[headdie]

I don't know what you mean by ordinary people but I'll assume it excludes all the ordinary people who are considered potential threats by the US government. Beyond them, the current way of doing business has certainly fostered an environment of distrust and paranoia given some of the reactions I've seen, and I can't say I'd be surprised if it contributed to a rise in our (the USA's) own domestic right wing terrorists activity, in which case certainly ordinary people would be affected because they or their loved ones would be dead. I can think up other scenarios of varying levels of plausibility later but my dog is being cute right now.

I agree that trying to evade government surveillance in one's day-to-day life is silly.

Ordinary people like whom?  I have yet to see a single example of a case where the collected data has been used improperly to affect people who were otherwise innocent of any wrongdoing.  And that is the point - with the exception of a very few types of activities and individuals, the simple truth is that no one in signals-intercept cares about what 99.999% of the population has posted on their Facebook wall, emailed to their friends, or chatted about online generally.  They don't even care what your banking information is, though no doubt a lot of that also gets captured in the intercepts.

I was thinking of ordinary people like people who might be related to a terror suspect or have gone to the same mosque or lived in the same town or whatever. Any number of totally innocent people who haven't done anything to warrant the NSA reading their mail.

In regards to your first point, none of us would have seen a case where the data was "used improperly" because our governments all lied about the existence of these programs prior to the leak. That doesn't mean it necessarily was misused, but they certainly didn't have any reason to let us know about it if it was.

It's entirely plausible that information gathered in this way was used to detain innocent people or put them on no-fly lists. It's also possible that it was used in the cases where the feds have duped young muslim men into carrying out elaborately staged fake bombings. Hell, it might also get used to help authorize missile strikes in which we outright murder whoever happens to be in the same place at the same time as the person we suspect of being a criminal. No way of knowing because they lied about the whole thing for years.

Sure, gathering the data doesn't harm anyone directly (we're just looking after all), but it enables and tempts governments to do things that can do great harm. I'm also concerned about the secondary danger that comes when the veil is lifted and people realize that they are being treated like the enemy. So while I don't feel like big brother is out to get us, I do think that his actions are making us less safe. In conclusion, I think it's fair to get worked up about this. So I will:

WAKKAWOOOOGAMBINDINGOLOOPERUUUUUUUNEY!!!!!!1

so we need to be upset that government staff are reading personal communications of complete strangers and then storing most if not all of it in the folder marked "inconsequential"  (and will probably never be read again) just because they know or are loosely linked to a terror suspect

[swashmebuckle]

I'm not saying anyone has to be upset about anything, just that granting privileged access to all internet data to people whose job is to find hidden enemies could potentially result in civil rights abuses without any need for a conspiracy, and that knowledge of that spying activity leaking out (which it now has) could lead to decreased trust in government and increased violence from people who are already convinced that it is teh satan.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm not saying anyone has to be upset about anything, just that granting privileged access to all internet data to people whose job is to find hidden enemies could potentially result in civil rights abuses without any need for a conspiracy, and that knowledge of that spying activity leaking out (which it now has) could lead to decreased trust in government and increased violence from people who are already convinced that it is teh satan.

All of which we file under "possible outcomes," right next to the scenario where there are no consequences at all.

Anyway, we digress - the premise of my argument was not that these programs are right and just etc, but rather that there is no technological possibility of avoiding them at the end-user level, Tor/VPN included.  Because, maslo, the only point of trying to mask your traffic patterns is if you're accessing sites of consequence - e.g. email, Facebook, Twitter, and a myriad of other things.  Our online activities are tracked from the basic structures of the Internet.  Which is why I said earlier - if anyone is going to start taking security measures "because NSA" then they might as well incinerate any connected devices they own, because that is quite literally the only way you're avoiding signals-intercept in this era.  In terms of encryption, encryption is only as strong as the passwords that hold it (discounting backdoors, of course) and most people can't pick a password worth a ****.

Instead of taking security measures to bypass it (which don't work and are generally pointless besides providing a false sense of security), people would find their energies better spent on taking their elected officials to task for allowing signals-intercept to reach the state of affairs its presently in, and reign it back.  Either that, or provide some serious oversight.

[Luis Dias]

What I have said is that it's net effect on the average person is so negligible that it does not need any technological response from the average user, and that any response you can take is worthless in all practical respects.

I agree with that with a caveat. What we can as average users do is make noise. Lots of it. (and I know, you agree with this!)

To be numb about this is to invite further fascism. And yes, I am using that word.

[The E]

On a personal level, I don't care what NSA, GCHQ, BND et al know about me or are able to infer from their data about me. I certainly see no reason to change my habits or use additional security measures beyond those I am already using. There are far more relevant threats around that encourage good IT security than those organizations.

That being said, on a societal level, these things need to be fought and addressed. The horse needs to be beaten to a pulp on this one until no scrap of it remains, and noone even dares to go near these things again. I am not one normally given to antiauthoritarian or libertarian rhetoric, but the Governments need to be reminded once more that they're only serving at the pleasure of the people, and that the people are not at all pleased.

