drivebyacct2

Hahaha. Way too much credit is being given.

When even the people who ought to care - the techies that know better - buy into it, I think it's fair to characterize an overall sense of acceptance.

Sorry, I wasn't really agreeing with any of the GP comment - I think iOS7-UI was exactly what they needed. A very modern refresh and I think it's sharp (and I love Holo and WP8 has a very unique style certainly).

I don't like the background of CC myself, but I think that's actually because they're letting the hue of the homescreen icons below bleed through too much. It's "neat" but I think it's kinda visually gross :S

How many different refutations of "I have nothing to hide" have to be posted before it sinks in what a terrible stance that is? Or are you simply explaining the average person's inner response?

Hm, I'm really, really surprised. I'd like to hear the results for Google Now. I use it probably half a dozen times a day, though I probably only have to actively talk to it once or twice a day when I'm going somewhere out of the ordinary and need directions.

Except neither Android nor WP8 follow that assumption/conclusion.

Nope, that's the Quickstart guide. It's possible to do it without using Mozilla's servers. Someone just a couple weeks ago posted a writeup on how they did it themselves.

The last side basically says: "encrypted client side".

They're ubiquitous. They're an easy unique identifier. And they're free, as in cheap. Meaning they don't have to have any sort of relevant identity. I have dozens of email address and only two that are related to my real "identity".

Why? Nothing about it is remotely centralized and eventually it won't require ANY sort of server-side resources. The entire point is that you trust who you want to be your IdP

edit: never mind, reading the thread it's clear that few here have any idea what Persona is or how it works.

Yes. I mean, even 6 year old PHP articles get this right, don't serve files from the same place your executing code is running from.

public_html has specific connotations for a reason.

As long as they can subpoena the endpoint, it's mitigated.

If they can compromise/coerce/control a root CA, then everything is largely moot.

I 100% completely agree with you. Everything else aside, as I said elsewhere, I'm tired of being treated like a child and told to shut up and not question things. That's what repressive governments do. "Just trust us, we know what's best for your "safety"".

Would it even? Whose to say it would be followed?

[joke]Now the slide that needs to leak is the one that lists compromised root CAs.[/joke,sorta]

Not today.

It's surreal to watch all of this old stuff get drudged up here and elsewhere.

I almost wish I watched mainstream news to see how much of this depth is covered or if it's just PRISM and not anything about how bullshit FISA warrants are or how crazy insane National Security Letters are (and how many hundreds of thousands of them are issued)... OR that they regularly wiretap the internet.

Between:

- this (which we've known about)

- the new leaked slide that indicates they do massively, widely wiretap fiber

- PRISM (which I suspect were simply the dates that the companies brought up infrastructure to be able to quickly and easily comply with FISA warrants. Which means "direct access" is true, but it also means that "we were forced to make it easy to give the government what they want as soon as they need it")

They basically have real time access to HTTP data (and HTTPS if a CA is compromised or controlled by them [is it really even that crazy of a theory at this stage]). They also can get organized, categorized access to my data with a FISA warrant (please, read up, they are as rubber-stamp as they're referenced in these articles).

Sigh.

Oh, well, I wasn't under the impression deleting your account amounts to much of anything anywhere anyway.

Why on earth do you call out Skype? That's true of tons of services.

Or they simply know more than we do. Maybe they've gotten the answers to "Why?" that we want and that convinced them? That's the "conspiracy" that almost worries me more. Not that I hold any real faith in such a thought.

Huh? Even with WebRTC you need signaling. Unless you know your peer IP address AND neither end are behind a NAT.

They'd have to MITM SSL traffic largely.

Also, that's what they were doing for more traditional wiretaps and you should be sure that they have access to siphon off live traffic for analysis if they want.

Hmmm. What's a juicier target than Apple, Google, Micrsoft? And they've all been compromised by Chinese hackers before.

I wonder how well they background check all the people working on their new data facility in Utah.

How does this, in their response, not confirm the PRISM info in at least some way? Or am I meant to take this as "any confidential info is potentially dangerous"? And even then, are they admitting this is authentic confidential info?

>The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation.

>The article omits key information regarding how a classified intelligence collection program is used to prevent terrorist attacks and the numerous safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties.

And that's exactly the transparency we're interested in. Help establish a bit of trust, because right now I trust the least trustworthy person I know more than the NSA.

And their last defense is FISA/FISC and they're still pretending that only applies to foreign nationals? Or is "only meant to be used on... foreign nationals"?

>Politicians are so bad at making reassuring statements in cases like these that I wonder why they even try?

Wow, you're being nice to him. Was his first thought: "Oh something everyone seems to hate? Better tell them we've been doing it for AGES. That'll help, right?"

But my big question is: "Oh, you say 'the phone-data program has `worked to prevent` terrorist attacks.' Please, tell me more. With extensive details."

Oh NSLs, I'll be on my death bed with a six page rant about how much I hate you someday. (Old debate topic)

I'm not sure that PRISM==NSLs but I'm sure you're absolutely right that PRISM involves a gag.

Besides, these are largely non-statements by these companies. "No direct access" != "No access", etc.

Well, I mean, the scenario you're describing where a leader becomes a tyrant and is deposed of by their successor is basically a totalitarian dictatorship.

I think that's a bit of a (very large) stretch. I think the "President" and the military are separate enough in this country that we don't run a huge risk of "THE GOVERNMENT" (ie, a "leader" and militia to empower them) could or would act as a cohesive force against the US.

Usually when you see this, you see fractioned militia that support the next successor or what not.

>Yea. It was pretty crazy when the Secret Service sided with GW Bush and the Marines sided with Obama, and Bush made his last stand to retain the Presidency at the Oval Office. I don't look forward to when/if Obama is voted out of office...

I feel stupid. What are you talking about? Or is this a joke scenario or something? Sorry if I'm being daft.

"Civil liberties should be as big of an issue (if not bigger) during elections as the economy."

I laughed, because I can't even bring myself to make statements like that anymore.

I have a simple question:

If you're a terrorist, why would you use any of these pre-built services? There are so many ways to do point-to-point, encrypted at both ends...

I guess when I hear "Dragnet"... the only people I see getting swept into it is innocent people and really, really, really stupid terrorists.