@luxagraf, good link, can't find much there to take issue with (other than some of it being too low level so as to turn dangerous, e.g. some Android VPN apps are actually malware). I would recommend Lastpass if the alternative is not having a password manager. (everything I read says encrypt/decrypt is local, so what is your complaint? I recall some vulnerabilities in the extension perhaps..)
> that level of attention
I mean for the gov to come after you with the capacity to thwart everything in the link you shared... You'd have to be running a darknet market or something. Again, as I have said in each of my posts, this is changing (see below).
Riggerjack wrote:
Yeah. Ask Randy Weaver about that. If an ex ranger in his own private Idaho can't defend himself, what chance do you think you have?
This isn't new. The feds have had a blank check since at least Prohibition.
I don't think that's a great example, sounds more like old-school police work. Not sure it was that expensive to deal with him (well... at least the salaries of some number of agents); he had public records pointing straight to his location. Osama Bin Laden, Ross Ulbricht, Angela Merkel on the other hand..
Riggerjack wrote:
This isn't new. The feds have had a blank check since at least Prohibition.
I suspect they don't sign many of those for domestic espionage. Granted they have invested in the last decade or two in "wide net surveillance" technology and similar.
That and recent moves of sharing all that data with more organizations are why the realistic threat is increasing (it's not just that the NSA could catch you... it's that the NSA _will_ monitor you and the other agencies can get that data from NSA.. see parallel construction). To my knowledge this information sharing is limited, for now, to all the intel agencies (e.g. FBI, DEA, DOE, Army/Navy/AF, Department of the Treasury (IRS), etc). So now, for example, the IRS has some capabilities of the NSA at their disposal.. Additionally, maybe the information sharing continues to expand e.g. sharing that data with more orgs or more local government orgs. And of course this means the NSA's data's attack surface is growing.
Of course I agree the best thing to do is to do nothing wrong.. but as @luxagraf points out, "You just have to be doing something the state doesn't want you to do" and you yourself say "we have enough rules and regulations that anyone who thinks they can comply with them all, is either deluding themselves, or sedated." And of course the NSA's data's attack surface is growing and all that data may no longer be confined to the government orgs, who they themselves have a sorry history of access control to this particular data.