Slashdot Mirror
Keeping Your Data Private From the NSA (And Everyone Else)
Nerval's Lobster writes "If those newspaper reports are accurate, the NSA's surveillance programs are enormous and sophisticated, and rely on the latest in analytics software. In the face of that, is there any way to keep your communications truly private? Or should you resign yourself to saying or typing, 'Hi, NSA!' every time you make a phone call or send an email? Fortunately there are ways to gain a measure of security: HTTPS, Tor, SCP, SFTP, and the vendors who build software on top of those protocols. But those host-proof solutions offer security in exchange for some measure of inconvenience. If you lose your access credentials, you're likely toast: few highly secure services include a 'Forgot Your Password?' link, which can be easily engineered to reset a password and username without the account owner's knowledge. And while 'big' providers like Google provide some degree of encryption, they may give up user data in response to a court order. Also, all the privacy software in the world also can't prevent the NSA (or other entities) from capturing metadata and other information. What do you think is the best way to keep your data locked down? Or do you think it's all a lost cause?"
I don't want "it all". I just want our government to respect our rights and our Constitution. Is that too much to ask?
Those who worry are usually those who have something to hide or something criminal in the works.
You won't mind me wiretapping your phones, installing caneras in your home and adding keyloggers to your computers? You're not a criminal with anything to hide, right?
That's silly. Privacy is a constitutional right -- so important that it's part of the original Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments). To state that the desire to MAINTAIN your right to privacy means you have ill intent to "do wrong" (whatever the hell THAT means) is saying that nobody has any rights whatsoever -- since whatever is "granted" is as easily revocable and ostensibly temporary.
Furthermore, what constitutes "wrong"? Who's the judge? It's a moral characterization to actions of an inalienable right afforded by our founding fathers. Your statements simply don't make sense.
As with all things, assume that your communications are going to be monitored, whether electronic or not. I know, I know, it's not the answer you want; but the truth is...we put innocent people to death. If we are willing to do that, and not tear down our societies in an act of grief over the loss of a single innocent life, looking deeply within and without as to how or why we allowed this to happen, and how we can prevent it from ever happening again, then caring about protecting your privacy from the monsters waiting outside your door is the wrong approach. You're fighting Evil himself, and he aims to win by any means; if putting a gun to the head of one your children's heads to get you to decrypt your hard drive is what it takes, then he will do it, no hesitation.
I am John Hurt.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Cardinal Richelieu.
See, when your government spies on everything you do, sooner or later someone will come along and decide that since they already have this information, they can use it for other things.
If you don't grasp this, I suggest you read more about Joseph McCarthy -- America is entirely capable of political persecution as any other government.
Bottom line, with your attitude, you deserve to be dragged off in the night, because you're part of the problem with the complacency and people not seeing what's really wrong here. That's kinda how I see it.
Since you're not part of the solution, you are the problem.
Twenty years ago, the US would make jokes about "papers please" and the Soviets. Now, that's just normal routine.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The old 'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' argument. I thought that one went out of fashion when the German Jews realized that being innocent is no defense again tyrants.
This is the kind of crap that was held up as examples of why communist countries were so much worse than the US.
People, the government is supposed to work for you, not the other way around.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
The problem with heavily encrypted solutions is that they rely on human perfection. There was a story a few months back about Sabu. He eluded the FBI for months until, in a hotel room, he made the mistake of logging into IRC without using Tor first.
That was all it took. One non-Tor login, and the FBI had him.
Human beings are not designed for constant watchfulness. We make mistakes. We screw up. Even if *you* stay perfect, the person or persons you're communicating with may not, and if the FBI or NSA wants the details of what you're talking about, they can "break" the encryption at either end of the conversation. Maybe they can't find you -- but if they find the people you're talking to, they can still grab the info.
I'm not saying that all security is useless, or that there's no benefit to raising the bar. My point is that the solution to this is to *stop spying.* Because, in the long run, almost everyone screws up.
Security concerns are not about common people, or even criminals being tracked. It's aboud political opposition being tracked.
Snowden said he could listen in on conversations of anyone he wanted, including powerful people, and proceeded to do so as a test. No one came to get him for doing so without a warrant.
Among hundreds, maybe thousands of agents, it's trivial to insert an operative to listen to opposition.
He says he has data ready to release in case he's arrested. I hope it includes embarrasing conversations of said powerful people. Maybe then these jackasses will wake up.
All people want is a system design that tracks and records everything the government does, as it tracks and records everyhing we do, from Twitterers to opposition discussing political planning.
That currently does not exist.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'll presume that you're a troll but you drag out the age old "If you've got nothing to hide... argument"
Here are a couple of issues with this argument.
1. Retroactive violation of new laws:
Let's imagine that you're a smoker and that you smoke in your house. The government could pass a law saying "Smoking is not allowed inside any building. Anyone caught must pay a $500 fine." They can now either go back and look at their surveillance data and retroactively charge you for smoking in your house in the past or they can put you on a list of people to watch and then catch you smoking in your house.
