> Nobody here says that "free" is synonymous with "safe" (again: good work at
not "putting words into other people's mouth"!).
>> You should make a difference between demotivating and disagreeing to blind
faith in "free" as a synonym of "safe".
Where do you see me say "person X is saying free is synonymous to safe"? Yet
it is undoubtedly a common assumption that it is so. Otherwise we wouldn't be
here and this thread wouldn't exist.
> No, it is not "absolutely necessary".
And I say it is, in the context of the particular things I was answering to.
Would you mind please stopping that word for word dissection? It is starting
to sound like censoring. I wonder if you will ever stop.
> Do you have "your own network, completely isolated from the Internet" (as
you wrote)? Of course not: it is not a practical solution.
Yes, I have such network. And it is not the first one I have had. So kindly
keep your "of course not" to yourself.
> I very much doubt
is different from "I have facts proving it".
> Perfect security does not exist. We all agree.
I don't know who is "we" but I don't agree. Yet I agree that in current
technology it is impossible.
> You cannot know what the service provider runs or does. It is impossible to
know that. It may lie. And it may *directly* provide data to the NSA, e.g.,
through the PRISM program.
Which is yet another fact supporting that switching providers does not give
"much better" things. It can't be measured.
BTW it is possible. My internet provider is in our building and we are
friends. I know what they run. For some of the things I have even helped them
> And you do not deserve the control of the servers you do not own.
Well, this is proprietary thinking in its most direct form. Of course I
deserve that control. Everyone does. The server is something which serves me,
you and everyone else. We must be able to inspect how it works for us, just
like we must be able to see how the governments spend our money. Security is
possible only through transparency and verifiability.
> It makes no difference for the users of Google servers.
How do you know that? Who is the entity who has checked it? Why should they
care if it doesn't matter? Why would they create anything like NERF and share
it as free software?
> So what? Users should keep on using GMail like you do? Doing so, your
interlocutors who chose another provider, not part of the PRISM program, do
not have privacy. Because of you. How is that good?
Because of me? You mean I am the one because of which the mass surveillance
exists and I am going to fix it by switching from Gmail to someone who "still
learns to ride the bike" and meanwhile throws dust in my eyes with "free