of one another's differences. Maybe you don't want to live in a free society. If not, I suggest you move to one that isn't free, or at least one wear people want to be told what to do.

[Thinkingabout]

75. I got you, you want your freedoms but to hell with others freedoms. If we are to live in a free

society then everyone should have freedoms. Just because you decide to smoke does not mean everyone around you has to smell you. Like you can smoke, just don't breath. You want freedoms, then employers has freedoms also. You want to deny freedoms then yours will be denied.

[LuvNewcastle]

82. I made it pretty clear that I was talking about people who

smoke in their own homes. A business has a right to restrict workers on company property and company time, not at home on personal time. It's common fucking sense. I don't know if you're being deliberately argumentative or if you really believe that people can be told what legal activities they may engage in at home, but either way, I can't have a serious discussion with someone who spouts such radical nonsense. I can't imagine you ever saying anything of any worth on this board if you advocate this shit, so I'm putting you on Ignore. I haven't had anyone on Ignore in years, but you earned it today.

[Thinkingabout]

100. Take your time, take a breath and before you berate someone read what is said. i do

Not think I should have to smell stale cigarette smoke, I don't care where the smoker has smoked don't infringe stale cigarette odors on others.

[Quantess]

131. You're allowing yourself to be dragged off the topic.

[djean111]

64. If a person chooses to put their comments on a social site with passworded access, that information

should not be available to employers, yet employers have asked for the passwords.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Always know information is being recorded, facebook is a social network, you want to remain private,

then don't post on social networks. You have to protect your freedom to the extent you want your freedom. The choice is yours.

[shanti]

84. And in California

It is now illegal for employers to do so.

[snappyturtle]

14. I agree that the intrusions were known but I think Snowden's

actions have brought to light how massive the programs are.

[Thinkingabout]

21. Did you hear Bush in 2005 talking about the collection of phone calls?

[snappyturtle]

60. Absolutely! It was troubling then too but now the early

whistleblowers, e.g. Tice, et.al., are re-emerging because Snowden can prove what they were warning about. To me, that is what is new. I do believe the government thinks Snowden has the goods hence the aggressive U.S. stance to get him back into the U.S.

[Thinkingabout]

73. Sorry you did not understand when Bush said this. It is perhaps something we may not like but

sometimes you can't fight a forest fire with a water gun.

[xfundy]

81. I think you may be leaving

the "sarcasm" tag out of, at least, your comments, at least the ones I've seen so far in this thread.

[snappyturtle]

99. THAT'S the point...we only had a water gun back then....nt

[Thinkingabout]

102. And now you have used the water, what is next.

[snappyturtle]

103. Evidence. nt

[Quantess]

135. Still going with your water gun analogy?

Okay, I'll play. When your water gun is empty, don't fret. There should be some water in your bong that you can spare.

[Thinkingabout]

136. WTH are you trying to say, I apparently am not in the type of crowds you hang with, you neef a new

Life to clear your mind. You might be the type to take a small water gun to a forest fire.

[Quantess]

139. neef a new leaf? You just told me you love sweetleaf.

[Thinkingabout]

101. I dont know where you are trying to go on this, I am beginning to think only after GG wrote his

Article did you realize collecting of data was occurring. It was not with sarcasm and you are reading a mountain out of nothing. I get the feeling anytime valid points are made with some of you it requires you to get huffy and puffy, sometimes the truth is what it is.

[snappyturtle]

105. Well you were wrong in my case as I explained. You come out with

a blanket statement that the spying has been going on for a long time. Why write it if you didn't expect a reply.....or did you think what you said was news worthy? So, I figured exactly what you just said: ".....I am beginning to think only after GG wrote his article did you realize collecting of data was occurring." It's obvious you don't like either Glen Greenwald or Edwrd Snowden...made your point.

[Thinkingabout]

106. When did you first learn of the data collection?

[Quantess]

133. There you go again with your poorly fitting analogies.

It indicates you can't win the topic at hand.

[treestar]

69. And one's employer might do something

the government, not so much.

[reformist2]

4. Some may find this laughable. But I think a sizeable fraction of the public will react this way.

I know a sizeable number of people who still don't buy things online because they would have to enter their credit card and/or bank account numbers.

