Log in

Kim Dotcom wants to encrypt half of the Internet to end government surveillance

Sounds great to me !!!


  • Sterling Archer (Sweet) 2151 days ago

    Yeah, it would be great if this type of encryption were put into place. I don't know much about encryption; but I can tell you if it means more privacy, I'm game.

  • Joseph Barney 2122 days ago

    You'd have to make the encryption hacker proof. The government might spy on us but it's for better reasons than spies, blackhats, organized crime, cults and various criminals. The government won't kidnap me or my fam for ransom, they won't drain my bank account or steal my identity, and they won't kill me for criticizing them. Oh, and the government is the one keeping those things from happening to me. I'm not worried about the government but I am worried about those others. I value privacy but it's no good to me if I'm not able to enjoy it because I'm dead or kidnapped or robbed to the poor house.

  • Brian 2121 days ago

    I doubt anything is hacker proof. This Kim Dotcom guy is interesting. A government always spies and surveils their citizens for better 'intentions', but history shows how bad it can get when everyone just trusts them with this power and cheers everytime they expand on it. I'm a sceptic. I don't trust people with absolute power over us.

  • Joseph Barney 2117 days ago

    Very good point! Even if this current generation of government is trustworthy, who's to say that some generation down the line won't end up corrupt? I suppose there needs to be a balance. It's a cost-benefit thing. Is it more important to protect privacy or lives? Look at McVeigh and 9/11 which very likely could have been prevented if they spied properly. There's also instances, I agree, where the FBI goofed like recently with that genius programmer that committed suicide. He's not only a human being lost but a valuable technical asset. There's also the Russian guy that was tricked into coming here to get arrested, and I remember talking about "Free Dmitri" amongst friends and online. You know, what if government and citizen jointly worked together to protect us? I remember a Defcon podcast where it was a Fed panel and people were asking the Feds questions like if there were to be a cyberwar in the future, if they'd call on the community for help. A Fed responded saying that they'd try to handle it in-house first but if they needed help, they would definitely call on the hacker community to help. Now that's democracy in action!

  • Brian 2117 days ago

    I think all the countries we fight say the same thing: tourture is necessary.

    Luckily the founding fathers gave us guidance in these very difficult questions indeed:

    Benjamin Franklin said it in this many ways. I thought I shoud copy paste them all lol: 

    • They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    • They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    • Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

    • He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

    • He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

    • People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

    • If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.

    • Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    • He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

    • Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    • Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.