Is privacy coming back?

[David Weaver]

I think that's a pretty naive view. There is a third scenario, and that's that it is only employed as a negotiation tool when it has significant leverage. The other naive part of that view is that everyone who can't be blackmailed will go public when they resist something.

[Phil Thien]

I think that's a pretty naive view. There is a third scenario, and that's that it is only employed as a negotiation tool when it has significant leverage. The other naive part of that view is that everyone who can't be blackmailed will go public when they resist something.

Speaking logically, that isn't a third scenario, that is just the "it always works" scenario retreaded. Whether it always works because your information is THAT good, or whether it always works because people are so darn weak doesn't really matter.

Now, whether everyone who can't be blackmailed will go public if they resist: Provided that the threat is carried out, there is no real reason for someone to remain silent, and plenty of reason to talk.

That is, let's say you have proof I accepted a bribe, and attempt to blackmail me. I push back, so the next logical step is for you to go public, which results in me being arrested. Now, am I going to sit in prison and keep my mouth shut about your attempt to blackmail me, or am I going to call 60 Minutes?

And BTW, I can still vote against your legislation even though you're telling everyone I accepted a bribe. It isn't like I can't vote while I'm on trial.

[Scott Shepherd]

If he believes that, he is delusional.

About the only thing I can imagine being useful in that regard is proof someone was viewing child pornography.

And telling someone you're going to have them charged for viewing child pornography (or go public with the information) unless they support your legislation could very easily backfire (the pervert would be better off going public and insisting he was threatened that if he didn't support said legislation, that the spooks would use planted child pornography to discredit him).

The problem with most people like Snowden is they don't get the big picture. They have all these beautiful small pictures, but they can't put them all together and see the panorama.

Phil, I don't think you got what he said. He didn't say they were doing it (actually blackmailing), he said they were collecting the data. And I believe you were close to being right on the content, but I didn't wish to say the topic because this is a family forum. The fact that they are collecting the data, targeting people, in this case, people running for office, should be enough to raise the hair on the back of your neck.

Read the Wired article. It really was a good article.

[Phil Thien]

Phil, I don't think you got what he said. He didn't say they were doing it (actually blackmailing), he said they were collecting the data. And I believe you were close to being right on the content, but I didn't wish to say the topic because this is a family forum. The fact that they are collecting the data, targeting people, in this case, people running for office, should be enough to raise the hair on the back of your neck.

Read the Wired article. It really was a good article.

I have not read it, and I'm not quite sure if I'm going to seek it out.

The thing that rubs me wrong about Snowden is that he says one thing, but seems to do another.

He revealed his identity four days after the first stories covering the leaked material. He said he did so because he wasn't ashamed of what he had done, and to prevent his former coworkers from having to endure a witch hunt.

But then why not just tell the reporters to reveal your identity immediately, with the very first stories? What changed during those four days?

I'll tell you what changed: He saw what he thought was overwhelming public approval and thought (mistakenly) that the world would throw him a parade.

And even now, as the story has dragged on, there are regular "Snowden revelations." All seemingly timed to keep himself in the press.

What this guy says motivates him, and what actually motivates him, are two separate and distinct things.

Not that the same thing isn't true of any one of us. But we're not revealing state secrets.

[Scott Shepherd]

Phil, you might want to read that article. I would say that the impression you stated of him is not at all what he comes off like in the article. He's not releasing anything. Any "new" revelation isn't new by him. He hasn't had possession of the material in quite some time. The issue is that it was a million pages or something like that, and it's being combed through by 3 or 4 sources and they are releasing things as THEY find them. He's not orchestrating anything. He gave the material away and was done with it. I actually came away from the article thinking he was a lot closer to being a patriot than a criminal. He actually was fine with coming back and serving time. I got no indication that he was doing any of this for fame, but rather doing this because he was watching extremely unlawful things happening on mass scales and no one even remotely pulling the reins in.

[Phil Thien]

Phil, you might want to read that article. I would say that the impression you stated of him is not at all what he comes off like in the article. He's not releasing anything. Any "new" revelation isn't new by him. He hasn't had possession of the material in quite some time. The issue is that it was a million pages or something like that, and it's being combed through by 3 or 4 sources and they are releasing things as THEY find them. He's not orchestrating anything. He gave the material away and was done with it. I actually came away from the article thinking he was a lot closer to being a patriot than a criminal. He actually was fine with coming back and serving time. I got no indication that he was doing any of this for fame, but rather doing this because he was watching extremely unlawful things happening on mass scales and no one even remotely pulling the reins in.

The press, for the most part, loves Snowden. So I'm not surprised the article in Wired is quite favorable.

