Criticism of GPG is definitely in place. It's so complicated to use that nobody bothers.
>> I suspect that it has saved a good many people living in countries with oppressive and brutal regimes from arrest or worse
False. Ironically, Mike often bring (valid) point that law enforcement need not to break encryption - tried and true methods are enough. Another side of the coin is that the same methods works for all sides: oppressive regimes including.
Hey, Mike, I don't quite think you're getting the message.
Free speech is not synonym for terrorists propaganda. News for fellow americans - not all speech is equal. And yea, I'm totally agree with arresting people suggesting that "killing for Allah" is good idea.
>> It doesn't matter. IF the infrastructure is critical, ... In your imaginary world, where money is not a function, maybe. However, here on Earth, cost matters. You don't make your house windows bulletproof, and steel door, right? (In case you _do_, please seek mental help immediately).
In theory - yes. In practice, when you have to control several plants in different places - what options do you have? Even dedicated PPP line is "connected" to Internet - separated by provider router. Running physically several disconnected networks is insanely expansive and well beyond budget.
While Russian government probably have its agenda, their argument "Data on russian people stay in Russia" is valid. What makes you think it should be otherwise?
Oh, I see, it's good old argument of "it's OK when _we_ do it". So no. Tell what you want about Russian government/regime - this law is perfectly fine. If NSA want to spy on me too - please come and get it: hack local datacenter, break into my house and so on. Good luck with that.
>> is that a fourth language While I can read and understand stuff in Latin, I don't even count it among 4 I know. How is your 4th language? Does at least 1 uses non-latin letters?
>> "Ad infinitum" doesn't necessarily mean forever You're confused. To quote wiki: "In context, it usually means "continue forever, without limit". Use a dictionary next time if unsure.
>> Like I said, you apparently don't understand what you're arguing about. Of cause. I'm idiot foreigner which can fluently read in 4 languages, speak fluently in 3 and write without dictionary in 2. But what can I possibly know about words in not-my-own-language? Probably nothing. I can not even comprehend what "mass" and "surveillance" mean. I'm sorry. Educate me, oh-wise-american, what is the meaning of all this "words" you're using
>> I mean that you can cancel with the service provider in question at your request. Only to go to another provider, which will do same thing. What was your point again? Like I said - you can live without phone. And car. And plane. And refrigerator. And so on "ad infinitum"
>> are you ok with someone putting a video camera in your bedroom Your argument boils down to claim that "nobody is watching" is false. That's OK as long as _you_ understand it. Because you seem not to.
Today's law (simple criminal stuff, not some "anti-terror") explicitly allows to put camera in your bedroom if "they really need to" without your knowledge.
>> I'll ignore your horrible grasp of the English language Yes, please. That's my 3rd language. How is your 3rd?
>> stored ad infinitum Nothing is "ad infinitum". First thing that will end is money. How match is US federal debt in 2014?
>> Do you honestly not see the difference between a service provider ... This difference, as you said is "semantic at best". What do you mean "can explicitly cancel" - while theoretically it is possible to live without phone, it's not very practical by any means.
>> If nobody's looking, and never will, why do they need the data? The argument is about "mass", not about "surveillance", because "surveillance" is what those agencies are supposed to do. Answer me (or yourself) - why do US need CIA (or UK need MI6)? Why military+police is not enough? Answer is simple and annoying - because military+police are bounded by law. You want covert james-bond-style operations hidden from public eye because it's very match illegal by any law. By keeping CIA/MI6 finding you're saying "keep going with your stuff". It's only when your government have too match(*) of covert ops, only then you have a problem.
>> To them, it's not "surveillance" if no one actually looks at the data
But isn't it actually true? If no one looks at the data, how is it "surveillance"? I tried to understand logic, but found none. My phone company also recording call "metadata" - does it "surveillance" too? It probably also log phone location - should it ask for court order?
Either prove that "no one looking" is false or nobody going to take your "OMG, surveillance" seriously.
Unfortunately, not many understand that this is how world works. Many thinks that they "deserve" freedom/rights/etc. Freedom and rights are earned, not necessary by blood, but never "deserved". After WWII Jews learned the lesson - independance is "bought with the blood of heroes". I would add that it's more rented that bought, and that "blood of heroes" is expected from time to time, or your rent is over.
>> What the NSA does is immoral, but legal. What Snowdon did was possibly moral, but illegal. Resolve that conflict, and perhaps you may find your answers.
There's no conflict here. You do what's _moral_. And your moral should not be determined by law, but other way around - your _law_ should be determined by _commonly_accepted_moral_.
That's why I strongly disagree with "but technology allows" argument: if technology allows something, it doesn't mean it's good idea to do so. All military technologies come to mind, total surveillance, massive wiretapping and so on.
Oh, how unfair for us to build a missile defense and not to get killed. Really unfair. We probably should just bomb ourselves to keep your "score" happy.
Here's a deal - you threaten our population - we kill you. That's it. Fortunately Israel have better economy and many educated and motivated people to build enough weapons to teach those scums a lesson. And a lesson is simple - "point a gun on us, and you dead".
btw - you comparison of palestinians with five-year-old is insulting even for palestinians. They chose to support Hamas. Now cry me a river.
Before taking such moral high ground, remember how US "differentiated" population of Dresden and Hiroshima. I guess it was "long time ago" and thus doesn't count.
Infant/child/dog/cat and other things are utterly irrelevant at war. Did Hamas rockets differentiate them? Yea, millions spent on rocket defence made those Kassam useless, but that's a _point_ of having defence.
Contrary to US, in Israel we have actual terrorists, not the kind of TSA is "searching for". And we have war, not "war". Those "innocent" palestinians should not be persecuted. They should be shot. That's what you do with enemies. That's what you do in war.
When YOUR house will be shelled, we'll see whether you will require "prosecution" OR you will cry for CIA/NSA/USFA/whoever-else to kill those "freedom fighters"