In the words of Edward Snowden: Twitter doesn't put warheads on foreheads. In the words of Michael Hayden: We kill people based on metadata.
It's monumentally stupid, disingenuous, or both, to compare or contrast corporate surveillance and government surveillance without acknowledging this very important point.
Once you acknowledge it, you have to contend with the fact that the government has the power (even if it doesn't have the right) to bridge the Snowden-Hayden Gap, coopting corporate surveillance for its own ends.
The only reason no one really knows the backdoor sauce for the NSA NIST EC curves is that the standard was never widely used. (My theory is that there really isn't a backdoor, but they created the algorithm and points to look like there could be (or they destroyed the secrets after creation) so they could refine their techniques at slipping shit past the standards body...)
If it had actually come into widespread use, more people would be looking at it. It's not an easy problem (like FEAL was), so there would have to be more incentive into finding the backdoor. I imagine some of the experts would have pooled their money and offered a prize to add even more incentive.
Actually, I think it is literally impossible, not just NP hard. As in "DRM" impossible. As in "P = !P" impossible. In fact, I think this reduces down to DRM - how do you share a piece of information (e.g.: the magic golden key, or knowledge of a backdoor) with a party in such a way that it will never be used for a purpose that was not intended?
how much does anyone want to bet that the moment the DOJ has no choice but to hand over the tapes, it will have been discovered that they were "stored improperly" and "damaged beyond usefulness"? how many leaky basements does the executive branch have?
You would think so, and you would be completely reasonable in doing so; but they've already redefined "imminent" to mean "not imminent". I don't know why anyone trusts them anymore, since it's clear that when they say something they usually mean something else, if not the exact opposite.
the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
> They're not interested in us sharing culture with each other, they want us all to get our culture from them.
This is exactly right. That's why they hate the public domain so much. If we are creating and sharing culture with each other, then (the theory goes) we won't partake of what they magnanimously deign to sell us.
A lot of people are jumping on the MPAA-haters bandwagon here; wanting Google to sue, screaming about "one law for thee, another for me", laughing at the hypocrisy, "o the irony", etc etc. And while I agree with the sentiment behind many of these outcries and guffaws, focusing on that is missing the bigger picture. One which I wish the MPAA would understand.
Sharing culture is a quintessentially human thing to do. Whether they want to make a point, or make someone smile, or just enlarge the circle of people for whom a reference is meaningful, sharing is natural. It happens all the time. It is perfectly right and good to spread ideas, culture, and experiences, with friends and with strangers. Trying to fight human nature is more futile than trying to fight the tide - which might be difficult, but there's little the ocean can do to you if you decide to get rid of the moon. Trying to excise (by punishment no less) a fundamentally human drive can only end in failure so long as one human remains alive.
That would be far too inefficient. They'll just create a Collections Department, and the theaters will only have to pay MPAA, and the MPAA will find the appropriate actors and disburse the money accordingly. Just like GEMA. It works really really well, I mean, GEMA is rolling in it!