[IDemo]

35. I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon

Dilbert and lady are seated at a table in a restaurant. She tells him she's too afraid of ID theft and won't buy anything online. The waitress arrives with the check, wearing pearls and mink.

[HiPointDem]

117. i don't. and i never will.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I know a few people who have disabled their Facebook accounts.

I've thought about it, but unless you totally give up the internet, you're still just as vulnerable for snoopers. I enjoy going online, so I've left my Facebook account open. It's the only way I'm able to stay in contact with some people in my life. It's really pathetic that we can't keep anything private anymore; if the government doesn't know about it, the corporations do.

[snappyturtle]

6. I think anyone who is 'awake' has given some thought to their

normal internet use. I know I have. I'm tired of Google dropping cookies everywhere I visit for one thing and getting the resultant blizzard of ads that follow my searches. I used DuckDuckGo last week some and liked it. Now if what they say is true (how would I know) and they don't track, it may become my search engine.

[spin]

9. I guess I should stop posting on DU. ...

In case something I say might piss off some bureaucrat or politician.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. You laugh, some people will...this is well trodden terrain

and people who don't will start to self edit themselves too

[spin]

22. Many here have argued that if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear ...

from the government knowing everything you say or everywhere you go.

I disagree.

I recently reread 1984. Here's an excerpt:

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (George Orwell, from the novel ’1984?.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Well let me counter with a quote from somebody who actually lived

something similar

“I am deeply concerned when there is the possibility of violating the privacy of people,” said Lewis. “Eavesdropping on our citizens, we saw it during the ‘50s, during the ‘60s when people spied on the civil rights movement and made it almost impossible for people to do their own work in a peaceful and non violent way.”

You go argue with Congressman John Lewis.

[spin]

24. Supposedly J. Edgar Hoover was the most powerful man in America. ...

as he had the dirt on every politician in Washington. Imagine the power he would have had to abuse those who disagreed with his positions today.

J. Edgar was not fond of MLK. and the civil rights movement. He might have been able to quell the movement it if he had access to the data mining capacity the government has today.

Hoover's moves against people who maintained contacts with subversive elements, some of whom were members of the civil rights movement, also led to accusations of trying to undermine their reputations. The treatment of Martin Luther King, Jr. and actress Jean Seberg are two examples. Jacqueline Kennedy recalled that Hoover told President John F. Kennedy that King tried to arrange a sex party while in the capital for the March on Washington and told Robert Kennedy that King made derogatory comments during the President's funeral.[37] After trying for a while to trump up evidence that would smear King as being influenced by communists, he discovered that King had a weakness for extramarital sex, and switched to this topic for further smears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You ignore all this at your peril

and I will leave at this. I am done doing this.

Some people get it, some don't

[spin]

30. I don't think we are disagreeing. ...

I favor free screech and our rights to privacy as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. But you are denying that this is actually

changing, already, behavior. It is

[spin]

48. Do you favor a police state? ...

I don't.

Obviously the authorities, the 1% and some politicians have gathered information about citizens in the past and have used this information to destroy their opponents.

That doesn't mean that those activities were right or that they should be expanded as our technology advances.

The War on Terror has offered the powerful to gather an enormous amount of information on almost every citizen in our society. This information can and will be misused in the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. I favor it so much that we actually took photos of

DHS officers at Comicon, including the stick like a sore thumb undercover officer taking video, and even posted it here.

Yup, you got me...



Now if you do not mind, I need to get ready to go cover the next episode of the Young and the Restless downtown.

[spin]

55. I noticed that post. ...

Enjoy your Young and the Restless episode.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. hey the Mayor will NOT survive this

that is a fact jack. And the local democratic party is splintering along multiple fault lines.

[LanternWaste]

87. I too minimize the person rather than the position when I lack anything of substance to further a di

I too minimize the person rather than the position when I lack anything of substance to further a dialog. Sometimes, I even tell myself I'm being clever rather than acting out like a petulant child.

[Silent3]

43. That's not "counter" to what the other poster said, it goes along with it.

Further down in the thread you've got the going to, when to anyone else reading this thread it looks pretty much like you and "spin" are mostly in agreement.

