General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNSA Leaks About Spying Are Scaring Some Americans Away From The Internet
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
(108,903 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)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
(14,656 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)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 Snowdens leaked documents hit the press.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/PRISM-Tech-Companies-Keep-Trying-to-Gain-Back-Trust-369621.shtml
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Trust is all you have on the internet. It represents severe lack of clue to not see this coming.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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
(16,846 posts)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
(30,058 posts)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
(15,574 posts)Damn. Noted in the building.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)have these attitudes, but are quite willing to tell you they do. It's absolutely sickening.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)smell stale cigarette smoke? Freedoms should be working for others.
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)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
(30,058 posts)Brings you pleasure but stay away from my armpit,
.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)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
(16,846 posts)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
(30,058 posts)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
(16,846 posts)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
(30,058 posts)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
(27,630 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)should not be available to employers, yet employers have asked for the passwords.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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
(21,675 posts)It is now illegal for employers to do so.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)actions have brought to light how massive the programs are.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)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
(30,058 posts)sometimes you can't fight a forest fire with a water gun.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)the "sarcasm" tag out of, at least, your comments, at least the ones I've seen so far in this thread.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)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
(30,058 posts)Life to clear your mind. You might be the type to take a small water gun to a forest fire.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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
(14,656 posts)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
(30,058 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)It indicates you can't win the topic at hand.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the government, not so much.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)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
(16,926 posts)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
(20,729 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)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
(14,656 posts)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
(17,493 posts)In case something I say might piss off some bureaucrat or politician.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and people who don't will start to self edit themselves too
spin
(17,493 posts)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 livedid live, from habit that became instinctin the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. (George Orwell, from the novel 1984?.)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)something similar
You go argue with Congressman John Lewis.
spin
(17,493 posts)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
(154,021 posts)and I will leave at this. I am done doing this.
Some people get it, some don't
spin
(17,493 posts)I favor free screech and our rights to privacy as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)changing, already, behavior. It is
spin
(17,493 posts)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
(154,021 posts)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
(17,493 posts)Enjoy your Young and the Restless episode.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is a fact jack. And the local democratic party is splintering along multiple fault lines.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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
(15,212 posts)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
(20,606 posts)NealK
(1,867 posts)They're arguing while agreeing with each other.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Damn NSA watching me play with my cat!
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Like for instance, putting you on a no fly list
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)day-to-doings of every American. Yeah...that's it. And posting on DU? That's out of the question, of course...
peace,kp
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is insidious, since it does change behavior. Let me quote Congressman John Lewis this weekend at Comicon.
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
(14,656 posts)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
(154,021 posts)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
(6,904 posts)The article didn't say.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...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
(154,021 posts)so I know I am automatically in the enemies list.
So... at this point, it will be what it will be.
FUCK NSA!
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)This why we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Snowden for blowing the whistle on this suspicionless spying.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)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
(116,464 posts)likely believes the misinformation. Anyone who stays likely doesn't.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)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
(13,058 posts)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
(11,064 posts)totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)people being scared away from using the Internet.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)VWolf
(3,944 posts)They're convinced the gov't can operate them remotely.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)My Phone, is a nice tracking device I carry everywhere. It is just the way it is.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)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
(32,139 posts)Or perhaps there is a lot of consideration about privacy...or the lack thereof.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Or near a cell phone.
Or where we go.
Or what political views we express.
etc...
Ahhh - FREEDOM!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)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
(11,064 posts)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
(90,061 posts)That's why they don't like it.
Or at least Mr. Snowden didn't seem to think so, and he should know.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(11,064 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(11,064 posts)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
(90,061 posts)I won't make that mistake again.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(8,445 posts)We may need to migrate to larger keys in public key crypto. Its the nature of the beast.
Thanks for the book link.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The longer the better, and we have the speed for long keys now.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)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
(15,512 posts)And the Louisiana lady's name is Moran.
Just sayin' . . .
zappaman
(20,606 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)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
(6,829 posts)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
(17,291 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)- 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?
Good article.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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
(13,039 posts)eom
Pholus
(4,062 posts)A few better features and flashier graphics, many more drawbacks.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)For inflated prices.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)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
(90,061 posts)If Facebook is the criteria, it can't be that hard.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)It has no built-in security features.
It's Al Gore's fault.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)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
(90,061 posts)It's not often I meet someone who wants to compete on who is most cynical.
randome
(34,845 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(34,845 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(20,729 posts)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
(34,845 posts)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
(20,729 posts)expected.
for example, most of amazon's early competitors are dead or on their last legs.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)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
(90,061 posts)Apparently we are not quite ready to become a hive-mind with no secrets from each other yet.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)It's been waaaay overhyped ever since the private money got involved.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the rest -- shopping, email, photos, videos, all that -- could all disappear down the toilet tomorrow & i wouldn't have a twinge of withdrawl.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)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
(20,729 posts)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
(90,061 posts)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
(6,342 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)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
(21,020 posts)to me...
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?