Slashdot Mirror
EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance
An anonymous reader writes: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a detailed, global strategy for ridding ourselves of mass surveillance. They stress that this must be an international effort — while citizens of many countries can vote against politicians who support surveillance, there are also many countries where the citizens have to resort to other methods. The central part of the EFF's plan is: encryption, encryption, encryption. They say we need to build new secure communications tools, pressure existing tech companies to make their products secure against everyone, and get ordinary internet-goers to recognize that encryption is a fundamental part of communication in the surveillance age.
They also advocate fighting for transparency and against overreach on a national level. "[T]he more people worldwide understand the threat and the more they understand how to protect themselves—and just as importantly, what they should expect in the way of support from companies and governments—the more we can agitate for the changes we need online to fend off the dragnet collection of data." The EFF references a document created to apply the principles of human rights to communications surveillance, which they say are "our way of making sure that the global norm for human rights in the context of communication surveillance isn't the warped viewpoint of NSA and its four closest allies, but that of 50 years of human rights standards showing mass surveillance to be unnecessary and disproportionate."
They also advocate fighting for transparency and against overreach on a national level. "[T]he more people worldwide understand the threat and the more they understand how to protect themselves—and just as importantly, what they should expect in the way of support from companies and governments—the more we can agitate for the changes we need online to fend off the dragnet collection of data." The EFF references a document created to apply the principles of human rights to communications surveillance, which they say are "our way of making sure that the global norm for human rights in the context of communication surveillance isn't the warped viewpoint of NSA and its four closest allies, but that of 50 years of human rights standards showing mass surveillance to be unnecessary and disproportionate."
...surveil that plan!!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
So, Slashdot, should we expect your support?. https, when?
Starting using TOR browser bundle after White House threats in previous Slashdot article
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/01/26/1259247/omand-warns-of-ethically-worse-spying-if-unbreakable-encryption-is-allowed
See here:
https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en
Executive Order 12333
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/...
(forgot to refresh...)
Seriously, to put it simply, these guys are the shit. I figure most Slashdotters are well aware of what the EFF does, but if you aren't, definitely check out their website, blog, etc., look at what they've done, and consider donating to support them. (FWIW, I am in no way affiliated with the EFF. I just think it's a great organization.)
What do you have against Taylor Swift?
My body if fate was kind.
Good Luck! You'll Need It!
And what I mean by this --- the average Joe likes to post all his stuff on Facebook. He knows his communications aren't private and he doesn't care.
You aren't going to make him care either.
And is this a worthy cause? Cheap/free services depend on a revenue stream from something and exploiting the user ("You are the product") is not a horrible trade-off for the wide availability of cheap/free services.
How is a company going to support end-to-end encryption for free and still make money selling your information and metadata to third parties?
Keep in mind that means Google too. Or are you going to come up with a plan for Google to not be able to read your emails? Because if Google can read your emails, the government can.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Hello NSA.... fuckers.
People like you are the real problem. If you truly cared about your family, you'd do something to ensure your children's freedom.
As it is, your words mark you as selfish and cowardly.
The problem is that while trying to survive and maintain some kind of social normalcy most people don't take an active role in shaping their local/regional/national/world topology until men in black are infiltrating their home at night and killing/disappearing them and/or raping their wife while their children watch. Complacency lies in the middle, and we're ("civilized" countries) still in the middle. The middle's that slippery slope between the crest and trough of utopia and North Korea. Hopefully the EFF will have some success before momentum takes us to that dark point where we have no choice but to answer with drastic measures. Ironically, the goal of both sides is peace and order. I suppose the difference in opinion about the road to said peace and order is what puts us at such unenviable odds.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Almost no one has a public IP address directly on their workstation at home and it is preventing free open source telephone to be widely adopted.
What is needed is a telephony protocol that and can easily be proxied or tunneled and/or that does not need extra measurements for surviving NAT.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I mean, seriously you call the GP "cowardly" and you can't even identify yourself. What a fuckin' hypocrite.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The central part of the EFF's plan is: encryption, encryption, encryption.
