Slashdot Mirror
Snowden and the Fate of the Internet As a Global Network
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "John Naughton writes in the Guardian that the insight that seems to have escaped most of the world's mainstream media regarding the revelations from Edward Snowden is how the US has been able to bend nine US internet companies to its demands for access to their users' data proving that no US-based internet company can be trusted to protect our privacy or data. 'The fact is that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are all integral components of the US cyber-surveillance system,' writes Naughton. 'Nothing, but nothing, that is stored in their "cloud" services can be guaranteed to be safe from surveillance or from illicit downloading by employees of the consultancies employed by the NSA.' This spells the end of the internet as a truly global network. 'It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.' Naughton adds that given what we now know about how the US has been abusing its privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable. 'Why would you pay someone else to hold your commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared against your wishes?' writes Neelie Kroes, vice-president of the European Commission. 'Front or back door – it doesn't matter – any smart person doesn't want the information shared at all. Customers will act rationally, and providers will miss out on a great opportunity.'"
Something to actually use.
*As long as that speech falls into the category of things that benefits the U.S. government.
Don't forget to return HTML/WWW to CERN first. Then you can talk about 'very little outside help'.
It's always been the elephant in the room. The only new thing is that it has become obvious to a larger number of people that encryption isn't just an "in case" precaution. Anyone who knows anything about the way the Internet works has been aware for years that nothing is secure unless you both encrypt it and control the only means to decrypt it (either by encrypting it to someone's public key whom you trust or by encrypting it for your own secure decryption later).
So again, the only real change is that the tinfoil hats were verifiably right for once. The question nobody seems to be answering is, what (other than nothing) will the general public do about it? The answer to that is, only as much as they are forced to.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And we Brits want our Turing Machines back!
Is there really anything worthwhile on the non-Western Internet, at least from the perspective of most Westerners?
I know I couldn't care any less if I could no longer access Russian or Chinese websites, for instance. Due to language differences, they're already pretty much useless to me. I know this also holds true for most Americans and Australians, and many Europeans, too.
Yeah, I know, there are probably a small number of expats and academics who find some use in such information, but there aren't many of them. Aside from them, I don't think that Westerners in general would really miss those very foreign parts of the Internet if they suddenly disappeared.
Try storing an encrypted container. When you want to access it, download it, decrypt it locally, do your work, reencrypt, and reupload. Unless your home PC is keylogged, you're safe. But if your PC is keylogged, whether you use cloud services is irrelevant.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Suppose your philosopher king came to you and said, "We want to set up our own national network with privacy/neutrality as the core principle, away from the prying eyes of our tyrannical neighbours".
What would you do differently? Can much of the problem be engineered out, at least at the network layer?
Is it just end-to-end encryption? Or anonymised routing? What's the collection of technolgies you'd use to make things at least better?
I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone out there. The internet was never a secure place to store any information, or discuss anything. Putting something in "the cloud" is like putting on your front porch. When is the general public going to realize this? Google is giving you email for free, do you really think no one is reading it?
If a citizen of the United States is not committing a crime, then why does the United States Government need to know the full text of everything that he reads and writes on the Internet?
Alonzo Church was an American. Had there been no Turing, computers as we know them might have been designed through analogy to the lambda calculus rather than to the finite state machine with tape.
That's not a concern. That's just a paraphrase of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
If one is still asking that question at this point, when it has been answered a hundred ways on a hundred days, then he doesn't care about any answer, and will continue to dismiss it.
IMHO, the author's conclusion is a bit overly dramatic. I think a more realistic conclusion is a gradual fade out of cloud computing and cloud storage. Business and people will be more inclined to keep their private data on local, closed systems now because they no longer trust the government not to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. How long will it be before the same effect happens to socialized medicine? Would you trust the government not to use your medical status against you?
I've got nothing to hide, so there is no reason to look. Should work both ways.
What is not illegal now might become illegal in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
... is that, either literally or metaphorically, it's vulnerable to someone holding a gun to your head and demanding the key. We're seeing this (the literal version) in the USA already. I agree with the thesis of the original article: The farther you can keep your data from USA-entangled entity, the better.
This is why:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Long story short? Unless the government has demonstrable cause to read/know the full text of "everything", it's none of their fucking business.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Substitute government with your neighbor. Does that clear things up?
