Snowden and the Fate of the Internet As a Global Network 505
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "John Naughton writes in the Guardian that the insight that seems to have escaped most of the world's mainstream media regarding the revelations from Edward Snowden is how the US has been able to bend nine US internet companies to its demands for access to their users' data proving that no US-based internet company can be trusted to protect our privacy or data. 'The fact is that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are all integral components of the US cyber-surveillance system,' writes Naughton. 'Nothing, but nothing, that is stored in their "cloud" services can be guaranteed to be safe from surveillance or from illicit downloading by employees of the consultancies employed by the NSA.' This spells the end of the internet as a truly global network. 'It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.' Naughton adds that given what we now know about how the US has been abusing its privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable. 'Why would you pay someone else to hold your commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared against your wishes?' writes Neelie Kroes, vice-president of the European Commission. 'Front or back door – it doesn't matter – any smart person doesn't want the information shared at all. Customers will act rationally, and providers will miss out on a great opportunity.'"
Re:Telegraph: They don't tap than service! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, while you can encrypt to your hear's content, how do you pass people you want to communicate to securely a private key to encrypt and decrypt with?
You don't, you pass them a public key, and you keep the private key to yourself. You encrypt with your private key, they decrypt with your public key; they encrypt with your public key, you decrypt with your private key. This is the wonderfully symmetrical maths of pair-of-primes cryptosystems.
Re:What's the benefit of privacy from the governme (Score:5, Informative)
You should never, ever talk to police. [youtube.com]
EVER. [kirkpiccione.com]
FYI, when someone's being arrested and the cops tell them, "you have a right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you ," they mean it literally.
Re:Telegraph: They don't tap than service! (Score:5, Informative)
And if you want to make sure that one and only one recipient can receive your message, you encrypt with your private key, then encrypt with the recipient's public key. They decrypt with their private key, then decrypt with your public key. To respond to you and only you, they encrypt with their private key, then encrypt with your public key. You decrypt with your private key, then with their public key.
PGP, kids. It's a wonderful thing. (Or GPG, if you're excessively fond of a particular open source license.)