tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4607185345233795483.post20016190761432953..comments2023-05-26T02:27:04.709-07:00Comments on Alanlightenment: Alan Lighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01344529284517184183noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4607185345233795483.post-76492713029843985692013-06-30T21:16:55.519-07:002013-06-30T21:16:55.519-07:00Thank you for the comment.
I would reply that the...Thank you for the comment.<br /><br />I would reply that the chief issue is politics, with something reserved for human nature.<br /><br />First, the security agencies are often in conflict with politicians, many of whom have few skills other than getting elected. These politicians are often under the delusion that they can stop something simply by exerting more force, and even if they know better they pretend it is so in order to keep getting elected - because much of the electorate believes in this method. Therefore, neither politicians nor the security apparatus can afford to tell the public the truth because a majority of the public will not believe them and will punish them for it.<br /><br />Second, there are politics going on even within the security agencies - and although most of these agents are intelligent as pertains to their specialties, many have tunnel vision and have a hard time seeing the bigger picture.<br /><br />The other factor is human nature - and the history of computing has shown that most people do not take serious measures to protect themselves online until they have seen the dangers of not doing so. This does not just apply to protecting information from infiltrators, but even to making regular backups of important information.<br /><br />It is true that the use of anonymizing networks and encryption will be adopted worldwide, but it will not make much difference to spying on our enemies because our enemies have ALREADY adapted. Our intelligence agencies have so much data coming in that they have difficulty dealing with it all, but the fact that the data is there opens them up to criticism when they cannot pick that needle out of the haystack. If anonymizing networks become commonplace the security agencies can then concentrate on other methods that are known to be more effective (such as human intelligence and targeted surveillance using other means) without being distracted by demands to look for a needle in a haystack.<br /><br />I hope that answers your question, but feel free to ask more questions.Alan Lighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01344529284517184183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4607185345233795483.post-43089179328524417772013-06-30T19:11:03.378-07:002013-06-30T19:11:03.378-07:00Alan I would like to thank you for taking the time...Alan I would like to thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed article about a subject I do not really understand. I enjoyed reading it and learned one or two things in the process!<br /><br />However I have difficulty following your logic at some parts. Specifically you mention "...intelligence agents are not all stupid. Most of them are pretty smart”. Sure I can accept that. <br /><br />Now here is where I think you contradict yourself. If these agent are smart, why not spend the money in their budget to develop, educated and disseminate programs to the public that "…harden the information infrastructure". But this is not what we are seeing. You argue they are afraid of leaks/malpractice within their ranks ("They don't want rogue agents...Not if they're smart, they don't"). Their fears have been to an extent realized by Snowden.<br /><br />The way I see it either they are not smart, or not acting smart since they are not really developing these encryption/anonymity programs. I think it would also stand true that if these programs were developed and widely used within the US, they would also be used all around the world. How would you then gather intelligence from your friends and enemies?<br /><br />Or it could also be that the purpose of the system is just too important not to develop it.<br /><br />Having a play-by-play picture of large chunk of the world’s communication is an extremely useful intelligence gathering/reviewing tool. The arguments for it are almost impossible to counter. Our enemies have it. Our enemies are developing it. Our enemies might (or might not) develop it so we must develop it. Why not develop it, we can afford it. Or to boil it down to a few words FEAR and UNCERTAINTY.<br /><br />If uncle Sam wanted me to encrypt/anonymize my data/communication, he would have ordered Microsoft/Mozilla/Google to do so on my behalf. I see no evidence that he has done so.<br /><br />What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4607185345233795483.post-76624117892149072013-06-15T20:38:39.316-07:002013-06-15T20:38:39.316-07:00Smart Alan, very smart. Thanks for the enlightenme...Smart Alan, very smart. Thanks for the enlightenment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com