Encryption everywhere is great. But as long as the majority of us remain willing to hand over everything about our personal lives to Facebook, Google, etc., then mass surveillance by either private entities or governments will remain ridiculously easy. To me, that seems like the really hard problem to solve. There is no way those companies will deny themselves access to their users' unencrypted data.
First of all, not all battles need to be fought head on. Secondly, my status on Slashdot has zero relevance to my political activeness.
FYI, I am active in my local city government, I attend meetings and I write to my congressman when I take issue with something. What do you do?
I will guess :
- certificate errors that people will have to click through ten times a day
- people lock themselves out, accidentally lose their data (lost keys, lost cellphone needed to receive an SMS)
- interoperabiliy problems of old versions and unpatched browsers, libraries, software
- encrypted ads and encrypted malware will infect your encrypted browser and mess with your encrypted data.
after non-root computing and port 80 computing, meet encrypted computing, same crap one more layer down
- bad guys will still mess with it
- in the end, you're still fucked because you used failbook, skype etc. or you posted public content in comment threads, forums, IRC etc.
Look at what Greece just did : they changed their government by voting.
It's doubtful the same can happen in the US but I hope you can keep a glimpse hope.
I don't log in because I have "balls". I log in because I take responsibility for my comments and opinions. But you wouldn't understand anything about that, would you? No, you're just going to anonymously preach to people and demand that they respect and adjust to your viewpoint on security.
I pity you paranoid losers. I'm bi-polar. I know what paranoia is like. You need medication for that.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If you're not willing to take responsibility for what you say and accept the heat if people disagree with you, you shouldn't be saying what you are in the first place. Only cowards need to hide behind masks, the same as KKK and ISIL members. :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is very true. However, WhatsApp appears to be a counter-example. They are deploying full end to end encryption and instead of ads, they just ..... charge people money, $1 per year. WhatsApp is not very big in the USA but it's huge everywhere else in the world.
The big problem is not people sharing with Facebook or Google or whoever (as you note: who cares?) but rather the last part - sharing with a foreign corporation is currently equivalent to sharing with its government, and people tend to care about the latter much more than the former. But that's a political problem. It's very hard to solve with cryptography. All the fancy science in the world won't stop a local government just passing a law that makes it illegal to use, and they all will because they all crave the power that comes with total knowledge of what citizens are doing and thinking.
Ultimately the solution must be two-pronged. Political effort to make it socially unacceptable for politicians to try and ban strong crypto. And the deployment of that crypto to create technical resistance against bending or breaking those rules.
They're absolutely right to suggest the first thing we have to do is increase widespread use of encryption technology. But the NSA and others have already said if we do that, they'll step up their game. We need to not just take our technology to the next level, we need to take our governance to the next level.
Politicians have proven themselves to be complete failures in working for the people. Sure, some countries have more luck than others - but there's nothing to suggest that that luck won't run out. Look at even the Scandinavian countries - their agencies are working for the NSA, their politicians are playing the exact same games. We need to reform our political system to reduce the amount of fuckery to a bare minimum. How do we achieve that? Complete and total transparency is vital, but not enough. Politicians are willing to openly defraud citizens in many countries already - it's not enough to know what's going on, we have to be able to hold them to account. And that's where I think elections are a farce. We don't choose who runs. We don't choose who gets to be on the final ballot. All of that is taken care of by big money interests, and even in the off chance we do get a good person into the system, they're outnumbered 100 to 1. And then the system starts to chew them up, convince them that their ideals are worthless and principles be damned, the system needs to continue operating as it has, as it will, with no real changes. Yea, one batch of idiots might do a slightly better job on one thing or the other, but in the end, as long as we continue to feed the system, it's no wonder we get governments abusing their power.
