Several months ago that tone would have sounded conspiracy crazed nutty. But post-Snowden and given that it's schneier, it's sad to realize we've come to realize how bad the situation is. I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. However, I would like it if the spying were reduced to remove the bulk tapping of the internet.
I have changed my behavior a bit. There is something about feeling a big brother presence looking over your shoulder when you type. This is particularly present in private conversations.
With comments to HN or public comments on blog posts, etc. I think that the government could have gotten it anyway. If the government wants to snoop on things I say publically there isn't much I can do about it. But with private emails, it's a different matter. The question is, "what will someone think if they read this?" And so those emails end up self-censored, not discussing big controversies, and I put the political thoughts out there front and center for all to see.
So it means that for HN, no difference. I will say what i would say before. Same for any other public comment area. But there are things now that I would say in public that I am not sure I would say in private.
I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting.
He argues that privacy on the internet is important, not because normal people have something to hide, but because journalists and activists (or other counterpowers in a well-balanced democracy) need a certain level of privacy in order to work.
"I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting"
You are missing a word: yet. You are not interesting yet. You might become interesting some time in the future, and discover that what you thought were uninteresting conversations today can be used against you. Here is a famous example:
The problem is the National Lawyers Guild was a notorious Communist front. If you have any doubt, this line in their Wikipedia entry is utterly damning:
"Following the Nazis' invasion of the Soviet Union, the Guild gave its support to President Roosevelt's wartime policies, including that of Japanese American internment."
Would people say the same if Ficher's "youthful indiscretion" if he'd worked for a Nazi front after, say, Kristallnacht? (See the above quote, they wouldn't have between 23 August 1939 and 22 June 1941.) Was it that difficult for Ficher avoid working for a cause dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government and the liquidation of its "capitalist" classes including the wealthier farmers?
Exactly. "I'm not interesting" as a statement of safety has to mean: "I'm going to be very careful to spend the rest of my life not being interesting, and to make sure my family doesn't become interesting either." Otherwise it's just being an ostrich.
Of course, that's one of the aims of a surveillance state: if any word or action could be used against you, then people mainly police themselves.
"Sir, he commented on a blog post from that annoyingly smart
Schneier guy saying he's not interesting. Plus his last email places him within 100 miles of the attack so we should be able to justify it later."
Comments
Several months ago that tone would have sounded conspiracy crazed nutty. But post-Snowden and given that it's schneier, it's sad to realize we've come to realize how bad the situation is. I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. However, I would like it if the spying were reduced to remove the bulk tapping of the internet.
I have changed my behavior a bit. There is something about feeling a big brother presence looking over your shoulder when you type. This is particularly present in private conversations.
With comments to HN or public comments on blog posts, etc. I think that the government could have gotten it anyway. If the government wants to snoop on things I say publically there isn't much I can do about it. But with private emails, it's a different matter. The question is, "what will someone think if they read this?" And so those emails end up self-censored, not discussing big controversies, and I put the political thoughts out there front and center for all to see.
So it means that for HN, no difference. I will say what i would say before. Same for any other public comment area. But there are things now that I would say in public that I am not sure I would say in private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Link not working, looks like the last period was not included in the URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_....
I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting.
That's probably the feeling of most people. Martin Fowler wrote an insightful post about this subject:
Privacy Protects Bothersome People …and isn't about me (or probably you) http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html
He argues that privacy on the internet is important, not because normal people have something to hide, but because journalists and activists (or other counterpowers in a well-balanced democracy) need a certain level of privacy in order to work.
There's a lot these days that, in years past, would have sounded like something out of a tinfoil hat convention.
Yet, even some of the nuttiest, worst-case scenarios that people feared about in the wake of the Clipper Chip debacle have been surpassed by reality.
It boggles the mind.
"I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting"
You are missing a word: yet. You are not interesting yet. You might become interesting some time in the future, and discover that what you thought were uninteresting conversations today can be used against you. Here is a famous example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29
The problem is the National Lawyers Guild was a notorious Communist front. If you have any doubt, this line in their Wikipedia entry is utterly damning:
"Following the Nazis' invasion of the Soviet Union, the Guild gave its support to President Roosevelt's wartime policies, including that of Japanese American internment."
Would people say the same if Ficher's "youthful indiscretion" if he'd worked for a Nazi front after, say, Kristallnacht? (See the above quote, they wouldn't have between 23 August 1939 and 22 June 1941.) Was it that difficult for Ficher avoid working for a cause dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government and the liquidation of its "capitalist" classes including the wealthier farmers?
Exactly. "I'm not interesting" as a statement of safety has to mean: "I'm going to be very careful to spend the rest of my life not being interesting, and to make sure my family doesn't become interesting either." Otherwise it's just being an ostrich.
Of course, that's one of the aims of a surveillance state: if any word or action could be used against you, then people mainly police themselves.
"Sir, he commented on a blog post from that annoyingly smart Schneier guy saying he's not interesting. Plus his last email places him within 100 miles of the attack so we should be able to justify it later."
"Right. Send him to Guantanamo!"