It all depends on whether the enemy is s bunch of authoritarian governments with their gulags for political prisoners or a bunch on religious fanatics who can clean a Kalashnikov and milk a goat.
I suspect that the truth of the matter is that there is no enemy at all and all the surveillance is just a bunch of boasting generals polishing their egos and pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into vanity projects to do so. Can't necessarily stop the intercepts but we can end the careers of a few militarists wo fogot who the enemy was and decided to go to war on their own citizens instead. Their tradecraft stinks, their code names are ludicrous aggrandizing showboats popping powerpoint slides that they keep unencrypted on a server run by the guy with a stripper girlfriend. The NSA is not a police force, they are not a law enforcement agency. They have no business having any involvement in civil police functions. The Snowden issue is going to be a campaign issue in 2016 regardless of what the parties want. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Tony Rutkowski <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Phill, > > And just how does one get from Phill and friends > in perpass talking about clever schemes, to "forcing" > all the governments, vendors, and providers of the > world to implement those schemes? That seems > like a rather large and important step to be asserting > as part of your technical(?) plan! :-) > > You do realize that ironically at this very moment, > there are ITU-T meetings occurring where some of > those actors are collaborating on doing the opposite. > In fact, if you examine the appendix to the original > submitted Rec. Y.2770, you'll see about 34 use cases > for the commercial benefits of pervasive surveillance. > And, that doesn't include government use cases. > > One of the unintended consequences of the past > couple months of exposing stolen UK and US > documents is that the budgets and stature of the > services of a great many other countries became > substantially increased, and the providers/vendors > will be subject to more extensive pervasive > surveillance requirements. It's funny how the > real world works. > > best, > tony > > > On 11/5/2013 10:01 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> And there would be an issue of collusion with the carriers and >> governments. But reducing the attack surface from every government who can >> rent a back hoe to one government with a subpoena is very powerful. And >> forcing the intelligence agencies to collude to perform traffic analysis >> would further limit capabilities. >> >> > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