We need to have a government. We need to have a monopoly on violence, otherwise it gets to be dog eat dog very quickly. But a government that isn't held to complete account by the people is just another mad dog. The failures of our political systems have shown themselves clear. Institutional corruption. Control by a tiny minority. Ridiculous squabbling over issues that are settled science. Is this really the best we can do? I don't think so. Why are we still using politicians? Professional ones? We can have representatives, but I think it should be clear to anyone that a random person off the street will demonstrate as much intelligence and thought as an elected official - perhaps even more, as an elected politician has demonstrated the ability to say anything to get to that position. Why not do a sortition? Randomly selected individuals, and give them 1 year to govern. They can propose laws, but nothing passes until there's an approval vote by the citizenry. If the sortition does a good job (as judged by the people), they get a huge bonus. If they don't, they get the median wage, and the next sortition tackles the problems. How is this worse than giving a tremendous amount of power to a group of people who've constantly demonstrated themselves as a bunch of liars, power hungry, war mongering liars at that, and giving them free reign for 2, 4, 6 years?
Absolutely, increase and improve the technology. But don't ignore the technology running our governance. It's tremendously outdated, with countless flaws and bugs that have remained unpatched for millennia. It's time for a new release of Government.
When you walk the streets of your home town, do you wear a mask and costume to hide your identity? No -- your face is visible. You are a private citizen, you have the right to be left alone or to interact with others as you choose, but you are always identifiable by your face. I feel the internet should be the same way -- you should always be identifiable.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Go walking down the street of your hometown with a mask/costume or KKK robes on and see how that works for you. "Private citizen" does not mean anonymous in pretty much any part of the real world or real life. You can always be identified by your face.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Governments will make encryption illegal (they want to do that now, if they haven't done it already) and will stop giving the companies who support this government contracts. No self-respecting company will support this.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I log in because I take responsibility for my comments and opinions.
By having an account on Slashdot? Well done. That's such a difficult thing to do!
When you use ROMs, firmware, operating systems and software designed by americans, with backdoors to all the three letters national agencies you can think off.
Go walking down the street of your hometown with a mask/costume or KKK robes on and see how that works for you.
I'm pretty sure you could, unless you live somewhere with draconian laws. And I *will* have to start doing that if the government starts really making use of mass surveillance of public places.
Also, comparing faces to names is ridiculous. No one is going to remember your face. A name on the Internet is easily searchable, so it's a different world altogether. Encouraging anonymity allows far more people to say unpopular things that challenge the status quo.
Do you realise there have been alternative to Windows systems for quite SOME time, right?
It sounds like the major parties want to kill people's fundamental freedoms. Bad financial policies are second to fundamental freedoms.
Donate
Donate
DONATE
If everyone who posted a reply to this story donated to the EFF with their dollars in addition to their words, that would be pretty substantial in aggregate, and they could do some real work with those funds.
Donate to the EFF. They have been fighting this fight for as long as I have been alive and are one of the only groups to has maintained the fight. While I have donated to them on and off over the years, I have been lax for quite awhile. I just donated to them and challenge everyone else to do the same.
PS: And, this comes from someone not in the USA who DOES NOT get a tax break from his donation since they are not registered in my country, but who recognizes the global impact of the EFF.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to hide"
That's what you say if you're the aggressor. If you're the victim, you say this:
"If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to spy on me."
This forces the aggressor to come forward and admit that he doesn't believe in one of the most fundamental concepts of justice: that individuals are innocent before proven guilty.
Or better trying to hide it?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
the average Joe likes to post all his stuff on Facebook. He knows his communications aren't private and he doesn't care.
Not true. You should have heard the reactions when Snowden broke in the UK. There was a woman on a national TV debate programme who was upset that GCHQ had access to her Facebook profile which she had set to "private".
