

PRISM: We are fighting the wrong battle. - pavs
http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/07/17/wrong-battle/

======
jankins
I disagree, I think even if anti-prism litigation is successful there's no way
we can trust the government to not do it again. I think there need to be
ubiquitous technological solutions to ensure a basic level of privacy, and
short of a technological solution we can not assume that we have privacy.

------
Joeboy
The problems with privacy on the internet are so large and entrenched it's
hard to know where to start. Strong end-to-end encryption is good. Challenging
government policy is good. A diversity of services is good. Donating to the
EFF is good. There is more than one battle, and people who are fighting the
same war should be wary of undermining people who have chosen different
battles.

~~~
jeremysmyth
The problem isn't privacy on the internet. It's "privacy". What do you mean by
privacy? If you can define it, then we can talk about solving "privacy on the
internet".

Example: I don't want people seeing me when I go to the bathroom. Or when I'm
having an intimate conversation (or other intimacy) with my wife. Or listen in
on a conversation I'm having on the train or in a cafe or in my kitchen. Or
over email or IM, or in a personal letter.

Some of those things I have a right to in law, and some I don't. Some of them
are things that not everyone agree should be private (in public, where there
is no legal expectation of privacy). Privacy sounds like a nice neat concept,
but it's actually quite hard to pin down. Should employers have a right to ask
your ex girlfriends if you're a worthy employee? or to pay CCTV owners in town
for the right to footage of you in public so that they can give that footage
to psychologists who can analyse your facial micromovements as you walk down
the street? Should you have the right to use binoculars to look into the
apartment of the cute girl across the street if she doesn't close the
curtains?

Define privacy, then you know what the problem is. Only then can you solve the
problems of "privacy on the internet".

------
babesh
Guess what. All those other governments are probably busy creating their own
Prisms to spy on you and you have no legal recourse with them. Self serve
seems like a better option.

~~~
prawn
I would say "have created" rather than "are probably busy creating" for most
large countries.

------
mtgx
That's why I keep advocating that Google, Microsoft, Facebook and the other
big companies need to implement end to end encryption/client side encryption
for their services - so it can be much easier for hundreds of millions of
people to use the services that way, instead of a few of us looking for other
services that barely anyone uses.

But even this should be a short term solution. The main solution should be a
policy one - repeal the Patriot Act and FAA, and fire the people involved in
this.

~~~
pekk
This doesn't address the issue of Google, Microsoft, Facebook and the other
big companies (including banks, grocery chains, HMOs, etc.) building
individual profiles out of the information they collect and trade about you.
And once they have this information, voluntarily handing it over to the
government. Or acting as their own de facto surveillance state without the
help of the government.

Sure, have all the end to end encryption you want. Your information is still
getting out there.

~~~
babesh
That's because those companies are part of a centralized Internet where they
are providing key infrastructure while acting as super users/root.

We should own our own data... Encrypt it with our own keys and pay for it to
be hosted...