In particular, government, being comprised of mere human beings, should (logically) not be trusted with any more power than the average human being.
Most people won't really care/comprehend much past the drama generated around the whole thing. In the US, Reality TV wins, everything else is lucky if it gets a confused, apathetic nod. If it's more work than walking to the checkout line at a Walmart, people just won't do it.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
A member of my family has expressed the following concern: If a citizen of the United States is not committing a crime, what's wrong with the United States Government knowing the full text of everything that he reads and writes on the Internet?
They haven't been keeping up with current events, have they.
Have them google (if they know how), "IRS abuses".
You see, when the typical person on average commits 3 crimes per day, the State now has an unlimited supply of criminals - EVERYONE.
Mix it in with a For Profit prison system, politicians with agendas, and the increasing polarization of politics in the US, you WILL see abuses that we would have never thought could happen in the US.
EVERYONE has something to hide!
My congressional rep is a pretty far right "We gotta stop the terr'rists" type. I've been trying to figure out the message that will ring with him, to help him understand what we have at stake here. I think it is this: Surveillance cannot become a condition of purchasing American goods and services, or we will lose business. And the solution is already in use in New Jersey:
"Under settled New Jersey law, individuals do not lose their right to privacy simply because they have to give information to a third-party provider, like a phone company or bank, to get service."
I don't want to play to stereotypes, but the reality is that New Jersey is host to some of the traditionally hard-to-crack criminal enterprises. Yet they have decided that the ability to do business must not take a back seat to making law enforcement a little easier. We cannot let surveillance become a condition of purchasing American goods and services.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
That's not the internet, although it may seem like it these days. I was sending and receiving email and files over the internet in the early 1980s, long before the WooWooWoo. In fact the WWW was really a logical extension of the NeXTStep OS with its object-based system, which allowed NeXTMail and, really, any document, to incorporate objects of any type - audio and video in email, or in a spreadsheet.
In 1990 I was product manager for PaperSight, a networked document management system that allowed annotation and attachment of any object to scanned documents for the paperless office, which ran on the NeXT. It was more capable than any web-based system I've seen yet, for that application. You could circle a word or paragraph and add an annotation, for example. The NeXT was the only machine+OS at the time that could handle the capabilities well.
HTML's primary advance was using a subset of SGML to codify the construction of such documents, instead of requiring 'real programming' to support it. I used to have a copy of the WorldWideWeb program written by TBL on my NeXT machine, and it was actually not at that time as capable as many other programs on the NeXT. Of course that was early days. TBL was always quite upfront about how he was inspired by the NeXT.
The other major 'innovation' if you can call it that, was Al Gore's sponsorship of legislation opening up the Internet to non-defense and non-research institutions. Then there was DNS, by Jon Postel and Paul Mockapetris, which came out in 1983 - eight or nine years before the WWW.
Even today, IIRC email remains the majority of internet traffic, dwarfing WWW.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
It's still a global network, and will continue to be a global network even if it's balkanized. Your business network is part of "the Internet" even though it's protected by a firewall. You might use different servers and services, but it's still all connected.
The Internet has never been so uniform a thing as what this summary implies. Different countries have been filtering access, providing different services, etc. Even in cases where access is unfettered, there are still language barriers, cultural barriers, an geographic barriers. I don't access Russian sites and services very much because I don't speak Russian, I don't live in Russia, and I'm not Russian. But we can still access many of the same sites, and we can still send email to each other.
I'm still surprised this is such big news when the AT&T scandal got little national interest.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Is there really anything worthwhile on the non-Western Internet, at least from the perspective of most Westerners?
I know I couldn't care any less if I could no longer access Russian or Chinese websites, for instance. Due to language differences, they're already pretty much useless to me. I know this also holds true for most Americans and Australians, and many Europeans, too.
Yeah, I know, there are probably a small number of expats and academics who find some use in such information, but there aren't many of them. Aside from them, I don't think that Westerners in general would really miss those very foreign parts of the Internet if they suddenly disappeared.
Would you care if you could no longer send email to those countries? What about parts of Europe? What about India? India, China, and Asia represent something like 40% of the Human race... that's a huge portion of potential customers that now have a catastrophically negative image of storing their data in our country on our servers.
We've really screwed ourselves here.
Who did what now?