Did you just quickly glance at the words "Many here have argued that if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", decide that was spin's position, and totally ignore that he immediately followed that by saying, "I disagree"?

[zappaman]

52. Pretty much...yeah. n/t

[NealK]

62. That's really eerie.

They're arguing while agreeing with each other.

[snooper2]

26. And don't forget to put some electrical tape over that camera on your TV

Damn NSA watching me play with my cat!

[AZ Progressive]

46. You don't think the NSA can intimidate "subversives" like many DUers?

Like for instance, putting you on a no fly list

[MineralMan]

10. Because the Government is vitally interested in the

day-to-doings of every American. Yeah...that's it. And posting on DU? That's out of the question, of course...

[kpete]

11. LOL

BOLD LOL

peace,kp

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. There are studies on this

and it is insidious, since it does change behavior. Let me quote Congressman John Lewis this weekend at Comicon.

ECM asked Congressman Lewis about the National Security Agency (NSA) scandal, which evokes memories of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) tracking Rev. Martin Luther King under Director J Edgar Hoover.

“I am deeply concerned when there is the possibility of violating the privacy of people,” said Lewis. “Eavesdropping on our citizens, we saw it during the ‘50s, during the ‘60s when people spied on the civil rights movement and made it almost impossible for people to do their own work in a peaceful and non violent way.”

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13635

For all those kidding and making jokes and thinking it has no real effects, it does. It has, we have come more than just full circle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023308887

If you want to discuss this here.

[snappyturtle]

44. In relation to the privacy issue is control of nationwide communication.

I have 'concerns' about EO13618. It was done for a reason and I somehow doubt it is for our security in a national emergency which could be stretched to just about any occurrence in today's climate. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/12/dhs-emergency-power-extended-including-control-of-/#disqus_thread

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. It is a double edged sword

if it is used in a national emergency, sure... they might have to take control of whatever communications are left to move in emergency teams. Think katrina on steroids.

On the other hand, if we have a national strike... (I know I am dreaming) one way to break it is to stop all communications.

[Progressive dog]

17. How low has internet traffic fallen?

The article didn't say.

[marions ghost]

18. Lots of tips in this article

...preventative methods...well you have to stay on top of those all the time, a heavy burden on consumers.

But it's one way to be a part of the backlash anyway. Does send a message even if it really doesn't thwart the NSA at present.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I am a reporter, and I ask nasty questions

so I know I am automatically in the enemies list.

So... at this point, it will be what it will be.

FUCK NSA!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

19. That is why this is a 1st amendment issue as well as a 4th

This why we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Snowden for blowing the whistle on this suspicionless spying.

[woo me with science]

25. +1 The chilling of free association and dissent.

One of the most interesting and wonderful things about the internet is that it allows people to talk to one another all over the world, and realize our shared basic humanity.

Now talking to someone in the *wrong* country can get you on a list.

[ProSense]

29. Anyone who leaves the Internet because of the NSA reports

likely believes the misinformation. Anyone who stays likely doesn't.

[Mojorabbit]

45. I am staying and I believe the info that has been released

I am sure a ton of people will do the same, one needs the internet anymore to do business and it makes it easier to stay in touch with far flung friends and family. I am not willing to become a hermit but I am pissed as hell about these programs.

[totodeinhere]

57. You don't have anything to worry about right now because you always spout the "company line."

But just wait until we get another administration in power that does not agree with your point of view. Then perhaps you will come to know what it feels like to worry about whether you can say what you want to or whether the government will come down on you for it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. I find what the Obama Administration is doing to be just fine.

[totodeinhere]

80. You may, but apparently a lot of other people don't, hence this article about

people being scared away from using the Internet.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. Apparently sarcasm is not readily identified as such on the web.

[VWolf]

31. A number of people I know are now putting tape over their built-in webcams.

They're convinced the gov't can operate them remotely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. They are correct actually

My Phone, is a nice tracking device I carry everywhere. It is just the way it is.

[bemildred]

34. That's what you have to do. nt

[cprise]

65. I get their concern, but microphones are a problem, too

And manufacturers don't put status lights on mics. Then add to that all of the other sensors our computers and smartphones have been acquiring.