[Luis Dias]

I once heard David Brin (the usual optimist) say something around these lines: that the problem of 1984 wasn't one of lack of privacy or that the government was always aware of what common people were doing. The fundamental problem was that this transparency only worked in one direction, and that if the government's (and governor's) actions became as transparent as our general pop did, the 1984 problem would solve itself pretty rapidly.

I am not as optimistic as he is, but I can see his point, and we should all thank the "traitors" that gave us this gov transparency back. Even countries like Brasil had to confess they also spy on others, etc.

[swashmebuckle]

On a personal level, I don't care what NSA, GCHQ, BND et al know about me or are able to infer from their data about me. I certainly see no reason to change my habits or use additional security measures beyond those I am already using. There are far more relevant threats around that encourage good IT security than those organizations.

That being said, on a societal level, these things need to be fought and addressed. The horse needs to be beaten to a pulp on this one until no scrap of it remains, and noone even dares to go near these things again. I am not one normally given to antiauthoritarian or libertarian rhetoric, but the Governments need to be reminded once more that they're only serving at the pleasure of the people, and that the people are not at all pleased.

I fully agree with this. The only specific point I wanted to object to is the assertion that these programs do not affect most people because we have no way of knowing how the information has been (or will be) used.

I'm also wary of any downplaying of aspects of the spying issue (even if they are factually accurate) that doesn't come with the explicit caveat that the programs themselves are definitely something to be concerned about. Given that our governments have presumed the authority to launch these programs in secret, the tone and clarity of our responses are extremely important because there is already a huge social cue out there saying "it's fine, you can't do anything about it, go with it."

I didn't think MP was actually trying to endorse the governments' actions in any way, but considering how integral the "this doesn't affect you unless you are doing something bad" argument is to the authoritarian stance, yes, I felt the need to flog the horse. Sorry if it seemed like I was badgering you, MP. Here is some Devo:

When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it

[S-99]

I know i had a wierd way of putting it. But, it's surprising how many people don't mind buttplugs.

[swashmebuckle]

If everyone had a buttplug there would be no war.

[Nuke]

i now plan my overthrow and subsequent destruction of the world in private and off the grid. hi nsa! nothing to see here, move along.

[S-99]

New revelation to the nsa. I'm actually a talking dog. In before obama changes health coverage to include the productive middle class dog.

If everyone had a buttplug there would be no war.

ARF

[Nuke]

If everyone had a buttplug there would be no war.

give this guy a custom title. "Buttplugs for Peace!"

you will see that plan backfire when i seize control of the world's supply of personal lubricants. muahahahaha!

[AtomicClucker]

Doesn't change my perception the current regime is burning cash on spying when monies could be better spent elsewhere, like disassembling Obamacare piece by piece. (Personally I've got a giant bovine about the "personal mandate" but also I'm deeply concerned about the Obamacare's depth of information snooping ON medical records to bank accounts).

Or giving Ann Coulter a fleabath.

[Flak]

Anything the yanks do badly, we could do much worse. At least what is happening around here, the government officials are drunk with bribes.

[Mikes]

Seriously if you think the NSA is that interested in you then

Leaving all conspiracy theories aside...

There is still the problem that human beings work at the NSA.

There is that fact that a certain percentage of human beings are a) perverts b) pedophiles c) general ass**** that like to mess with people.

It always happens in any organisation, why should the NSA be different? Hence you can definitely make an argument that having that much power available is not a good thing for any organisation.
In any case it definitely is not a good idea to give access to such data to any human being, especially not with questionable or non existent oversight - no matter who that human being works for.

Thanks to what NSA is doing ... it really only takes one lunatic with a grudge and the will to commit the credit card / hacking / identity theft of the century.
(Or worse... an intelligent being with a lack of morals to commit thousands of little crimes that never become known.)

I mean... isn't that one of the very reasons why we have (or had? lol) privacy laws and huge limitations and hurdles to jump before anyone can be wiretapped by the police?



Anything will be abused if it is at all possible. So indeed, why should the NSA be different? Their power will be abused and very likely has been abused countless times already.
Also makes for a great tool for any kind of would be dictator who intends to abolish democracy who may ever get ahold of it who knows how many years in the future.

We Germans have a little history in that regard as well, as you may recall (not just referring to the totalitarian regime that brought about WW2 but also to East Germany during "DDR" times) ... and generally it is agreed in our country that you just don't do some things - and one of the biggest nono's is to establish systems with the potential to allow, further down the line, a future totalitarian party/regime/dictator to effectively establish a police state. Maybe countries without that history just don't realize how quickly such a thing can turn bad .....

[S-99]

If everyone had a buttplug there would be no war.

give this guy a custom title. "Buttplugs for Peace!"

you will see that plan backfire when i seize control of the world's supply of personal lubricants. muahahahaha!

There would be no war because everyone would be in too much anal pain.