<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Angry.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/</link>
	<description>my semi-regular stream of consciousness</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam Nash</title>
		<link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Nash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 05:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=270#comment-79</guid>
		<description>I may be naive, but it seems obvious to me that given the nature of computer networks, that moving traffic over the largely open Internet was going to lead to something like this, eventually.

This seems worse than the plans under Clinton, although marginally so in my opinion.  We're just further along in understanding how to do this.

Talk Left covers this recently:
&lt;a href="http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html&lt;/a&gt;

Remember Gore's infamous position on the requirement for a "third key" for all truly secure digital encryption?

Until there is legislation/amendment(s) to define what is privacy, and where the line is, I think there is absolutely no chance that government will not drastically increase its level of passive surveillance on people.

Look at how easily the UK has adapted to constant, video-monitoring of public areas?  Exactly how long before facial recognition &#038; video networks make this a complete map of not just who you talk to, but where you go, and when?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I may be naive, but it seems obvious to me that given the nature of computer networks, that moving traffic over the largely open Internet was going to lead to something like this, eventually.</p>
<p>This seems worse than the plans under Clinton, although marginally so in my opinion.  We&#8217;re just further along in understanding how to do this.</p>
<p>Talk Left covers this recently:<br />
<a href="http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html" rel="nofollow">http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html</a></p>
<p>Remember Gore&#8217;s infamous position on the requirement for a &#8220;third key&#8221; for all truly secure digital encryption?</p>
<p>Until there is legislation/amendment(s) to define what is privacy, and where the line is, I think there is absolutely no chance that government will not drastically increase its level of passive surveillance on people.</p>
<p>Look at how easily the UK has adapted to constant, video-monitoring of public areas?  Exactly how long before facial recognition &#038; video networks make this a complete map of not just who you talk to, but where you go, and when?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Nash</title>
		<link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/#comment-5578</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Nash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 03:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=270#comment-5578</guid>
		<description>I may be naive, but it seems obvious to me that given the nature of computer networks, that moving traffic over the largely open Internet was going to lead to something like this, eventually.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This seems worse than the plans under Clinton, although marginally so in my opinion.  We're just further along in understanding how to do this.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Talk Left covers this recently:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Remember Gore's infamous position on the requirement for a "third key" for all truly secure digital encryption?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Until there is legislation/amendment(s) to define what is privacy, and where the line is, I think there is absolutely no chance that government will not drastically increase its level of passive surveillance on people.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Look at how easily the UK has adapted to constant, video-monitoring of public areas?  Exactly how long before facial recognition &#038; video networks make this a complete map of not just who you talk to, but where you go, and when?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I may be naive, but it seems obvious to me that given the nature of computer networks, that moving traffic over the largely open Internet was going to lead to something like this, eventually.</p>
<p>This seems worse than the plans under Clinton, although marginally so in my opinion.  We&#8217;re just further along in understanding how to do this.</p>
<p>Talk Left covers this recently:<br /><a href="http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html" rel="nofollow">http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013486.html</a></p>
<p>Remember Gore&#8217;s infamous position on the requirement for a &#8220;third key&#8221; for all truly secure digital encryption?</p>
<p>Until there is legislation/amendment(s) to define what is privacy, and where the line is, I think there is absolutely no chance that government will not drastically increase its level of passive surveillance on people.</p>
<p>Look at how easily the UK has adapted to constant, video-monitoring of public areas?  Exactly how long before facial recognition &#038; video networks make this a complete map of not just who you talk to, but where you go, and when?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Klep</title>
		<link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>Klep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 21:38:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=270#comment-78</guid>
		<description>The EFF has a class action suit against AT&#038;T for complying with this and similar requests from the NSA:

&lt;a href="http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The EFF has a class action suit against AT&#038;T for complying with this and similar requests from the NSA:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Klep</title>
		<link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/05/11/angry/#comment-5577</link>
		<dc:creator>Klep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 19:38:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=270#comment-5577</guid>
		<description>The EFF has a class action suit against AT&#038;T; for complying with this and similar requests from the NSA:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The EFF has a class action suit against AT&#038;T; for complying with this and similar requests from the NSA:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.299 seconds -->
