Bruce Schneier is angry, and he should be. From his post:
Indeed. Not to mention it's beyond ridiculous to even attempt. Even if it could be done (and it can't be), the surveillance would be limited to the US. Contrary to what our President might think, there are no "Internets," just one "Internet." As soon as a single packet went across a border or an ocean, we would then need to either consult with the myriad of foreign countries involved or resort to spying on their networks as well. Plus, encrypting email and instant messaging is incredibly easy and freely available. Any terrorist organization worth a nickel could encrypt all digital communications in a day without spending a single cent.
In a Jan. 21 New Yorker article, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell discusses a proposed plan to monitor all -- that's right, all -- internet communications for security purposes, an idea so extreme that the word "Orwellian" feels too mild.
Indeed. Not to mention it's beyond ridiculous to even attempt. Even if it could be done (and it can't be), the surveillance would be limited to the US. Contrary to what our President might think, there are no "Internets," just one "Internet." As soon as a single packet went across a border or an ocean, we would then need to either consult with the myriad of foreign countries involved or resort to spying on their networks as well. Plus, encrypting email and instant messaging is incredibly easy and freely available. Any terrorist organization worth a nickel could encrypt all digital communications in a day without spending a single cent.
Schneier concludes with this:
The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
Well put.