2. If this is your stance that you have nothing to hide.... I presume that you don't have shades. Why don't you post your credit card statement on your front door for your neighbors to inspect "Hey, you've got nothing to hide". In fact let's make your browsing history completely public. How about your health records?
You may nothing to hide but I suspect you're also not eager to share your personal details with the world.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
So let me get this straight. You've got a military that spends trillions of dollars. You've got eight national defence organizations screwing with your own citizens. And a) you think that you can dodge an organization that has spent that many dollars purely to find you, and b) you think that you don't have a cultural problem?
Where do you think all of those funds come from? For every tax dollar that you spend, how much goes to military, para-military, and anti-crime organizations? How much of it winds up in actual crime? Are you spending more on anti-crime than you would on crime in the first place?
Maybe you should solve the actual problem. Maybe you should start electing officials who spend your money on things that you like, instead of things that you dislike. I can't vote for you.
And correct me if I'm wrong -- you see, my country earned its independence by asking nicely -- doesn't your country believe in violently fighting your own government to break free of restrictions to your freedoms? Have you forgotten how to do that? Your right to fight would seem to be the only freedom for which you do fight, and then you don't use that right to protect your other freedoms.
One of these days, you'll wake up to realize that you've kept the right, but eliminated the opportunity. What good is the right to bear arms when you can't get away with using it?
But the NSA says it's just collecting the metadata on communications, not the actual communications. So while encrypting the message in your email may prevent them from (easily) reading your email, they still see that you sent or received an email and who it was coming or going to.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! And wrong!
It's a common fallacy spouted by those who foist surveillance on us. See here, here, or any other of the many hits when you search for privacy "nothing to hide"
It goes right along with the "privacy and security are mutually exclusive" fallacy.
People like you that are trading your long-term liberty and privacy for a current sense of security are going to rue this day eventually. These essential freedoms need constant vigilance. Many of our forefathers died defending them. They're rolling in their graves now seeing how so many are nonchalantly pissing them away.
Here's your homework. Go read the Constitution of the United States of America. No, really. Read it line by line and understand why some say it's the most important and influential document created in the last 1000 years.
And encrypting it screams "hey look at me look at me I'm saying something I don't want you to know about!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
This presupposes that privacy is a right, rather than a privilege.
This is part of the reasons we have so many problems with government. At the time the US government was formed the premise was:
The people have all the rights; the government has no rights at all, except those granted by the people through the constitution.
For most people today the belief similar, except they swap people and government.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
3. Don't engage in terrorism, they really hate that.
Problem is that if they dislike you for some reason they tend to define whatever you do as terrorism. Even if you just happen to get blown up by a random drone strike while attending your friend's wedding you become a terrorist.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nope. You don't see it at all. Because illegal is not a synonym for wrong .
Over 2000 years ago, Sun Tzu pointed out that when the laws imposed by the rulers are aligned with the customs and ethics of the people, societies are prosperous and resistant to crime, war and rebellion. When the rulers lose the way, as the corporate overlords of the USA have, the people become unhappy and the society becomes progressively more fragile over time. Eventually a neighbor invades or a province revolts and the rulers are replaced, because nobody's willing to die to protect them anymore.
But the NSA says it's just collecting the metadata on communications, not the actual communications. So while encrypting the message in your email may prevent them from (easily) reading your email, they still see that you sent or received an email and who it was coming or going to.
You're forgetting: They are lying. They lied before each leak, and after were proven liers. Now they claim to have told congress "The least untruthful" thing they could. You think they are finally telling the truth now? lol
Tell me if this isn't a more exact definition of privacy than simply stating: "People have a right to privacy."
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Rumor is they've found a way to efficiently brute-force low-level AES.
A rumor that hasnt been substantiated even after over a decade of analysis by top crypto experts around the world. Color me skeptical.
Im sure the NSA is good, but AES security has been pretty thoroughly tested, hammered, and inspected for chinks.
Right now it screams "I've heard of PRISM".
Now is the best time to start routinely encrypting your communications, because you have a plausible reason to do so.
"And while 'big' providers like Google provide some degree of encryption, they WILL give up user data in response to a court order"
I believe the correct statement would be:
"And while 'big' providers like Google provide some degree of encryption, they HAVE GIVEN up user data in response to a court order"
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Wrong. If Google cared, they could take measures to immunize themselves against court orders.
Courts can only order that these businesses divulge data they have. Google could encrypt your email, docs, &c., that are stored on their servers using your login password, and so long as they don't store your login password, they cannot now decrypt the data. All they could respond to a court order with would be an encrypted blob and, "if you want the data, subpoena the owner and get the password from him." No more spying without the owner's knowledge.
Google's encryption is just HTTPS, which is end-to-end between the user and Google's servers. It's great for protecting against MITM attacks, but useless to protect against Google themselves.
Liberty in your lifetime