It's not that people don't care, it's that they don't understand. How many people still using Skype or Yahoo webcam chat with their girl/boyfriend do you think realize that that they they flashed something was recorded and reviewed by a GCHQ officer? When people realize this, when they realize that their "private" profile isn't really private and that it isn't just machines looking at their nude selfies, they care.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When you walk the streets of your home town, do you wear a mask and costume to hide your identity? No -- your face is visible. You are a private citizen, you have the right to be left alone or to interact with others as you choose, but you are always identifiable by your face. I feel the internet should be the same way -- you should always be identifiable.
The problem with this analogy is that in the physical world I can arrange to have privacy. I can meet with other individuals outside of the public eye. I can whisper in their ear so that only they hear communication. I can go to remote places where there are no observers. The CIA and KGB developed excellent methods for completely anonymous communication in the physical world, almost all of it based on the economics of real world surveillance: it costs money to watch someone in the real world. On the internet, there is a record of everything, and that record lasts as long as someone else chooses. It costs almost nothing, per person, to surveil the internet, especially if you forbid encryption and anonymity. Do you really want prospective Singularity One clients to see drunken pictures from USask? Or to know that you're bipolar? I mean, that's stuff that you're proud enough to have voluntarily posted to public forums, but a lot of people would find it embarassing.
We all have stuff we're embarrassed by. That same CIA and KGB have a long history of using such embarrassing, not-quite-public information to manipulate people, even to making them violate their own ethical standards. Are you so anxious to give them that power over you? Are you so anxious to give that power to the North Korean government and to the Russian mafia?
Actually, the constitution not only forbids spying against citizens of the USA, but against everyone:
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.
Notice, it says "people" there. It's speaking of "citizen" in the context of elections, so clearly the intention was that the 4th amendment applies to everyone.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
It's a trade-off. No one is going to punch you in the face on the internet for mouthing off.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Then we need more people willing to stand up for their principles, not less. If you give up, your privacy definitely won't be protected.
Say something unpopular (like disagree with the "for the children" crowd) and you may find yourself the target of a lynch mob, or you may find that many employers might decide to not give you a job.
But arguments stand on their own merits in the first place.
And you've never heard of private chat clients? Peer-to-peer communications? Encrypted emails?
You don't have to talk about the personal details of your life on Crackbook where there is a record.
Your whole argument is premised on the theory that everything is recorded and tracked, regardless of encryption, regardless of HTTPS, regardless of SSL. All I'm saying is that you should be required to log in to a server to make public comments or to send messages to an individual. That's not to say you need to use your real name for the login; only that you be identified and that identity available to the server administrators in case they get subpoenaed.
My beef is with people who hide behind anonymity to commit abuses and atrocities, such as bullying people into suicide, spreading terrorist propaganda, sharing child porn, racist propaganda, and so on. People who know they aren't anonymous tend to think twice about what they're saying and posting -- and so they should, because we don't have the "stick" of a punch in the nose on the internet.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Its all well and good to talk about "encryption, encryption and more encryption" and to invent new protocols to help keep stuff from the eyes of those who would try to access private information (whether they be criminals, law enforcement, intelligence agencies or otherwise) but unless you can get vendors to adopt your new technology its not going to see widespread enough use to make a difference.
Take SSL/TLS for example. Right now when you visit a https site, your browser retrieves a certificate and checks that the certificate has been signed by a root certificate in your browser's local root trust store. There are a number of proposals out there to change this so that the public keys used for https connections are obtained in a way that doesn't rely on the broken CA model but as of yet none of those proposals have been implemented into any of the mainstream web browsers.
Why isn't more being done to get these new security ideas into the mainstream browsers? (especially the open source ones like Chrome/Webkit/Blink/Firefox). DANE (an RFC for storing https certificates in a DNSSEC secured DNS record) has a patch for Firefox posted in 2011 that has gone nowhere and vague mentions of work for Chrome but nothing else.
Indeed, the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of basic human rights that are to be protected for everyone, not just US Citizens. This nuance seems to be lost in the halls of government, though.
If you are on American soil, regardless of your Nation of Citizenship, you are entitled to have your basic human rights protected.
