I think we know now, that they will know we are organizing.
Sent from my Mobile Device. -------- Original message -------- From: Ishmael Rufus <sakam...@gmail.com> Date: 06/07/2013 6:32 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project Yeah... so when are we rioting? Because they'll just continue to make laws that circumvent the constitution. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > Dan, > > While the government has no responsibility to protect my data, they do > have a responsibility to respect my privacy. While you are correct in that > proper personal security procedures to protect my data from random crackers > would, in fact, also protect it from the government, that's a far cry from > what is at issue here. > > The question here is whether or not it should be considered legitimate for > the US Government to completely ignore the fourth and fifth amendments to > the constitution and build out unprecedented surveillance capabilities > capturing vast amounts of data without direct probable cause for that > snooping. > > I'm not so much concerned about them gaining access to data I don't want > them to access. I am far more disturbed by the trend which reflects a > government which increasingly considers itself unrestrained by the laws it > is in place to support and implement. > > Owen > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Dan White <dwh...@olp.net> wrote: > > > On 06/07/13 11:11 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote: > >> On 6/7/2013 9:50 AM, Dan White wrote: > >>> OpenPGP and other end-to-end protocols protect against all nefarious > >>> actors, including state entities. I'll admit my first reaction > yesterday > >>> after hearing this news was - so what? Network security by its nature > >>> presumes that an insecure channel is going to be attacked and > >>> compromised. The 4th Amendment is a layer-8 solution to a problem that > >>> is better solved lower in the stack. > >> > >> That is JUST like saying... > >> > >> || now that the police can freely bust your door down and raid your > >> house in a "fishing expedition", without a search warrant, without court > >> order, and without "probable cause"... the solution is for you to get a > >> stronger metal door and hide all your stuff better.|| > > > > Hiding stuff better is generally good security practice, particularly in > > the absence of a search warrant. How effective those practices are is > > really what's important. > > > > From a data standpoint, those security procedures can be highly > > effective, even against law enforcement. But it's not law enforcement > that > > I worry about the most (understandably, you may have a differing > opinion); > > It's the random anonymous cracker who isn't beholden to any international > > laws or courts. I design my personal security procedures for him. > > > > That's why I don't, say, send passwords in emails. I don't trust state > > entities to protect the transmission of that data. I don't wish to place > > that burden on them. > > > >> You're basically saying that it is OK for governments to defy their > >> constitutions and trample over EVERYONE's rights, and that is OK since a > >> TINY PERCENTAGE of experts will have exotic means to evade such > >> trampling. But to hell with everyone else. They'll just have to become > >> good little subjects to the State. If grandma can't do PGP, then she > >> deserves it, right? > > > > I believe it's your responsibility to protect your own data, not the > > government's, and certainly not Facebook's. > > > >> Yet... many people DIED to initiate/preserve/codify such human rights... > >> but I guess others just give them away freely. What a shame. Ironically, > >> many who think this is no big deal have themselves benefited immensely > >> from centuries of freedom and prosperity that resulted from "rule of > >> law" and the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights. > > > > Freedom is very important to me, as well as the laws that are in place to > > protect them. > > > > -- > > Dan White > > >
