Is this their most potent possibility to counter true privacy?
Except they’re not smart like that.
It’s not the slow moving govt that will ever be able to pose any threat to safe / it’s users, but instead it is hackers
Too many ways around it.
And if compromised systems become ‘ubiquitous’ then we are all aware of it and it creates huge market demand for security and privacy on the ‘fringe’.
Plus if govt can key-log everything then so can cyber criminals, that would be a nightmare for the top of the pyramid as much as the bottom.
Whatever ideas they come up with the market will always come up with alternatives and workarounds; where there is demand there will always be a supply.
I don’t think there has ever or will ever be a way for govt to effectively combat ‘privacy’. Hopefully things like SAFE can make it very clear that they are fighting a losing battle and they will stop trying, but that might be optimistic
What if the US intitutes law that demands that keystroke logging be hardware-installed on all Internet-connecting devices, that the output go to the NSA/NRO (?) via their proprietary, encrypted protocol, that all routers are wired to drop any connection that doesn’t conform to this protocol?
OK, I’m sure there are ways to deal with this, but a huge segment of the users would still be locked into this surveillance model, leaving the ones which somehow attempt to circumvent all this as a much, much smaller portion for the spooks to concentrate on. They also could add little gimmicks in the way of checksums and traffic analysis algorithms to trigger “special attention” without users realizing.
Add Draconian penalties as “statutory terrorist” for anyone circumventing this surveillance scheme and people in general would be running their own software to make sure nothing was installed on their device attempting to circumvent gov’t surveillance.
Add screen/printer/audio output capturing devices similarly.
OK, I’ve given it my best at being Devil’s Advocate. Obviously I’m not technicallly competent so don’t throw flames at me…
They already had to cut back on some planned stuff due that thing called the constitution, and I doubt this would even be suggested as a law. Unlike Australia they actually have some rights in the constitution. In Australia they can legislate anything against our rights.
IMO…There have been many attempts by some of the US supreme court justices to interpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution as ’ how they think the original authors would have meant their writings in the new world.’ An example of some justices thoughts are ‘when this was written they couldn’t of even imagined an internet so the ‘N’ amendment does not have merits over the internet.’ This is a very big issue in America and I believe the previous open US supreme court justice spot helped president Trump get elected by people that do not like him but wanted a conservative justice appointed, which ended up happening. US rights are constantly being challenged. IMO I think when SAFE launches , law suites, might try to change some laws but for the foreseeable 20 years the Supreme Court is tilted to the conservatives and will likely follow the letter of the laws.
I appreciate your thoughts. I just think that the day the US intelligence community wakes up and finds it can no longer monitor a vast and growing swath of the Internet, all bets will be off as to how they see themselves restrained by the Constitution, due procedure or anything else (other than technical capabilities).
Picture a wounded lion backed into a corner…
If the US IC were to do something, it’s much more likely they’d run a bunch of phishing campaigns to get people to give up their credentials to them unknowingly. After all, they don’t want people to know they are watching. It kind of defeats the purpose.
Since they wouldn’t be doing anything “nefarious” like stealing resources, most people would never notice their credentials are compromised.
Picture a wounded, toothless and clawless lion imo
What can they do?
Legislation won’t help. Driving anything underground has always resulted in it flourishing. I use the same example every time, but there were more speak-easies per capita under prohibition than there are licensed establishments today.
If SAFE really does give us total anonymity and privacy then any laws they make are entirely pointless and any publicity is good publicity. If they can’t possibly know that I’m using it then what do I care what laws they make about it? At the end of the day plenty of stuff is illegal today, but it all still happens in the real and digital worlds. The state has never been effective at controlling the people, that’s why they always end up in this spiral towards an Orwellian dystopia. The more control they try to maintain the more they realise how little control they have and the more people rail back against it.
Personally I think the state will realise they need SAFE as much as citizens do. It may take a few years, but countries like the US have infiltrated critical infrastructure in dozens of nations (mainly allies). They can turn the lights off or wreak all kinds of havoc everywhere from Norway to Thailand. I don’t think many states like having that kind of leverage held against them. I’d imagine a new data paradigm and a new level of security would go down quite well once they are over the shock of having to surrender to drugs and piracy - inevitable imo.
EDIT: undeleted as requested
That was a good comment. I wish you’d undelete it