PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project

Sat Jun 8 02:52:56 UTC 2013

I think we know now, that they will know we are organizing.

Sent from my Mobile Device.

-------- Original message --------
From: Ishmael Rufus <sakamura at gmail.com>
Date: 06/07/2013 6:32 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project

Yeah... so when are we rioting? Because they'll just continue to make laws
that circumvent the constitution.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> While the government has no responsibility to protect my data, they do
> have a responsibility to respect my privacy. While you are correct in that
> proper personal security procedures to protect my data from random crackers
> would, in fact, also protect it from the government, that's a far cry from
> what is at issue here.
>
> The question here is whether or not it should be considered legitimate for
> the US Government to completely ignore the fourth and fifth amendments to
> the constitution and build out unprecedented surveillance capabilities
> capturing vast amounts of data without direct probable cause for that
> snooping.
>
> I'm not so much concerned about them gaining access to data I don't want
> them to access. I am far more disturbed by the trend which reflects a
> government which increasingly considers itself unrestrained by the laws it
> is in place to support and implement.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Dan White <dwhite at olp.net> wrote:
>
> > On 06/07/13 11:11 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> >> On 6/7/2013 9:50 AM, Dan White wrote:
> >>> OpenPGP and other end-to-end protocols protect against all nefarious
> >>> actors, including state entities. I'll admit my first reaction
> yesterday
> >>> after hearing this news was - so what? Network security by its nature
> >>> presumes that an insecure channel is going to be attacked and
> >>> compromised.  The 4th Amendment is a layer-8 solution to a problem that
> >>> is better solved lower in the stack.
> >>
> >> That is JUST like saying...
> >>
> >> || now that the police can freely bust your door down and raid your
> >> house in a "fishing expedition", without a search warrant, without court
> >> order, and  without "probable cause"... the solution is for you to get a
> >> stronger metal door and hide all your stuff better.||
> >
> > Hiding stuff better is generally good security practice, particularly in
> > the absence of a search warrant. How effective those practices are is
> > really what's important.
> >
> > From a data standpoint, those security procedures can be highly
> > effective, even against law enforcement. But it's not law enforcement
> that
> > I worry about the most (understandably, you may have a differing
> opinion);
> > It's the random anonymous cracker who isn't beholden to any international
> > laws or courts. I design my personal security procedures for him.
> >
> > That's why I don't, say, send passwords in emails. I don't trust state
> > entities to protect the transmission of that data. I don't wish to place
> > that burden on them.
> >
> >> You're basically saying that it is OK for governments to defy their
> >> constitutions and trample over EVERYONE's rights, and that is OK since a
> >> TINY PERCENTAGE of experts will have exotic means to evade such
> >> trampling. But to hell with everyone else. They'll just have to become
> >> good little subjects to the State.  If grandma can't do PGP, then she
> >> deserves it, right?
> >
> > I believe it's your responsibility to protect your own data, not the
> > government's, and certainly not Facebook's.
> >
> >> Yet... many people DIED to initiate/preserve/codify such human rights...
> >> but I guess others just give them away freely. What a shame. Ironically,
> >> many who think this is no big deal have themselves benefited immensely
> >> from centuries of freedom and prosperity that resulted from "rule of
> >> law" and the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.
> >
> > Freedom is very important to me, as well as the laws that are in place to
> > protect them.
> >
> > --
> > Dan White
>
>
>