There is very little consideration for privacy in current computer design. The best stopgap is to insist that whatever machines you buy have a plug or battery you can easily pull at a moment's notice. (Sadly, that's going away...)

[woo me with science]

97. +1

Or perhaps there is a lot of consideration about privacy...or the lack thereof.

[Skip Intro]

32. We just have to watch what we say and do online.

Or near a cell phone.

Or where we go.

Or what political views we express.

etc...

Ahhh - FREEDOM!

[totodeinhere]

50. It is disgusting that in this country, represented as a "free" country, its citizens

have to endure the experience of living in a police state. In a truly free country we would have the freedom to say what we want without the fear of repercussions coming down on us from the government.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Attorneys have an ethical duty to keep the confidential information from their clients confidential.

It is an ethical duty that all of them understand.

At some point, someone is going to ask whether it is unethical for attorneys to exchange information with clients through the Internet.

Even if an encryption program is used, would this protect client confidentiality from the NSA? Or even the local police? Or corporations with executives which may be competing with an attorney's clients?

One software company, for example, describes its software and services by saying that it "provides state of the art decryption and password cracking software solutions for law enforcement, federal agencies and corporations."

Even if Internet emails can be encrypted, hasn't the NSA worked with decryption programs?

[bemildred]

39. High quality encryption cannot be "broken". Not even by the NSA.

That's why they don't like it.

Or at least Mr. Snowden didn't seem to think so, and he should know.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. You say that Snowden said that? When? Where?

And if you can verify the "when" and "where," how, exactly, do you know that it was actually Snowden that said that?

How exactly do you know that a statement which you not attribute to Snowden is not disinformation?

You say, "High quality encryption cannot be "broken"." Are you relying upon others for this knowledge? Or are you personally an encryption expert? If you are an encryption expert, why are you spending your time on DU?

[bemildred]

76. I am knowledgeable, not expert.

You will have to do without my personal history, if that causes you to doubt me, I can live with that.

I am simplifying and inferring a bit, which is why "broken" is in quotes.

About Mr. Snowden:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/17/encrypting-your-email-works-says-nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden/

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. I'm not asking for your personal history. You say that you have special knowledge. I'm asking

for the support of such knowledge.

Encryption is safe for emails because someone created an Internet post while attributing such a statment to Snowden? OK, you've provided a link to where that was allegedly said by Snowden.

Aren't you at all skeptical? Why should you think that he is an expert at all things under the NSA banner? He wasn't the head of the NSA. He certainly didn't know everything going on at the NSA.

[bemildred]

88. You are free to believe what you like, why annoy me about it?

I made no claim to special knowledge, it's all public information. There are textbooks about it. I read some. I used to keep up with it.

I should ask you why do you think that is special knowledge when I said nothing of the sort?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. I am the one who filed the post at #36. You are the one who countered that by saying (#39) "High

High quality encryption cannot be "broken". Not even by the NSA."

It should be obvious. Even to you. You want to disagree with posts filed by others, such as me, but you consider it annoying if someone such as me disagrees with you and asks for the source for your special knowledge.

[bemildred]

93. Right, I answered your question.

I won't make that mistake again.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

95. Promises, promises.

[bemildred]

98. You must be a really great attorney too.

[cprise]

107. That's not a claim to "special knowledge"

Cryptography is based on mathematical theorems and proofs. It is a branch of mathematics, actually, which means that academics around the world are preoccupied with finding new ways to test the soundness of popular encryption algorithms (i.e. they try to crack them).

So, without getting into math, there are a number of reasons the NSA probably can't crack AES and other top algorithms:

1. They use it themselves

2. They cannot monopolize most of the best mathematicians. Indeed, they have competition.

3. Its hard to keep new techniques secret, even for the NSA. And their competition needs NSA-proof crypto... someone, somewhere would see evidence that spies have advanced beyond civilian technology because they can't all keep perfect secrets.

4. The agencies they work with are trying to make it mandatory for suspects to divulge their keys... even if they plead the Fifth.

