_qbxp

So the cascading cypher options (AES-Serpent-Blowfish) for VeraCrypt volumes are less safe than a simple AES encrypted volume?

Serious question. I know nothing about crypto, just assumed "more is better, but slower".

I've wanted to setup my router with my VPN, but the only thing stopping me is that, AFAIK, some services won't work with most big VPN services - like Netflix.

I use iVPN and can't stream Netflix while connected.

If you host your own VPN on a CPA, couldn't the authorities simply link your VPN IP (the VPS IP) to you via billing? Or am I not understanding how it works?

I followed the Snowden leaks only from MSM sites, so I know little of the details. Most of the comments thus far are "there's nothing you can do."

Can somebody explain in more depth whether this is likely true, or an over reaction, and why?

Is there literally no way to stop the NSA from snooping? What if I built a laptop from multiple separate components ordered from different websites or purchased from different B&M stores using heavily tumbled bitcoin and ordered to several different addresses or PO boxes from a public library, encrypt all of the drives, boot Tails from a flash drive, use a yubikey or some other physical authentication method in addition to passwords, and never connect the laptop to the internet (remove the Ethernet and WiFi cards)? Put some dynamat in the case, just to avoid some type of fancy-ass soundwave-based snooping... maybe even throw some thermite activated by 5 or 10 failed password attempts. Oh, and a super-silent keyboard to avoid password grabbing via the sound the keys make. And a pop-up visor to avoid people looking behind your shoulder.

I think the idea is that an artificial means of creating a diverse workforce will allow people in traditionally disadvantaged populations earn decent salaries so that they can live in decent neighborhoods, and therefore send their kids to decent schools, then to decent colleges, then to decent jobs, where they can have kids and send them to decent schools ... eventually leading to the point to where that population does not need artificial means of creating a diverse workforce anymore.

Having grown up in an incredibly heterogeneous global environment, I personally believe diversity is good to have just because it helps break down the innate (my opinion) desire to stick to ones own group/type, which is often the source of much conflict in the world. I can't back that up with facts, just my opinion. I genuinely feel that I am a kinder/more productive/more flexible human being for having grown up in a very diverse environment. It's hard for me to explain why I think diversity just for the sake of diversity is absolutely a positive thing. At some point I'll have to hash it out and do some research.

Tangentially related to this - what if there was a major Google information leak, and a bunch of people's lives were unleashed on the net? Think about an Android user (me), who has their 1) google searches, 2) photos, 3) voice searches, 4) location history, 5) phone calls/sms, 6) email, 7) time/date of what apps you've opened, 8) contacts, 9) grocery lists/notes, 10) tasks/reminders, 11) calendar events - practically everything about me - stored with Google. If enough people's information were released, it could be almost a social upheaval.

Beyond just keeping my data out of that ecosystem, I sure as hell hope Google has some serious talent to keep my data safe from outsiders, and insiders wanting to make a splash. I mean, I obviously trust them to some degree. But it's a scary prospect to think what would happen if an enormous trove of Google data were ever leaked.

I agree with you in general. My issue with this line of thinking for policy decisions, is that I personally believe relying solely on objective probability theory to associate people with _______, without looking at the larger picture, and then building policies from that, could exacerbate the reason the association is being payed attention to in the first place.

Let's say theoretically, that people who wear red shirts are objectively more likely to commit a crime. Policies are made such that people with red shirts are targeted for extra policing. People with red shirts who are not criminals feel discriminated and overly watched, and because of that, generate a resentment against society and (I admit this is a jump), ultimately end up with a higher disposition towards committing crimes. And then it just goes on ad infinitum.

So in some situations, I would argue that society benefits from ignoring these objective probabilities entirely, if there's evidence that taking action based on them could cause downstream negative consequences.

This, along with Sessions who sided with the FBI in the San Bernadino case, makes me very worried about the future of online privacy and communications encryption.

Can somebody please allay my fears. Besides the EFF, where can I donate to have most impact in terms of preventing the requirement of government backdoors in consumer hardware or software?

I've had PIA, AirVPN, and now iVPN. Definitely a fan of iVPN. They are organizational members of the EFF (for what it's worth), and their service has been the fastest I've used thus far. A bit pricey though.