> No, it is not.

Then why people want free software according to you? Because they like the licensing? Or because it is not paid? No - they want it because of the ability for community control which implies it safety.

> ??

What I said means that I know better than you what I mean and why I use particular words, i.e. there is no need to correct me in a different context. I can't count how many times I have asked for that.

> Does "your own network completely isolated from the Internet" crosses oceans?

No. It is a little bigger than yours.

> 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".

Show me a link to the exact post where I say "this is a practical solution".

> 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".

No, these are not alternatives. These are 2 unrelated things. The 2 possible alternatives are:

- E.S. is honest
- E.S. is not honest

> 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?

I will let you figure that out for yourself. I have no time for more nonsense.

> 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?

I think it would be good to have openness in that matter. Without it everything is just wishful thinking and trusting words. I don't know about inspectors - perhaps not because that involves authority and again trust. Ideally the system should be designed in a way which everyone can check them remotely. Don't ask me how it can be done within current technology. I don't have an answer.

> Yes, it can. A sensible metrics would be the proportion of your emails that the NSA can read (in clear text).

But you don't know what NSA can read, so you cannot measure it.

> 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 user either.

You are mixing unrelated things: 1) free software 2) known vulnerability 3) user control of data. My questions were in a different context. In any case removing known vulnerability is surely better than having it. If you are arguing that it is futile it is in no way different from saying that having a virus on the server or removing it doesn't matter for the users. I say it does. The fact that the service provider can do other mischief with users' data is a separate thing.

> 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.

You are making it sound as if those servers have absolutely nothing to do with the users who use the resources of those servers. Well, I disagree. Everyone prefers to use a healthy computer, not an infected one. Again - I am talking about technology only, not about the political mischief Google is involved in. (I know both are related but still)

> 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.

The majority of my (and everyone's) interlocutors use Mac OSX, Windows, Android, iPhone, Gmail, Yahoo, Facebook, Instagram, Skype, Snapchat and WhatsApp and have no idea what is BIOS, ME or JavaScript. And they would never move away from those systems because they give them convenience which they value more than security and privacy. That is not fallacy but a fact.

I honestly don't think I can say anything more or new on the subject of this particular thread. So if you don't mind - that's enough. The OP already knows my answer.

Reply via email to