Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Nov 2013 23:46 UTC
Internet & Networking

"We can end government censorship in a decade," Schmidt said during a speech in Washington. "The solution to government surveillance is to encrypt everything."

Setting aside the entertaining aspect of the source of said statement, I don't think encryption in and of itself is enough. Encryption performed by companies is useless, since we know by now that companies - US or otherwise - are more than eager to bend over backwards to please their governments.

What we need is encryption that we perform ourselves, so that neither governments nor companies are involved. I imagine some sort of box between your home network and the internet, that encrypts and decrypts everything, regardless of source or destination. This box obviously needs to run open source software, otherwise we'd be right back where we started.

Is something like that even possible?

Thread beginning with comment 577270
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by MOS6510
by WereCatf on Fri 22nd Nov 2013 08:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Isn't the government elected by the people and representing the interests of the people?


Since when? Governments in all their various forms have always been about enforcement of the views and ideas of the elite running them; you raise certain people on a pedestal if they aren't there already and they'll proceed to strengthen that pedestal with fences, turrets and traps.

I think we should always try and make systems and communications more secure, but it's rather strange and a rather unwanted situation that we should be protecting us against people we choose to protect us.


In most cases you don't choose anyone, it's an illusion. Votes are easy to manipulate and you're never actually given the choice of choosing anyone you'd like, you're only given the option of choosing from a group of people already chosen for you. Are you really being given a total freedom to choose as you see fit if you're being told that you can only choose from a given set of choices?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 22nd Nov 2013 08:18 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

How you describe it is what it is in reality, I just don't think we should just accept that and I accept my idea is both naive and unrealistic given the history of mankind so far.

But then we at least should protect ourselves with a feeling that we should't be and this is wrong and not protect ourselves just accepting that governments, politicians and generally people in charge don't have our best interests high on their priority list.

Reply Parent Score: 3