On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Roger Oberholtzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] >> >> Not talking about safer. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. >> Intercepting messages is one thing. Someone reading them is another. If >> suddenly 99% of all messages (except spam) were encrypted, interception >> would serve no purpose and any organization permitted to do so would find >> little fruit in continuing to intercept messages (except to win government >> $$$ or do general analysis of traffic flows). > > But if it does not make Sweden or the world safer, what point is it? It > is just a bit (in this case a very big bit) more control over the > population solely for the sake of control. For the point, see my penultimate paragraph. > >> Encryption is one way of "fighting" this kind of silliness. Voting those >> who favor these kinds of bills out of office is another. Both would >> probably send a very strong message. But it would take action, like >> actually bothering to get an e-mail certificate. > > True. But in wanting to protect one's own country, it seems wrong to > have to fight one's own government. I am not naive. Just a little bit > more depressed. Then stop thinking about it in terms of "fighting your own government" and look at it in terms of disagreeing with your governments' interests. > >> But most folks would just rather complain than even go to the "trouble" of >> getting an e-mail cert and letting their computer automagically encrypt >> everything. These folks deserve to have all their e-mail read and have no >> right to complain (IMHO). > > Yes and no. Just because the government/postman CAN read your mail does > not mean they SHOULD read the mail. It does not give them the moral > right to actually read it. If I leave money on the table, mu daughter > CAN just take it. But as she knows, that does not mean she SHOULD take > it. Of course, so far my daughter is far better behaved than any > government. Even though her taste in clothes seems to veer in the > direction of defense budgets :) You can teach your children to be moral and responsible. You can even expect that they will learn that behavior. You cannot expect anyone (public or private) to share your moral standards -- if you do, you will be disappointed. But I must ask you, do you lock your front door when you leave your house? Your arguments would suggest you don't -- at least where it concerns your "private" communications anyway. I empathise with the clothing thing -- have the same problem myself with my daughters. > > My understanding is that the processing will be search-engine-like. They > will then be able to play google with the info to look for trends, for > who and where keywords are interesting. Just play with the data and see > what comes up. Fine. Again, if it's encrypted, it's not much value to them. If enough people deny them information through encryption, the problem will solve itself. > > I have a gmail account. I understand that this is done with mail stored > there. google explained that this was why it was free. Up front. Take it > or leave it. If only the government was as honest as google :) Any government is only as honest as its citizens can force it to be. Foreign Relations 101: Governments don't have friends or moral standards, they have interests (and those interests can be public or private). This is why we need democracy -- to peacefully rid governments of interests inimical to those not in government. Not trying to be depressing, just pragmatic. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general