5. When DES was cracked, it was already suspected to be weak.

Mathematically, crypto is based on "trapdoor functions" which are thought to be practically irreversible; they seem to embody the laws of thermodynamics. A discovery that allowed someone to easily undo a trapdoor function would probably have all sorts of other ramifications in math and even physics that are far more important than cryptography.

[bemildred]

138. Yep, you could throw all of current computing and performance theory in the toilet, right there.

And that is littered all through our math and physics now, it would require a paradigm shift on the order of Newton to fix it, and it would be an entirely different world when we were done. This is one reason I don't think they will ever make quantum computing work.

Interesting they are "pardoning" Turing now, he is one of the guys that really nailed this stuff to the wall.

Excellent text that collects it all together:

Computability and Logic

Computability and Logic has become a classic because of its accessibility to students without a mathematical background and because it covers not simply the staple topics of an intermediate logic course, such as Godel's incompleteness theorems, but also a large number of optional topics, from Turing's theory of computability to Ramsey's theorem. Including a selection of exercises, adjusted for this edition, at the end of each chapter, it offers a new and simpler treatment of the representability of recursive functions, a traditional stumbling block for students on the way to the Godel incompleteness theorems.

http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Logic-George-S-Boolos/dp/0521701465

Thanks for the backup.

[cprise]

140. I will add one caveat

We may need to migrate to larger keys in public key crypto. Its the nature of the beast.

Thanks for the book link.

[bemildred]

141. Agreed. That would be a start anyway.

The longer the better, and we have the speed for long keys now.

[bemildred]

89. And it is really tacky to not at least thank me for digging up Snowden's statement too. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. You haven't been thanked? Do you play the victim very much? How often?

[bemildred]

79. There was also a Guardian piece I recall about the handling of bulk data

from the internet trunk lines, that indicated that it is just stored since they can't get at it.

And all that coincides with my professional experience.

The only theoretical way one can break strong encryption is quantum computing which is little more than interesting theoretical work at this point.

Of course, the NSA might have something secreted away somewhere, but then they can't use it much or everybody will know they do. What bit them in the ass with Snowden, again, if you see?

[ucrdem]

37. AOL-Huffpost does not seem overly concerned.

And the Louisiana lady's name is Moran.



Just sayin' . . .

[zappaman]

51. I never go on the internet!

[randome]

110. And we appreciate that, too!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[PatrynXX]

53. Hello NSA

how are you doing. love reading my crap? Sorry my family has a mental history of being paranoid. hope it never hits me.


dad of course ignored this when Bush was in power oh but now he's ordering obsolete Russian gas masks and emergency tomato seeds X_X

NSA isn't exactly on the top of my eek list. Avid 007 watcher. yawn.. think people have been sleeping since the 1800's and just woke up or something

I'm imaging Sneakers except everyone is rooting for Ben and not Robert (smack ) No More secrets ouch. Reminds me of the Incredibles. and when everyone super , no one is.

[90-percent]

56. my recent facebook is my government spying on me episode

i was bitching to another person about our totalitarian fascist police state of affairs on FB. A few days later i got a friend request from a hottie looking girl "text me at 23456789, K?" so i accepted her friend request, because i do that 100% of the time anyway (I need all the friends i can get)

i was not going to text her because i dont know how to and i'm 59 and married. Also, I felt like I was being phished to giver her my cell phone #.

her friends list consisted of me, the aforementioned "another person" and a stranger. my buddy told me this happened shortly after our bitching on FB and he made the connection about possible surveillance of us.

the hottie girls FB account no long exists.

My first agent mike kinda moment on FB and who knows what it really was, but in these times being paranoid is the most sane way to be!

-90% Jimmy

[NoPasaran]

59. And they all lived happily ever after

[Trillo]

68. Need to do more than disconnect the Internet. How to do it *all the way*

• Disconnect the internet,


• Disconnect the phone,


• Disconnect the TV,


• Disconnect the electricity,


• stop all incoming and outgoing mail,


• install a faraday cage around an entire indoor living space,


• insure any private living space is underground,


• insure the living space is hidden and unknown to others,


• when someone else learns where you live, move elsewhere immediately.

It doesn't look realistic to me, and it looks like a list that only the 1% could do. The first 4 are theoretically doable by the poor, but reads like a Kaczynski (my list doesn't include any physical harm to others), and makes anyone mostly unemployable (every employer wants you to have a phone). That likely means you'll become homeless.