But as far as having handed over the material and being done with it, that doesn't explain why he keeps talking to the press:

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Snowd...d=13200AZC2U4O#

As far as saying he is fine with coming back and serving time, that kinda goes right back to what I was saying about him saying one thing while doing another. Any time he wants to come back and stand trial, he is welcome to do so.

I'll track the article down and read it, just to be fair.

[Scott Shepherd]

I agree for the most part, they do love him. In fact, the guy that interviewed him was in the NSA during Vietnam and blew the whistle on the NSA and testified before the Church Committee, so it's not like he's not a "friendly" face to Snowden. I don't know if I felt swayed by the friendly interview, but rather more just about his path. It's not like he was some fringe guy. He comes off like he was the reasonable one watching bad things happen with no checks and balances. Having said that, after seeing some of the things exposed, I think he was right. Think about it, before those documents were leaked, most people had no idea all this internal spying and metadata was being collected. How many people in the USA knew all their calls were being recorded. Not monitored, RECORDED, and archived? To me, I don't recall any of voting on that type of stuff. I'm all for people spying on people that are bad, but recording every single person's phone calls without consent? That deserves to be discussed by the population.

The NSA and others were running wild. Just doing whatever they wanted to do. Who was overseeing them? No one, really. To me, that's frightening to some degree. A secret government agency, working on building profiles of every single American citizen, without any consent, any warrants, or anything else. That's simply wrong.

[Mel Fulks]

I don't think the past is going to come back. The idea of the stored data is hard to get used to ,but people will get used to it. Few years from now we will see complaints about stored data the same way we look back on farmers in the early 20th
century thinking airplanes could not legally fly over their land. I see the data as a type of time travel, we can get warrants to wire tap criminals phone calls in the past as easily as in the future.

[Roger Feeley]

Scott, I've not had any experience with TOR but it appears that it's open source. That means that the source code that drives TOR can be downloaded, compiled and modified by anyone. Code changes are reviewed by a committee of users and open for all to see. I don't feel too worried about back doors. Too many eyes.

[John Coloccia]

But as far as having handed over the material and being done with it, that doesn't explain why he keeps talking to the press:

Probably so Putin doesn't kill him.

[paul cottingham]

Scott, I've not had any experience with TOR but it appears that it's open source. That means that the source code that drives TOR can be downloaded, compiled and modified by anyone. Code changes are reviewed by a committee of users and open for all to see. I don't feel too worried about back doors. Too many eyes.

Yep. Love open source.

[Curt Harms]

Scott, I've not had any experience with TOR but it appears that it's open source. That means that the source code that drives TOR can be downloaded, compiled and modified by anyone. Code changes are reviewed by a committee of users and open for all to see. I don't feel too worried about back doors. Too many eyes.

The same was supposed to be true of the Heartbleed & Bash oopsies.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

The same was supposed to be true of the Heartbleed & Bash oopsies.

Obvious back-doors are likely to be spotted quickly. Open source is not a guarantee that a backdoor or a vulnerability does not exist, but, it does mean that if anyone is looking for it or finds it, then they can track who added and when. The "Bash Oopy", as you call it, was released for my Linux box very quickly because it was open source. Most of these vulnerabilities are easy to miss because they are very subtle in nature. The automated tools are becoming better at finding this sort of thing.

The bigger concern with things such as TOR is not that there is some sort of back door but that you will either not properly configure your computer to use it, or that you will exit on a compromised node, which allows the compromiser to watch the traffic; which I think is mostly only a problem if your stream of traffic contains data that you do not want someone to see.

When I say compromised node, I don't mean a node where someone has taken it over, I mean a node that was setup by someone for the sole purpose of watching the traffic.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Note to Phil and others. If you don't think government agencies "blackmail" or use subtle threats you are very naïve, too young to remember, or have a short memory. Remember good ole J. Edgar? He was the king of abuse of power and blackmailed presidents, members of congress, and members of the media. His files on even regular Americans who came to his or the FBI's attention because they were considered "subversive" or questioned things were legion. How do you think he survived so many years past the mandatory retirement age?

The only difference between J. Edgar and today is the technology used. Personal privacy is an illusion. Our rights have been eroded slowly and steadily as the unchecked power of the executive branch of government has become preeminent over the legislative and judicial.

[David Weaver]

Thanks, Dave. That's my sentiment, too. Setting up hypothetical scenarios and creating a logical test is an oversimplification of what can and does happen. The fact that both sides (including their staffs) would work very hard to push each other around but keep it out of the media is just human nature. Whether it's business or government, same thing, but the difference is that if the NSA decides to break their own rules, there is essentially nothing in place to review of stop them. It's not in the best interest of a politician to make big waves, nor is it in the NSA. It's more useful for them to get dirt on each other and try to use it to make deals, and cut out the private sector in general.

Most of the leverage that occurs is found out long after its no longer useful, just like the J edgar issue.