I've pondered sortition government, but I wonder how you would reign in the power of the bureaucracy.
As an AC said, the random citizenry isn't going to have the depth to really write good laws, so it'll probably largely fall to a bureaucracy, which might end up with all the real power. I can scarcely see that as an improvement.
However, the sortition has the big benefits you mention:
1) Actually representative of the people, because they ARE the people
2) Don't arrive in office corrupt, aren't beholden to donors
Maybe have the lower house of Government chosen by sortition?
--PM
see drunken pictures from USask? Or to know that you're bipolar?
We all have stuff we're embarrassed by.
Really? Times have changed. There's no reason to be ashamed of either of those things.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Privacy is dead. Finished. Over. Nothing is going to change that.
Freedom is dead. Finished. Over. Nothing is going to change that.
Nice self-fulfilling prophecy. While you whine and cry about how we're done for, there are people actually doing something. I'm sure many people felt the same as you during the civil rights movement, but thanks to people not giving up, it had many successes.
Grow up.
I'm not going to tell you to grow up, because your age/height has nothing to do with the conversation, but I will tell you to grow a brain.
Basically, anyplace that a search warrant by a US government agency will work, the Fourth Amendment applies. Anywhere else, not so much.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why do you think it takes balls to log in? Just be thankful that your safe and comfortable life means that you don't need anonymity. (I also don't need anonymity, but at least I have some understanding that other people are in different situations).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Or Christians in ancient Rome, or Jews in 1930s Germany, or educated people in 1970s China, or (soon) freedom-loving people in 2010s America.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm guessing Bitlocker is not useful for encrypting my data sufficiently to keep the government(s) out of it.
And the Truecrypt substitutes are all marginally trustworthy, as well as not quite so fully functional.
Not many good alternatives here.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Here's the thing: although you're entitled to your opinion, that doesn't change the fact that it's both wrong and un-American. In fact, the United States wouldn't exist without anonymous public comment!
So, if you hate freedom that much -- and make no mistake, freedom requires anonymity, so if you hate anonymity then you hate freedom -- then by all means continue to think that way. But please do the rest of us a favor and GTFO of the USA!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's not to say you need to use your real name for the login; only that you be identified and that identity available to the server administrators in case they get subpoenaed.
That fortunately sounds technically impractical since it requires server administrators to all cooperate and somehow know you're telling the truth, but more importantly, unconstitutional in the US if you want the government to force that to happen. The US constitution doesn't grant the government the power to do such a thing, and furthermore, since the government would be forcing people to identify themselves if they want to speak, it would be a form of censorship. If you don't send your data the way we want you to (by identifying yourself), you don't get to speak at all.
People who know they aren't anonymous tend to think twice about what they're saying and posting
Yeah, that's called a chilling effect. You've basically just silenced any speech that the majority vehemently disagrees with in the name of safety, which is the telltale sign of an authoritarian. I would rather bump into things I disagree with than get rid of anonymity.
and so they should, because we don't have the "stick" of a punch in the nose on the internet.
Anyone who physically assaults others over speech is a barbarian and should be punished appropriately.
When the Bill Clinton administration pushed the idea of banning encryption, his Attorney General Janet Reno made a statement that it needs to be banned because of paedophiles. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Man, this'll toe-- toe-- TOTALLY work! All the people programming all the appz will Get Right On It. Watch, I bet you, even the NSA will butt out of the RSA and basically everything else. The world is our oyster and it's in the palm of our hand, and we only have to close our hand, thus shutting the oyster, to keep our pearls locked away safe where nobody can kick them.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I'm not an American, so I don't give a shit about your standards.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Slashdot uses HTTPS for subscribers.
As for non-subscribers: Using HTTP advertisements in an HTTPS page won't work due to browsers' mixed content policy. This means Slashdot's HTTPS support is unlikely to be extended to non-subscribers until more major ad networks support HTTPS.