Hmm. Homeless. Doesn't the 1% keep bulldozing their encampments? Perhaps its because the 1% can't adequately spy on them?

[NealK]

70. K&R

Good article.

[treestar]

71. IMO those people are being silly

Might be a nice way to get attention. But no one really thinks you can't post whatever you want on the internet. There is so much information out there, the government can't keep up with real crime, like child porn or trafficking. Just like it can't deport all the aliens here unlawfully.

[cantbeserious]

72. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Pholus]

83. Eh, ever since AOL contaminated Usenet in 1993 it's been downhill anyway.

A few better features and flashier graphics, many more drawbacks.

[bemildred]

91. Well, it's the money, most of that, the profit motive leads naturally to selling crap.

For inflated prices.

[Pholus]

94. I guess its time to think of the next best thing.

Not that I'm anywhere near smart enough, sadly. But I have to imagine that peer-to-peer device networking would be much harder to wholesale collect. Maybe trying to improve mesh networks locally then?

[bemildred]

96. Indeed. The constant techology churn is necessary to keep the money-machine rolling.

If Facebook is the criteria, it can't be that hard.

[FarCenter]

104. The Internet was invented by a small community of researchers who trusted each other

It has no built-in security features.

It's Al Gore's fault.

[dogknob]

108. Well DUH! That's the whole point.

Our owners are already pissed off that we can talk to each other without asking their permission. Bork forbid that any of us share any real information, so they pay a lot of people a lot of money to flood the Internet with bullshit, making the real stuff harder to find.

That's not enough, though. Our owners need total control over all information or they might not be our owners long enough to make their entitled little royal babies our new owners.

So our owners turn to their favorite emotional state: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD - currently the United States #1 export product).

Scare enough people and we'll be begging them to make our Internet just like TeeVee.

Will they make an example of Skinner? That would suck.

[bemildred]

118. No no, don't try to cheer me up.

It's not often I meet someone who wants to compete on who is most cynical.

[randome]

109. Shit! Three people mentioned in the article have slacked off from using the Internet!

It's a movement!

The Internet has two diametrically opposed ideals: to be open to the world and to be secure. It can never be both. No matter what encryption is developed, there will be ways to circumvent it. Maybe not 'defeat' it, but to find ways around it.

It's the nature of digital data. The world we have all eagerly embraced, like it or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bemildred]

111. Considering the amount ot time and effort spent to get people to "use the internet"

for what used to be done by mail and in person, don't you think this sort of regression could upset some people?

Do you think our surveillance activites will still be useful for catching terrists? I doubt it, if it ever was worth the trouble, it won't be now.

But that is not the real issue, the real issue here is that a lot of people on the planet will stop using OUR internet. It's entirely optional, and we have made it clear that from their point of view, it's a bad idea, we cannot be trusted.

You do point out a very real technical problem, which is how do you provide security on the internet where you need it without compromising the connectivity and information sharing advantages? The guys who came up with IP just wanted it to scale up well. Everything else came naturally from that, once they could do that.

And the answer to the question seems to be encryption, which nobody wants to do much unless it involves no work or they feel insecure for any of many reasons.

We already have a "secure" network (https://) and an insecure one (http://) but this has been subverted by several different factors (laziness, greed, ignorance, etc.). We probably ought not be pushing people who are not comfortable with these issues onto the internet just to make a few extra bucks anyway.

[randome]

112. Getting people to use the Internet is a societal change, not driven by individual companies.

It matters not to corporations whether someone uses the Internet or walks into a brick and mortar building to conduct purchases.

Even with https, you are often prompted to verify certificates, which is beyond the attention span of most users.

And I don't blame them. From a user's perspective, no one should need to learn technical jargon and details. The Internet should be a seamless, hassle-free environment.

I doubt it ever will be. And I bet something will eventually replace it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bemildred]

113. Actually, it was. They spent a lot of money on it too.

I was there.

So that's why they are all whining constantly to get you to do things online? Because they do not care?

Agreed, you cannot leave it up to individuals if you want it to be "universal", it has to be policy and it has to be enforced with rigor.

