Ask Slashdot: Will the NSA Controversy Drive People To Use Privacy Software? 393
Nerval's Lobster writes "As the U.S. government continues to pursue former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for leaking some of the country's most sensitive intelligence secrets, the debate over federal surveillance seems to have abated somewhat — despite Snowden's stated wish for his revelations to spark transformative and wide-ranging debate, it doesn't seem as if anyone's taking to the streets to protest the NSA's reported monitoring of Americans' emails and phone-call metadata. Even so, will the recent revelations about the NSA cause a spike in demand for sophisticated privacy software, leading to a glut of new apps that vaporize or encrypt data? While there are quite a number of tools already on the market (SpiderOak, Silent Circle, and many more), is their presence enough to get people interested enough to install them? Or do you think the majority of people simply don't care? Despite some polling data that suggests people are concerned about their privacy, software for securing it is just not an exciting topic for most folks, who will rush to download the latest iteration of Instagram or Plants vs. Zombies, but who often throw up their hands and profess ignorance when asked about how they lock down their data."
no (Score:1, Insightful)
two words: television, facebook.
With the exception of a few people, American's just don't care about anyting-- unless it interrupts their viewing pleasure.
Most people CAN'T (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:easy, (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a few people even give the slightest fuck about the current revelations, anyway. The distortion field of Slashdot and Reddit (ugh) give the impression that it's the biggest thing in the world and the entire population is angry, but that could not be further from the case. People didn't give a fuck about Echelon. People didn't give a fuck about the DMCA or The USA Patriot Act. They didn't give a fuck about all the signing statements that George Bush put down (basically, when a president goes through a passed bill and writes down little notes essentially saying how he will or won't abide by each part of the bill -- signing statements are how we wound up with authorized torture and claiming the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Americans -- only to "bad guys"). People don't give a fuck about all the ones Obama has done. People didn't give a fuck about Kevin Mitnick spending many years behind bars without a trial or access to the evidence against him. People don't give a fuck about Gitmo. Whatever fuck people *do* give a damn about right now will be mitigated by the next big distraction coming down the pipe.
Slippery slope doesn't apply to civil liberties and surveillance in America -- but the thing about a slowly warming frying pan sure does.
Of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would the average person give a fuck about their privacy? Most people have nothing to hide, and unless they are a fanatic or a hobbyist, they could not care less who reads their stuff.
This security stuff is NOT about the average guy, though. It's about movers and shakers... politicians, lawyers, businessmen, members of the media... people who have power in some ways to affect change, and who communicate in ways which REQUIRE privacy.
Likewise, the NSA monitoring the average person does not matter in the least. It is about them monitoring movers and shakers. It's about people who could potentially upset the powers that be.
So cut me a break with the ruminations about whether Joe Six Pack or Susy Soccer Mom is going to encrypt their email. The real question will be, will the next candidate for high office, who aims to shake things up, and who thinks the current Republicratic overlords need to GTFO... the question is... will he us it, and will he continue to be monitored.
Re:easy, (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. If you've been following the news, you'll notice that it's all about catching Snowden, and not about the massive NSA surveillance program. Most people just don't care about it, and the media sure isn't helping by focusing on Snowden to the exclusion of everything else.
I'm sure that ultimately, we'll get some law to "increase oversight on the NSA" that will have no teeth, the NSA will go back to spying on all communications it possibly can, and Snowden will get to discover the true meaning of "extraordinary rendition."
Re:easy, (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with encrypted email is that you can only send it to people who agree that security is important.
And the people causing the loss of my privacy are numb nuts that post pictures of me to FB and various other places without my permission.
Re:Reddit (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering how many people on this site are pirates, then yes, NSA monitors Slashdot more.
Just because we know how and don't subscribe to DRM and other crap doesn't mean we're "pirates".
Re:easy, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:easy, (Score:5, Insightful)
yes because the nsa would never lie before Congress oh wait they have already been caught lying before Congress twice. I trust encryption far more than I trust the nsa.
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the average person give a fuck about their privacy? Most people have nothing to hide, and unless they are a fanatic or a hobbyist, they could not care less who reads their stuff.