Ask your family member if they would like their neighbours to see every single thing they read and write on the Internet. If they don't like that, then why would they allow their government to see everything, knowing that a government (and its individual civil servants) can do far more damage, intentionally or by accident, than any neighbour could with that information.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Von Neumann was born in Hungary; he moved to the US in 1933. Einstein was a German; he moved to the US only in 1933, decades after he published his famous relativity theory in the 1910s. Now, if we were to follow your logic and only those countries where technology x was invented can use this technology, then the US would still be a well.... hunter-gatherer society. You can attribute many 20th century inventions to US citizens, but they tend to build on earlier industrial revolution technology. And where did that happen? Right, in Europe. Now, take your nationalistic bullshit, and put it up your ass. Technology is for all of mankind.
American companies care. How are they going to buy all that cheap stuff from China and sell it to you if they can't access Chinese' web sites? How will Apple email the guys at the Foxconn factory?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have no idea why your comment is rated 4, Interesting as it is void of insights.
First of all, you are completely missing the point. The point is a rational sovereign nation will kick out US companies and generally this leads to balkanization.
Secondly, your point is absolutely useless:
"The point is that if you put information and valuables where somebody else can get it, assume someone will."
Can you propose a place where information and valuables can be put where nobody can get at it? Say we put them on a turned-off computer in a block of cement at the bottom of the ocean. What's the point?
Those statements are just stupid, and far from "let's be realistic". No, having your secrets at the bottom of the ocean is not realistic.
The stupidity of ./ amazes me. Security is a trade-off. The Snowden case is changing that. The OPs article actually points this out unlike knee-jerk reactions like yours.
Yes I'm fed up with the stupidity!
No, the news here is that the US actually applied that leverage, not that it has it. And to spell it out for you, this is news because of the contradiction between the gross violation of civil liberties on the one hand and the Defenders Of Liberty narrative the US spins around itself on the other. Additionally, there are many safe places to store information: libraries, books, journals, universities, etc.. There are even safe places to store information you do not want others to access, if you think about it for a couple of seconds. That said, /. is a rather poor place to store your idiocy. Anyone could come by and read it. Anyone!
This is why:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Long story short? Unless the government has demonstrable cause to read/know the full text of "everything", it's none of their fucking business.
Government's trump card: National Security Letter
The Government declared the Constitution of the United States of America as a "worthless piece of paper".
Yeah, I'm British - but I'd miss being able to access Japanese Websites (especially certain blogs, and news sites), and things like KeyHoleTV, as a CS student, who is also studying the language as a hobby. I'd also miss being able to easily obtain Japanese music, and other products (e.g. electronics, and replacement components, books, and audio CDs); and generally being able to communicate with other people from outside of this miserable island.
This is why:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You sound like some kind of radical. I'll bet if you had a few beefs with the king you'd advocate a revolution.
As an American I know that when you go to school here you're boiled in the history and causes of the Revolution and the Constitution from a young age. That's how it should be. But it amazes me how many people are oblivious to what it really means. This is a country that was created by a bunch of radicals because they had beefs with the government, and wouldn't adopt the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. Yet supposedly being aware of this, people kowtow to the idea of "government necessity" trumping our rights.
The key here is trust. Before people might have said, 'Well AWS, Google, Microsoft won't cave because it would hurt their business models." But now we are even asking if the chips themselves might have back doors. So I suspect that now people are looking at their infrastructure and saying, "Trust nothing" Thus you design your infrastructure to assume that nearly everything is compromised.
But this brings back a new tool into the tool into the toolbox. Security through obscurity. The idea is that if you are using well known protocols and systems then the voracious data monsters may very well have ways to tap into them. But if you adopt the weirdos then you might very well avoid easy data loss. These can be layered. So you might use SSH(or some VPN) for the outer layer but underneath you might even use some homebrew encryption. As everyone knows the chances of getting your own encryption right is low but it takes you out of the realm of automated data harvesting. Some group of humans have to now pick through your protocol and crack it. Then you just keep making regular tweaks to your protocol, not to make it better but to change the weirdness.
But this whole thing is a huge opportunity for a country with good privacy protections. A whole industry of secure routers and whatnot could be created that people would trust. I would infinitely prefer a router from an Icelandic(designed and built) company than a technically better router from Cisco (designed in the US and probably made in China).
