Most planes already have or currently are dumping the headrest TVs because everyone has their iPads and phones to watch crap on. So instead they just sell wifi and people download their own stuff or stream netflix or whatever.
But the intelligence lawyers warned that Americans' would be subject to even greater privacy incursions if their personal information were stripped from NSA's control.
Wait! Is the NSA really trying to say that without them snooping in your data that Google or MS or whoever would be violating my privacy? And that the NSA is the key to Google or MS or whoever NOT violating my privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligence of other countries should thank them
I'm not an expert here, but I think you are mistaken. End-to-end encryption doesn't just cover the message itself. It also covers the transmission of that message including its sender and its destination. I think this would be tied into DNSSec. For email specifically, it would involve the previously mentioned Dark Mail.
The point of end-to-end encryption is that it would be end-to-end and not leave any dangling metadata. Perhaps there would be some ability to track the amount of data transmitted, but that would be obfuscated by sending extra data, using compression, sending messages split into chunks, or using stenography.
Re: Re: Re: Intelligence of other countries should thank them
But once again, what I'm getting at, most of that goes away (aside from the Al Qaeda thing) when end-to-end encryption is put into service. The NSA and GCHQ simply won't be able to harvest the traffic.
Not really. Do you think terrorist groups use gmail to communicate? Yet they tap Google.
I think we are agreeing here. I said in my prior comment that they point was NEVER to spy on terrorists (although that was the excuse). With end-to-end encryption, spying on Gmail or Skype or whatever is ineffective. So what is the NSA's or GCHQ's job at that point? Why would they be around? Maybe they can get back to their actual mission instead of spying on their own citizens.
Re: Intelligence of other countries should thank them
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are missing the point. The reason the Snowden revelations were so damaging isn't because it is making spying on terrorists harder. It is so dangerous because it is going to hamper attempts to track their own citizenry.
So it really doesn't have anything to do with the Americans or the British, per se.
Think about this: The NSA or GCHQ each have multi-billion dollar budgets. They have thousands of employees. They sweep up tons of information. They wield massive amounts of power. If you think they want to give that up, you are crazy. End-to-end encryption would wreck all of that and make 90% of NSA and GCHQ useless.
As bad as it is when this stuff happens, it could be good if we learn from it. I don't want the NSA spying on us, but we have become complacent and hopefully this is the kick in the pants that will change that.
The hostess was talking to a dude from the British (might be the same guy referenced above) and she pointed out the unveiling of those actually in charge of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ and calling them to question was driven by the Snowden reveals. He responded that this whole thing was already planned before the leaks.
Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me. So prior to 6 months ago there were plans to reveal who the leaders of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ now? Really? You can't be serious.
That isn't necessarily true. Costa Rica has a very large tourism industry that feeds off of its rain forests and natural beauty. No doubt if this mining group came in and ran roughshod over the forest and rivers and whatnot, that could easily drive the "2% of GDP" number up as the tourism industry might drop as a result.
Either way, I would imagine that this development can't make the NSA all that happy.
Haha, no shit. It is definitely worth pointing out though that all of this is of the NSA's own making. If they wouldn't have been so cavalier about sucking up data, something like Dark Mail would never have been necessary and they could have continued - status quo.
I'm sure the same lawyers weren't arguing both cases. Heck, I'll bet the legal teams aren't even in the same building. What seems obvious from the outside is a clear problem of siloing within a large company.