I agree with you. The average person probably doesn't care, but that doesn't mean he/she shouldn't care. Privacy is important to everyone, even if you're one of those persons who mistakenly believes that you have nothing to hide.
Divorces, custody disputes, false accusations, lovers' quarrels, medical sexual history, medical history, dating, underage alcohol consumption/sexting/sex, stalkers, job interviews, job-related credit checks and/or background checks (depending on the type of job and your local laws), salary negotiations, career promotions, college/school applications, car accidents, car insurance penalties, red-lining, profiling, red light cameras, speed cameras, identity thefts, arbitrary tax laws, IRS audits/penalties (if you don't live in the US, replace IRS with the relevant tax/customs authorities), collection agencies, filesharing, porn, sexual orientation, tethering, rooting your own device, netflix/hulu-specific throttling, recycling fines, arbitrary electricity/water consumption fines/penalties, housing association violations, neighborhood/city zoning/building violations, cigarette smoking violations, dog leash/breed violations, contrived political redistricting, poll tampering, etc.
And it is true, that as individuals, we may not care that much about each particular privacy-related issue, but as a whole and as an aggregate, we should care, because every single one of us is impacted by at least some of these issues and consequences.
Security is not the users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We are the problem not the end user.
We have failed to provide basic communication infrastructure that protects the end user.
Expecting people to use optional add-on technology requiring x additional software and y additional knowledge is obviously not going to happen regardless of how small x and y can be made.
The only way to fix the problem is wholesale replacement of existing bullshit (e.g. SMTP) with a solution that is secure by default. Users simply must not have the choice of skipping rational and meaningful key exchange steps before communication. It can be made easy or hard to give users control of the security tradeoff but it must not be optional.
Re:easy, (Score:4, Insightful)
M$ was the FIRST company on the PRISM slide timeline you know?
Re:easy, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
two words: television, facebook.
With the exception of a few people, American's just don't care about anyting-- unless it interrupts their viewing pleasure.
Very sad and very true.
Stupid distractions like television, facebook, and sport are rendering entire generates hopeless and pointless. Few people do anything anymore and everyone hates everyone else.
Imagine a world where people spend just some of their free time doing socially useful things. There would be no litter in the streets, no potholes in the roads, the elderly would not be alone and issolated, the hungry would be fed and waste space would become parks or food growing areas. There would be no need of stupid things like television shows or any of the other distractions from living.
Re:easy, (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, until relatively recently everybody had that kind of privacy that wasn't a celebrity or other famous individual.
What's more, even for the famous, if something happened a year ago, chances are good that you'd have to go digging for it in the news paper archives if you wanted information about it. Now, you can do a web search and find information from the last decade easily, and usually within minutes.
What's more, prior to the last couple years, you wouldn't have pictures being tagged automatically based upon a small number of samples.
When all is said and done, up until the 20th century if you could find your way a hundred miles from home, chances are you'd be able to run away from pretty much anything. At this point, there's basically nowhere you can go where that stuff isn't going to follow you.
It's not just how you behave in public, it's knowing how an innocuous action is going to be construed by an out of context photo or recording. Even just drinking soda out of a red plastic cup is sufficient to end a persons career in teaching if they weren't 21 at the time the photo was taken.
Re:easy, (Score:5, Insightful)
I would really like to know why all those who have been hyperventilating over this thinks the government or anyone else for that matter gives a shit who you call or e-mail.
Because we are all potential terrorists and criminals. I suspect it's just a matter of keywords. If you mention the word NSA or terrorist or the name of any middle eastern country or allah or whatever the automated system kicks the conversation over to some poor SOB right out of college who gets to listen to or read all of our boring conversations. Since we don't really know the keywords we cannot really be sure when a human is monitoring us or just a computer. At this point it seems pretty obvious that at least a computer monitors EVERYTHING. Something I would have considered paranoid before Snowden let us know what is really going on.
What I wonder about is whether keywords that affect law enforcement are also included. Does mention of the word "weed" or "marijuana" send a transcript of the conversation over to the DEA? If that doesn't happen already you can be damn sure that it is only a matter of time before the government figures out the utility of that. Especially now that the cat is out of the bag anyway.