Also this is where opensource is going to get a whole lot more interesting. Tools like Skype would be better trusted if the code was opensource (they can still retain the copyrights and say, you can poke through it and compile it for your own use but not modify and distribute it). This way when the NSA demands a back door. Skype can say, "No problem but people will discover it in 5 seconds." On top of that it would be great if tools like skype had better plugins for things like encryption and comm. This way you could download 3rd party tools all day to keep shaking things up. Your buddies would have to have the same plugin but among friends or corporations this would not be a problem.
The ideal setups would allow you to know that your ISP was compromized, your software provider was compromised, and the feds hated you, yet you could still use the Internet in complete privacy.
Personally the only security I would trust if I were wanting perfect secrecy would be one time pads. By hand I would deliver one time pads to my trusted companions (divided into slices and delivered by multiple trusted couriers) and use only those for communications. The occasional HD should suffice for nearly all communications. Also the machines being used for communications would not be networked. You would take the transmission from an (assumed compromised) machine, put it on a storage device, then read it on the trusted non-networked machine using the matching one-time-pad, prepare an encrypted response, and then put it back on the compromised machine for sending. Good luck back dooring that setup.
So what? Many of the things YOU use iin the united states were initially invented in other countries/lands.
The internet comprises of the network infrastructure which belongs to different countries. Parts of the net which reside in those countries and have been paid by them belong to them.
Next you want to say because Graham Bell invented phone, all the phone network of the world belongs to YOU?
The issue here is in part interpretation of the 4th amendment, in part the fact that "meta-data", whatever form it takes, has long been viewed as not being considered "personal papers" and in part it's irrelevant to the large mass of humanity on the Internet. Even if you win the battle in the US and meta-data is either constitutionally protected, it doesn't help much if a US ally doesn't have such stringent protections. A major aspect of what Snowden's leak revealed is that the US and its allies shop the data around, so that if the US can't read an email because it is nominally obeying the 4th Amendment, no problem, the UK will happily do it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Good god, how did this get modded up? The way to deal with a globalization and the myriad cultures on this planet is to stick you fingers in your ears and avoid anything that doesn't interest you directly? How many expats, or 3rd or even 4th generation folks do want access to that? How many "academics," which apaprently to you means "anyone with an interest in a culture I don't care about?" Probably more than you think.
The idea that the spying means balkanization must happen is a false premise.
Anyone with a functioning brain cell who relies on cloud services already knows they're insecure and open to data theft. Those who bought into the hype of cloud services who thought otherwise were only deluding themselves that they could trust a vendor.
You've never been able to trust a vendor with data. If you have/had data that needed to be truly secure, you implemented and maintained your own infrastructure to deal with it; in fact most government and high security contracts require you to do so.
Or did you think someone like a bank would ever rely on something like AWS?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Battle of Athens
And here I was thinking that information wants to be free!
Well -- that's certainly what we've had drilled into us for the last 40 years by all the techno-utopian hipsters out there.
Looks like we're all about to return to Earth in a big way.
I think it will be the end of "social networks" and return to the Internet, which based on open source technologies.
The approach - "trust me, trust my closed binaries, as I am good guy" - is over.
I expect clearer interfaces, as people will not trust convoluted websites and OSs anymore.
It could be a chance for small and medium companies from all over the world. Why, for instance, to have one Skype when we can have several competing clients talking via open protocols.
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.
You can tell your relation that the main flaw in her thinking is that she presumes herself 100% legal. The basic reason NOT to allow the government to collect this data is that everyone breaks the law all the time, simply because the law is so complicated, and sometimes unjust (oppressive). Anyone who has private communications exposed becomes a low-hanging fruit for the prosecutors. The public does not benefit from prosecution under irrelevant and/or unjust laws, and the negative outcome is huge: more abuse of power, and a slide towards a police state.
Oh man, you just did it! You've just totally pawned and outsmarted every intelligence agency in the world with your insanely clever scheme!
The most ironic and insidious part of this whole mess is.. They got us to pay for the surveillance network above our taxes. They got us to pay for the cable lines, they got us to pay for the websites, they got us to pay for Windows, they got us to pay for iPhones and Android phones, they got us to practically beg for all of it and take our money.to build our own cages.
"Battle of Athens"
End result? Business as usual.
You were saying?
The government has thrown out the constitution, and voters approve. The end...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Encryption in the cloud is not all that realistic. Encryption of any real value requires good key management. That is to say only the people who are supposed to read and or author the plain text documents have the keys.
