From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:49:47 +0100 Message-ID: <87bnyji4dw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87ha8f3jt1.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87ppn2qz0f.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87y51qcace.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874n4e3rkm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87txcdd6d0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wqh8n877.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87lhxocvfq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sirwmgd9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d2j0ck3q.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r47fn0br.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ob2jiffc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87lhxnmm0x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k3d7i9rt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87iosrmecr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391770188 14547 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2014 10:49:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 07 11:49:57 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0P-0006Vi-43 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:49:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40772 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0L-0002Pe-Qn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:49:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0I-0002PX-1e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:49:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0G-0007qP-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:49:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55687) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0G-0007qL-Lu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:49:48 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34630 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBj0F-00034P-SX; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:49:48 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62C4EE12E0; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:49:47 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87iosrmecr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:00:52 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169457 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > And since it is easiest to overstep authority if nobody notices or is > > allowed to take notice, the main overreach in practice is clandestine > > eavesdropping using generic tools that can be employed without requiring > > billable hours by specialists for particular cases. > > In case you hadn't noticed, we're in violent agreement on that last > point. > > My point in this thread is that I think there is good reason to > believe that availability of the "facilities"[1] Ted proposes is > likely to make it *easier* for the FBI/NSA to snoop on some people who > are *trying* as hard as they know how to be secure, while not really > improving available security over the status quo for anybody. General availability of facility is making dragnet snooping more expensive. More expense means it becomes harder to hide and justify. Nobody will likely be able to withstand a focused intense effort of law enforcement for arbitrary amounts of time. But that's not the point of a surveillance state. The point of a surveillance state is to proactively collect the dirt on everyone. The U.S.A. is almost broke, and diverting large parts of its national budget towards eroding privacy and civil liberties plays a significant part with that. Making it more expensive to run a surveillance state might be what it takes. > > Mind you, he's been standing on the shoulders of giants. Carthage > > was not razed in a day. > > Yeah, I know, I know. I give him credit for *being* black[2], but it > would seem that he's never had to live in fear of the cops the way my > black highschool classmates did. :-( > > [2] Yeah, I know it's bigoted but I still have a soft spot in my > heart for members of "oppressed minorities" who make it to the top > in spite of the glass ceiling. If you want to think in terms of racial stereotypes, he seems to fit better in the Mugabe administration than marching with Martin Luther King. At any rate, I disagree with your statement "it would seem that he's never had to live in fear of the cops the way my black highschool classmates did. :-(". How else would an ingrained fear of getting beaten up by the heavyweights express itself in politics? "I'll save my own hide, let all the rest be damned." is the current cornerstone of U.S. interior and foreign policies and yes, that's a choice consistent with fear. Pete Seeger died, and the old "And before I'd be a slave, I'll be buried in my grave, and go home, to my Lord, and be free." spiritual he popularized during the civil rights era is buried along with him. The only effective weapon one has against tyranny is numbers. If enough people say "no more snooping over me" and use effective encryption habitually, it becomes too expensive to target every one. -- David Kastrup