Agreed.

Having studied the matter at some length, back in the day, I agree, it already has been "replaced" several times now. That is part of my original point, it's all fungible, it's easy to replace, that was the whole idea at the time.

[HiPointDem]

119. "It matters not to corporations whether someone uses the Internet or walks into a brick and mortar

building to conduct purchases."

you're quite wrong about that. and there has been a definite and very noticeable push factor involved in people turning to the internet to shop.

starting with the tax advantage, duh.

[randome]

123. True but even that is starting to evaporate.

For some companies, it's more climbing on the bandwagon, showing they have technological prowess and are following the trends.

But yes, you're right, the tax advantage plus not having to maintain as many brick and mortar stores. But none of this would be happening if we didn't readily applaud the ease of use the Internet gives us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[HiPointDem]

124. the tax advantage may be rescinded because the purpose has been achieved. as is to be

expected.

for example, most of amazon's early competitors are dead or on their last legs.

[Quantess]

114. Yep. Facebook has slowed waay down compared with the past couple of years.

One of my facebook friends went from posting at least 3x per week, and having several long conversations, to suddenly stopping cold right after the Snowden / NSA story broke out. She was the most dramatic one.

Other facebook friends are just plain less active.

It's like a bunch of chirping birds out in nature that suddenly get quiet when you come walking with your dog.

[bemildred]

116. Facebook has to hate this. It clobbered their whole business plan.

Apparently we are not quite ready to become a hive-mind with no secrets from each other yet.

[HiPointDem]

115. good.

[bemildred]

120. Works fine for me too.

It's been waaaay overhyped ever since the private money got involved.

[HiPointDem]

121. the only thing i would miss if the whole thing disappeared would be ease of research.

the rest -- shopping, email, photos, videos, all that -- could all disappear down the toilet tomorrow & i wouldn't have a twinge of withdrawl.

[bemildred]

122. Quite.

I miss some of the old protocols too, better compartmentalized and less messy to find things, better understood by the users.

Google does a great, even amazing, job, but it would do a much better job with a bit of high level organization, putting everything in one big pile (The Web) is VERY inefficient unless you REALLY do not know where to start.

Edit: and of course, the whole thing, as predicted at the time, has created a security problem of magnificent proportions where nothing existed before.

[HiPointDem]

125. you're probably talking in computer terms -- before the internet but after some other 'net'.

i'm talking about before the whole thing.

i'd be happy using regular mail, going to the library, watching 3 channels on tv, shopping at real stores, reading the paper & using the phone.

i don't like this internet world so much. it's kind of creepy.

[bemildred]

126. Yeah, I started with computers around 1967, but we are still on the same page, I believe.

Worked at it twenty yrs in the 80s & 90s.

I think they would have done much better to adopt a highly regulated public utility model for the internet/web, but there was no money in that, and we worship money here.

I think it's a fad, actually. New technologies are like that. Once the marketing and sales types get involved, and the private money, it goes that way because that is what marketing theory says makes the most profit and competes for business. It's dogma, basically.

But that also drives people away. People with no money, people who for any of a very large number of reasons are not up to dealing with the complexity and abstraction.

"The internet is a nice place to visit once in a while, but I would not want to live there."

[davidn3600]

127. The new America...... people becoming afraid of their own government

[bemildred]

128. The new America: the government desperately afraid of its own citizens.

And mainly because it knows in its heart that it has done a truly shitty job of running the place these last 60 years (with a few bright exceptions in technological achievement and civil rights.)

[pipi_k]

129. Something that doesn't make sense

to me...

And in Canada, a lawyer is rethinking the data products he uses to ensure his clients' privacy.

As the attorney, Chris Bushong, put it: "Who wants to feel like they're being watched?"

OK, so he does that and it's all good? He never again feels like he's being watched?

I dunno. If I had the task of watching people, I would tend to focus in more on people who are taking extra measures to hide whatever it is they're doing.

Maybe he's taking the ostrich approach here? Is he really that concerned about being watched, or is he more concerned about the feeling of being watched?

[markiv]

132. addiction is more powerfull than fear nt

[madrchsod]

134. hey mr agent man......