Actually, in many cases it does. Ask the people who psted their stories (not anonymously either) on twitter under the tag #beenrapedneverreported.
Keeping stuff like this private tends to have serious long-term consequences. Going public is about self-affirmation, prevention of recurrences, and getting help. Stigma and the tendancy of people to think such things should be kept private hurts the victims and encourages the perps.
Read more here and here. Or read the thousands of stories at #beenrapedneverreported.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Because of this social pressure and reparation therapy works, in that it convinces bisexual people to repress part of themselves and go into the closet.
It's been proven time and again not to work.
Healthcare is not and cannot be a right because the demand for it is infinite.
I guess you need to move to Kanuckistan, where every citizen has access to state-funded health care.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Look at the efforts needed to destigmatize mental illness. A surveyconductedin the UnitedStates foundthatmore thanhalf of employerswouldbereluctant tohiresomeone whois mentallyill, whileaquarterof employers woulddismiss someonewhohadnot disclosedamentalillness.
The conlusion of one study on the effects of stigma on the mentally ill:
Stigmareduction is oneof thegreatchallenges facingmentalhealth organizations.Intentional or not, naïve assumptions, stereotyping, and downright prejudice canhave damagingeffects onthecourseof recovery from amental illness. The prevailingattitudeintheliterature onstigmareductionis thateducation is thebestmeans of preventing andeliminating discrimination. Typically, successfuleducational campaigns have drawnuponfacts andpersonalexperiences. Whilefacts cangivethe audience anoverarchingunderstandingof the impactof stigma, thestories of individuals whohave mentalillness canserveas apoignant reminder of theimpact notonly of the symptomsof mentalillness, butalsothe negativeassociations tiedtoit.
TL;DR - people telling their individual stories is an integral part of removing stigma. If people don't tell their stories and put a face to the problem, it will just continue.
Also, the study reported that people have a much harder time getting medical help than those with physical ailments. BTW - the average delay is 8 YEARS, because people don't want the stigma of being seen as mentally ill. Would you wait 8 years with a broken leg? No? Is it because there's no shame in having a broken leg?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This is stupid. There's lots of kinds of love, and there's plenty of reasons why BarbaraHudson would likely not be sexually interested in me. Since I never intended to have sex with her, I don't see why I should care about her sexual orientation.
People who say that are delusional, in that they think they know that religion is bunk, but in fact there's no evidence either way. Absence of evidence is not decisive evidence of absence. (It's easy to prove that a majority of people have false religious beliefs by consulting a reference work. Christians, Muslims, and none of the above are all minorities, and they all disagree with one another.)
True, but not for everything. Torture is very useful when it comes to coercion. You can get somebody to confess to anything they did, or anything they didn't for that matter. It's not good at finding the truth. It is, however, very useful if you want to band people together for immoral purposes: have each of them torture somebody.
That's stupid. First, the demand for healthcare is finite. Since there are a finite number of people, for demand to be infinite it would be possible to spend any number of resources on one person's health care, and I don't see that happening. The potential demand is larger than we can reasonably supply, but that doesn't mean there can't be a right to a reasonable level of medical care.
In certain places, yes. In general, I can't think of any. There are people publicly in favor of legalizing all drugs or having sex with young children. I've publicly asked for research into child pornography to find its actual effects. There are people out there who defend terrorism and terrorists. As long as they don't do anything, they appear to be mostly ignored. As a test, specify an opinion on facts that you think would automatically be persecuted. Then look for it on blogs and Slashdot archives. When you find that, check to see whether and why persecution occurred.
There are situations where it's safer to not express certain opinions, not everywhere. There are societies where I'd just let people think I was Christian rather than correct them, for example.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Here is a story about this very concept. The characters use encryption, get a local ISP with indie music sharing bundle to switch to encrypted traffic only in order to conceal their own encryption in the noise, thus inspiring google to make the switch to HTTPs. http://www.craphound.com/littlebrother/download/
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.