Right now what you mostly see if you see data at rest ciphered at all is the provider has all the keys, if you are really really lucky the provider stores the keys and keeps them weakly ciphered with some crappy password you have. Which they have many opportunities to intercept for any arm twisting spy agency that happens to come along. Why? Well in the case of the mostly honest provider because users are not very good at key storage, and are worse at key exchange.
Not to mention ASPs like Microsoft for example want to compete on features and user experience. They feel they need to be able to do things (and they might be right) like server side searches. If all the data is encrypted either, they have to have so much metadata that the plain text is hardly much of a secret anymore, using probably nearly twice the storage, or they have to send every document down to a client doing a search to handle locally with its keys, using lots more bandwidth and wall time. How many people would sign up for hosted Sharepoint if they could not search it?
The big public providers have no interest in encryption. How exactly would Google monetize GMail (lets pretend messages sent to you are all encrypted for the moment) if all the messages are opaque to them? By that I mean they did it right and build some client side decryption in Java Script or something so they never have access to the message? They could show you a few not really well targeted ads on the logon page and around the margins but not much more. The dollars and cents don't work, and people like "free as in beer". Joe six pack thinks E-mail is free, if you tell him he can have it free or encrypted but not both, free will win so often those of us that would pay won't be given the option. Same goes for dropbox/yousendit/etc.
Sorry no, if privacy is really an important issue for you "the Cloud" is pure fail.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
There are no innocent people.
There are so many laws today that you've probably committed six crimes before breakfast. If laws were actually enforced, not only would everyone be in jail, but they'd rapidly discover that the laws are so inconsistent that they can't even tell whether or not some things are crimes.
Look, it's not just the US that does this, it's every developed nation. The UK does it the EU does it the Far East and Middle East nations do it, no there's no escaping it.
Why do they do it? National security- same reason the US does it.
Fact: the internet is how non-state actors plan their violence, raise their money, spread their vision, do reconnaissance . Of course it gets state scrutiny- as much as the state can bring to it.
The reason that's a Big Deal in the news now is because the U.S. government appears to be contravening the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment and lying about it to the American people, and purely instrumental John Yoo-style of "findings" does not count as "lawful".
It's pretty clear to all Americans that their internet searches, their contacts, the time place and duration of those contacts qualify as their "papers" which the Constitution expressly says shall be free from unreasonable search and further that capturing those and rifling through them, analyzing them, drawing conclusions and inferences about the people behind them and then indexing all that away under the key Smith, John , well that's pretty much the definition of "search".
To Americans, myself included, that's a big fucking deal and something that needs to be publicly, seriously and and in a sustained and methodical way considered with the goal of reaching a consensus about how we should go forward.
The government ignores this at their own peril: the terrorist have as their explicit goal to provoke reactions from the US government which de-legitimize that government in the eyes of its own people. They intend to do this and it's their greatest and perhaps only real weapon.
The purpose of doing that is divide the nation against itself and thus generate home-grown discontents which they can cynically join in a common cause (hating the US government). One of the reasons we haven't been hit the way the UK and say Spain have been is because, aside from sleeper cells composed of foreign nationals, al Queda is having a tough time finding Americans who want to support them locally.
Provoking such responses from the US government also serves to undermine the US government's legitimacy with their foreign partners by de-legitimizing the US with those nation's citizens.
So far, they're winning. They won with Abu Graib (thanks Cheney!!!!! Thanks Yoo !!! ) . They won when they turned the Depatment of Justice into a made-to-order *legal* sausage factory , thanks to Yoo , Cheney, David Addington Jay Bybee and Alberto Gonzales.
Now they're poised to win again with this shit. This time it's structural. As one of his first official acts, Obama nullified and set aside all of messy diapers John Yoo left behind in the DoJ. But this time, it's all going to be carried forward.. it's going structural folks. You need to take this seriously.
This is Obama's legacy. This and what he does about climate change are the things history will judge him on, Obamacare is small beans in comparison.
At this exact moment in history Snowden has given him something no one could have foreseen- the perfect excuse to engage the nation in a meaningful debate over complex and fast changing relationship between personal privacy and national security and the 4th Amendment.
