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.
No, it is not.
And I say it is, in the context of the particular things I was answering to.
Yes, I have such network.
So do I. Inside my apartment. It is not useful when I want to communicate
with people outside it. Does "your own network completely isolated from the
Internet" crosses oceans? It is what I need to talk with my parents and I
would like to try your solution since you apparently claim it is "practical".
I very much doubt is different from "I have facts proving it".
Given what you wrote to fbit ("I have no proof of that and you have no proof
of the opposite. So if we are objective we have to admit that both are
equally possible."), I believe your conclusion is: both alternatives,
"Snowden was only lucky" and "end-to-end encryption on a free software system
helped him not being detected", are "equally possible". I have just figured
out another alternative: "aliens, protecting Edward Snowden, use their
telekinetic powers to erase Snowden's messages before the governmental
agencies catch them". You have no proof of the opposite, don't you? Does
that mean it is an "equally probable" alternative?
Which is yet another fact supporting that switching providers does not give
"much better" things. It can't be measured.
Yes, it can. A sensible metrics would be the proportion of your emails that
the NSA can read (in clear text).
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
Are you arguing that we should only use servers that are somehow
democratically administrated? How does that work? Do we directly vote for
the hardware/software that server administrators are allowed to use? Should
there be a state agency that takes care of that? Should there then be
inspectors who check that no unauthorized software is running?
How do you know that?
Once you sent your data to the service provider, that provider is in control
of your data. You cannot know how it processes them. For all you know, they
may be manually processed. Free software on the server side does not bring
the control of the data back to the server's user. No management engine on
the server side does not bring the control of the data back to the server's
Why should they care if it doesn't matter?
It does not matter to the server's users. It matters to Google (or any other
service provider), who wants to be in control of its computing. It wants the
power over its servers. And it deserves that power: they are Google's
servers. Using free software or not using any management engine is good for
Google. It makes no difference to the server's users.
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
I mean what I wrote: "your interlocutors who chose another provider, not part
of the PRISM program, do not have privacy because of you". Straw man
fallacy. Your favorite after the perfect solution fallacy.