How private will remain our private messages?

[osho]

How private will remain our private messages?

I have read elsewhere that nothing will remain confidential now since all our phone calls, emails, private messages will be hacked now. All our communications will no longer remain secured and confidential.

Our territory of privacy is forayed physically and psychologically. Stand on a street you are photographed. Talk to your boyfriend all your romantic chats will be recorded elsewhere.

Are we living in a more secure world or more threatening world?

[cafolini]

It was always like that, osho. This will bring it to the open.

[Lokasenna]

Generally speaking, anything you want kept truly private should be discussed in face-to-face meetings only - which is exactly what the criminal fraternity do anyway, or will move to doing. Which means that the CIA will be logging all the inane banalities of everyday life, not to mention (if my facebook friends are anything to go by) hundreds of posts about cats.

It's sad that the internet is no longer has a private space (if it ever did, as cafolini points out). Ditto phonecalls. It's become a recurring joke amongst my friends and I to say certain words and phrases over the phone for the benefit of the CIA, along the lines of 'bomb', 'explode', 'anthrax' and 'kill all humans'.

[Volya]

cafolini is more or less right I think.

[Darcy88]

I believe emails should be as protected as old-fashioned snail-mail. This just seems obvious to me.

[Buh4Bee]

Generally speaking, anything you want kept truly private should be discussed in face-to-face meetings only - which is exactly what the criminal fraternity do anyway, or will move to doing. Which means that the CIA will be logging all the inane banalities of everyday life, not to mention (if my facebook friends are anything to go by) hundreds of posts about cats.

It's sad that the internet is no longer has a private space (if it ever did, as cafolini points out). Ditto phonecalls. It's become a recurring joke amongst my friends and I to say certain words and phrases over the phone for the benefit of the CIA, along the lines of 'bomb', 'explode', 'anthrax' and 'kill all humans'.

I agree with your point Lokasenna. The beauty of it all is that they can't say it to each others face because they are far away from each other. This is why millions of Americans/people are being watch to prevent ANY and ALL terrorist attacks from happening on US soil. Alexander said they foiled a dozen possible attacks, and this justifies the massive surveillance program.

[JuniperWoolf]

Sometimes people are crazy, or stupid, or want to be famous, or have some other motivation for posting their plans online or sending them though email. Three months ago this guy went on 4chan and announced his plan to shoot up a mall, then he went out and did it a few minutes later.

Then again, the gov't monitors 4chan pretty heavily and they weren't able to stop him. For every person who says they're going to shoot up a public area and actually does it there are thousands more who say they're going to and don't, it's impossible to arrest them all. This whole "it's to protect you" argument is really flimsy when you consider how many people on the internet post things that could be a potential threat to someone, there are millions of "suspicious" posts every day.

So, this whole thing isn't to protect us. The most useful thing I can think of is that it can be used to subvert leaders of dissenting groups. I imagine the "I have a dream" speech wouldn't have packed such a punch if everyone in the crowd knew about MLK's pregnant woman fetish (which could easily be discovered from his browsing history).

Edit: also I agree with Cafolini that this is nothing new. I always assumed some cloak-and-dagger government group had access to public emails. Why/how wouldn't they?

[OrphanPip]

Edit: also I agree with Cafolini that this is nothing new. I always assumed some cloak-and-dagger government group had access to public emails. Why/how wouldn't they?

It's still illegal for law enforcement to do so in Canada without a warrant. Vic Toews' "if you don't vote for this you support child pornographers" crime bill would have changed that, but it turned out he hadn't actually read the Bill he supposedly authored and the Tories removed that part before it went through. I still have difficulty understanding how a man who knocked up his 16 year old babysitter got* to be Justice Minister. The Canadian media has no teeth when it comes to the lack of character of our politicians.

[Volya]

It's still illegal for law enforcement to do so in Canada without a warrant. Vic Toews' "if you don't vote for this you support child pornographers" crime bill would have changed that, but it turned out he hadn't actually read the Bill he supposedly authored and the Tories removed that part before it went through. I still have difficulty understanding how a man who knocked up his 16 year old babysitter got* to be Justice Minister. The Canadian media has no teeth when it comes to the lack of character of our politicians.

Even if it is illegal, they are the government, what is going to stop them from doing it if they want to.

[Darcy88]

So, this whole thing isn't to protect us. The most useful thing I can think of is that it can be used to subvert leaders of dissenting groups. I imagine the "I have a dream" speech wouldn't have packed such a punch if everyone in the crowd knew about MLK's pregnant woman fetish (which could easily be discovered from his browsing history).

That's what the sheeple who say "you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong" fail to grasp. Or maybe they realize it but just don't care. The Espionage Act of 1917, ostensibly a program to eliminate German spies, was actually used to decimate the socialist leadership in America, as well as certain high profile trade union leaders. They'll use breaches of privacy on the internet to take out environmentalists, Occupy-type persons, and, if totalitarians ever assume government, anyone with a brain.

[qimissung]

Sometimes people are crazy, or stupid, or want to be famous, or have some other motivation for posting their plans online or sending them though email. Three months ago this guy went on 4chan and announced his plan to shoot up a mall, then he went out and did it a few minutes later.

Then again, the gov't monitors 4chan pretty heavily and they weren't able to stop him. For every person who says they're going to shoot up a public area and actually does it there are thousands more who say they're going to and don't, it's impossible to arrest them all. This whole "it's to protect you" argument is really flimsy when you consider how many people on the internet post things that could be a potential threat to someone, there are millions of "suspicious" posts every day.

So, this whole thing isn't to protect us. The most useful thing I can think of is that it can be used to subvert leaders of dissenting groups. I imagine the "I have a dream" speech wouldn't have packed such a punch if everyone in the crowd knew about MLK's pregnant woman fetish (which could easily be discovered from his browsing history).

Edit: also I agree with Cafolini that this is nothing new. I always assumed some cloak-and-dagger government group had access to public emails. Why/how wouldn't they?

So true. I think you're right. It must be to try to subvert dissension.

I just had to laugh at the outrage over Snowden. That's who they'll be going after for a while now. To me that shows their pitiful motives. Even when they started the whole "Homeland Security" it just seemed so painful and laughable at the same time. That was their big security measure-the re-naming of a government agency, a PR move you would think a child could see through. But no, the American public refused to quit being afraid of terrorism, the government encouraged "our" fears, and look what we have now. Whatever happened to "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?"

Lol, Lokasenna. That makes me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcK5gSRti4g

[OrphanPip]

Even if it is illegal, they are the government, what is going to stop them from doing it if they want to.

This is the Canadian government, our spy agency doesn't even have the ability to arrest people because they are not a police force. And the RCMP lost the ability to spy on people because they tortured some prisoners to death in Somalia in the 90s. I don't think they have the budget to monitor our emails even if they wanted to.

[JuniperWoolf]

This is the Canadian government, our spy agency doesn't even have the ability to arrest people because they are not a police force. And the RCMP lost the ability to spy on people because they tortured some prisoners to death in Somalia in the 90s. I don't think they have the budget to monitor our emails even if they wanted to.

That's actually a comforting thought.

The Canadian media has no teeth when it comes to the lack of character of our politicians.

Something tells me we really should have seen a lot more cracked-out Rob Ford footage long before now.

[*Classic*Charm*]

something tells me we really should have seen a lot more cracked-out rob ford footage long before now.

RIGHT?!?

I wonder if the Fords got to it first and bought it out.

[tonywalt]

I hope the CIA/FBI is not looking at facebook, because sufficed to say last time I checked every one was "AWESOME" (except for a mere splattering of people in the ''whatever'' status.