It's been presented to him on a mother fucking silver platter, and is he going to engage the nation like a goddamn motherfucking leader and bring us, together, as a nation, as Americans into a shared and accepted understanding about this issue strong enough to take us forward into the next century or is he going to blink this nettlesome thing before him away and let mere circumstance, some random future chain of unfortunate events decide the issue for us in a way that is incoherent, chaotic, instrumental and divisive?
Which is it going to be, Mr. President? This is an issue that is all, and only, up to you.
That's the REAL issue that no one in the main stream media is talking about.
What about this answer: .....because as per the US constitution, and its amendments, the so called statutes, and which have precedence before any, i repeat ANY "rules" imposed by the states or the central government, that's why it is ILLEGAL.
Now, as a good citizen, go and read your constitution, for the first time in your life.
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with?
You don't, you pass them a public key, and you keep the private key to yourself. You encrypt with your private key, they decrypt with your public key; they encrypt with your public key, you decrypt with your private key. This is the wonderfully symmetrical maths of pair-of-primes cryptosystems.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Karl Benz, moron...from the library of congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html
Most VPN tunnels are between networking devices (usually Cisco ASA), but you can use pretty much anything, including a Linux box on both ends to handle the tunnel.
Anyone who uses a Windows Server on either end of a corporate-critical 24/7/365 VPN tunnel is, well, an idiot.
unfortunately IT acquisitions and licensing is handled by pointy haired bose
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
There's no "good" steganography (provably undetectable), and such a thing may prove to be impossible. Once someone is checking a channel in depth, the steganographic bits jump out as statistically different from normal traffic because people don't usually send random noise to one another.
Steganography as security-through-obscurity might work well through automated filters if there aren't consequences for being detected - just change subchannels every time the filters get updated until you find one that's not being checked yet. But a sufficiently draconian government unafraid of the occasional false positive could certainly make steganography untenable.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Now define unreasonable
It doesn't matter in the slightest how you define "unreasonable", because that term only appears in the rationale part of the amendment. The actual requirement is that the government doesn't get permission to search or seize someone's property (i.e. a warrant) without specific, documented probable cause.
The only definition consistent with the Constitution is that if no legal warrant has been issued, the search or seizure must be presumed unreasonable by default. If it were reasonable, they would have been able to make their case to a judge and get a warrant.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Most of these products already featured encryption. Unfortunately the companies in question were more than helpful when it came to letting the NSA breach that encryption.
If the mob ran the security alarm company, do you really think those alarms would do you much good against the mob? That's the exact position we're in now.
You should never, ever talk to police.
EVER.
FYI, when someone's being arrested and the cops tell them, "you have a right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you ," they mean it literally.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This is why:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Long story short? Unless the government has demonstrable cause to read/know the full text of "everything", it's none of their fucking business.
Government's trump card: National Security Letter
The People's trump card: Constitutional Supremacy Clause
The Government declared the Constitution of the United States of America as a "worthless piece of paper".
Considering that "worthless piece of paper" is the only document that actually authorized a federal government, I'd say that's a really bad idea on their part.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
No, Goldman Sachs will not curb the excesses of the NSA. They have already found a way to profit from the excesses of the NSA.
FTFY.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Let me get this straight. Did you really just say that, because you believe that "most people" lead a one-country/one-language existence, I'm obliged to give up the global life I've led for most of the last 30 years?
Just who the hell do you think you are?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You would have no problem then with me entering your house going through your file cabinets and photo copying all your paper work , bills, loans, work, tax forms, medical records, etc..?
And if you want to make sure that one and only one recipient can receive your message, you encrypt with your private key, then encrypt with the recipient's public key. They decrypt with their private key, then decrypt with your public key. To respond to you and only you, they encrypt with their private key, then encrypt with your public key. You decrypt with your private key, then with their public key.
PGP, kids. It's a wonderful thing. (Or GPG, if you're excessively fond of a particular open source license.)
I would assume you meant to say 'sign with your private key'. As noted above, encrypting with the private key so everyone can decrypt it would be pointless. However, if it was signed, it still serves are purpose as you could be ensured of the author of the message.
If you really wanted to encrypt the content of the message between parties you would always use their public key to encrypt, then only they could decrypt with their private key.
It's easy to tell what is a crime and who has committed one.
The person with the highest paid lawyer wins.
Not only that but person-or-interest-group with the largest bucket of cash writes most laws these days anway.
Being poor IS a crime these days (effectively).
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.