I think this is a good article, and I agree with Mr. Masnick that it's worth pointing out. If words meant nothing, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to redefine them, as is the case here. Another example is their attempt to redefine the mass surveillance in the US as 'bulk collection', as though to suggest that they only collect it, period.
"Risk Assessment 101: - Who are you hiding data from? The government, your wife or your mom?"
The first question is valid as it addresses use-case. The allusion to authority figures and the desire to hide things from aforementioned authority figures has already been well addressed.
- How much of your data really needs to be encrypted?"
"I have, and share a Tails torrent, which is open source, Tor enabled, Linux based, used to be anonymous, used by Ed Snowden and Bruce Schneir, but just exactly when do I use it? Everytime I visit my bank? When I want to send an email? Those are both online, and not particularly in my control."
You use it when you want anonymity online, which is not the same as encryption. You should use a VPN for banking and email, not Tails or tor, and you should only trust that VPN up to the TLA point, and not beyond that. These tools can do a lot but it is critical that people understand what they do and do not do.
Glad someone mentioned LUKS. Great for many reasons, including the ability to separate the header (where the keys are stored) from the data itself. Works even better when you're entire drive is filled with random data first.
The only damage done has been to the government's credibility, and they have only themselves to blame for that. You clearly don't have a clue if you think that voting makes any difference these days.
"A patriot would stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people. But he?s refused to do that to this date, at least."
He already has made his case to the American people, and continues to do so.
"But this is a man who has done great damage to his country, violated his oath which he took when he became an employee, and yes, in fact, stole an enormous amount of information and released it to the public, to the detriment of his country."
No, he has not done any damage to his country, only to it's governments credibility, which it itself arguably caused. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and he is still not among those who have violated it. He released that evidence to responsible journalists, to the benefit of his country and countrymen.
"QUESTION: Have you softened your stance at all with regard to his alleged conduct here? I noticed earlier this year you said that there were disclosures about the NSA made because of Snowden that you yourself were not aware of that constituted NSA overreach. Does that change the calculus at all for you?
SECRETARY KERRY: That?s entirely up to the justice system."
Yes, of course, laws are made to outline punishment and recompense for crimes, not to actually prevent the crimes themselves. That's a matter for enforcement, and why we are faced with the enormous problem of enforcement's absence, as you know.
I just wanted to point out, not to you specifically, that something doesn't become legal (even a law or court ruling) just because those who stand to benefit from it say that it is. I'm really responding to these propagandists more than anyone else, because I enjoy language, and I am disgusted by what they try to do with it.
^ A great example of asking the right question. I would add that evidence backing up the original statement would also be useful to that particular discussion.
Indeed, or who else took information and quietly sold it on. The only 'damages' caused by responsible journalism in these matters is the real damage caused to government's credibility, and the same government has only itself to blame for that.
Only a criminal would cry foul when evidence of their criminal activity is brought to light, especially in the context of a gigantic, hyper-secretive government.
It is true, legally. They'll try to tell you otherwise at every turn, but it is true. That's why their criminal activity is exactly that. All one really needs to understand is that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that in order to change or nullify any part of it requires a Constitutional amendment.
It's definitely not paranoia anymore. Just look at the way Amazon remotely deleted e-books of 1984 which their customers had already paid for, as an example.
Re: Small but important change:
I think this is a good article, and I agree with Mr. Masnick that it's worth pointing out. If words meant nothing, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to redefine them, as is the case here. Another example is their attempt to redefine the mass surveillance in the US as 'bulk collection', as though to suggest that they only collect it, period.
Re: My 2 Cents....
I don't think that h-word means what you think it means. In fact, I'm not even sure that it has any meaning anymore.
Re: What Do You Seek
"Risk Assessment 101:
- Who are you hiding data from? The government, your wife or your mom?"
The first question is valid as it addresses use-case. The allusion to authority figures and the desire to hide things from aforementioned authority figures has already been well addressed.
- How much of your data really needs to be encrypted?"
All of it, if any of it.
Re:
Last?
Re: Re: Re: Trusted Systems
"I have, and share a Tails torrent, which is open source, Tor enabled, Linux based, used to be anonymous, used by Ed Snowden and Bruce Schneir, but just exactly when do I use it? Everytime I visit my bank? When I want to send an email? Those are both online, and not particularly in my control."
You use it when you want anonymity online, which is not the same as encryption. You should use a VPN for banking and email, not Tails or tor, and you should only trust that VPN up to the TLA point, and not beyond that. These tools can do a lot but it is critical that people understand what they do and do not do.
Re: LUKS
Glad someone mentioned LUKS. Great for many reasons, including the ability to separate the header (where the keys are stored) from the data itself. Works even better when you're entire drive is filled with random data first.
Re: Re: Re:
Good link, thanks for that!
Re: Re:
The only damage done has been to the government's credibility, and they have only themselves to blame for that. You clearly don't have a clue if you think that voting makes any difference these days.
"A patriot would stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people. But he?s refused to do that to this date, at least."
He already has made his case to the American people, and continues to do so.
"But this is a man who has done great damage to his country, violated his oath which he took when he became an employee, and yes, in fact, stole an enormous amount of information and released it to the public, to the detriment of his country."
No, he has not done any damage to his country, only to it's governments credibility, which it itself arguably caused. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and he is still not among those who have violated it. He released that evidence to responsible journalists, to the benefit of his country and countrymen.
"QUESTION: Have you softened your stance at all with regard to his alleged conduct here? I noticed earlier this year you said that there were disclosures about the NSA made because of Snowden that you yourself were not aware of that constituted NSA overreach. Does that change the calculus at all for you?
SECRETARY KERRY: That?s entirely up to the justice system."
Nice attempt at deflection. Try harder next time.
Re: ARM coprocessor
That first link is an excellent read, thank you. Highly recommended.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is all the more reason for everyone to use it (more often).
Re: Re: Re: Policies
Yes, of course, laws are made to outline punishment and recompense for crimes, not to actually prevent the crimes themselves. That's a matter for enforcement, and why we are faced with the enormous problem of enforcement's absence, as you know.
I just wanted to point out, not to you specifically, that something doesn't become legal (even a law or court ruling) just because those who stand to benefit from it say that it is. I'm really responding to these propagandists more than anyone else, because I enjoy language, and I am disgusted by what they try to do with it.
Re: Oh the irony
I saw that exactly the same way.
Re:
You're giving them WAY too much credit.
Re: Re:
^ A great example of asking the right question. I would add that evidence backing up the original statement would also be useful to that particular discussion.
Re:
Indeed, or who else took information and quietly sold it on. The only 'damages' caused by responsible journalism in these matters is the real damage caused to government's credibility, and the same government has only itself to blame for that.
Only a criminal would cry foul when evidence of their criminal activity is brought to light, especially in the context of a gigantic, hyper-secretive government.
I would call that increasingly relevant.
Re: Policies
It is true, legally. They'll try to tell you otherwise at every turn, but it is true. That's why their criminal activity is exactly that. All one really needs to understand is that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that in order to change or nullify any part of it requires a Constitutional amendment.
Re:
Thank you.
Re:
It's definitely not paranoia anymore. Just look at the way Amazon remotely deleted e-books of 1984 which their customers had already paid for, as an example.