Forgot your password?

In the year since Snowden's revelations ...

Displaying poll results.
I have changed my security practices not a bit
  5810 votes / 37%
I have mildly upgraded my security practices
  5327 votes / 33%
I've seriously upgraded my security practices
  1675 votes / 10%
I've radically upgraded my security practices
  509 votes / 3%
I've gone plain-text only, just because.
  1408 votes / 8%
Snowden who?
  953 votes / 6%
15682 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In the year since Snowden's revelations ...

Comments Filter:
  • secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2014 @01:39PM (#47173385)

    Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jones_supa (887896)

      Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

      No, we didn't. Snowden's revelations have been a real eye-opener.

      • by fafalone (633739)
        Who's "we'?

        Snowden's revelations just gave me a chance to go around saying, "See I told you so! Who's the conspiracy nutjob now!"
        • by jones_supa (887896) on Friday June 06, 2014 @03:26AM (#47177603)
          See, right there. Without the Snowden's revelations, you would be just considered a "conspiracy nutjob". We didn't know how deeply Orwellian stuff was happening behind the scenes, most of people couldn't believe it.
      • by Reziac (43301) *

        I've known for sure since ~2003, when I overheard the owner of one minor ISP discussing the issue with the owner of another minor ISP, about how he'd been forced to tack a federal monitoring box onto his system. If it had trickled down to little hole-in-the-wall ISPs whose customers number in the mere hundreds, you can bet it was already well-established with the big providers.

        Back about 1997ish, word around was that the FBI had tried to get Earthlink to do the same with its email system, and Earthlink refu

    • by jkauzlar (596349)

      We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

      No. We knew it was a possibility, but we didn't know what was actually going on and so the gov't and press could dismiss techies as paranoid. More importantly, no one was talking about it, which is the really good thing to come out of all this.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Yeah, the ostriches finally heard, even with their head in the sand. There was still "proof" in the '90s. And those of us who listen have known for 20 years. Anyone claiming surprise is declaring their stupidity.
        • by jkauzlar (596349)

          Just like we know OJ Simpson did it, but we don't have a written confession. Now we have a written confession from the NSA. Time to convict.

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            With the NSA in the '90s we had witnesses of tap insertions. But the NSA said "nuh-uh" and the country believed the liars (well some/most did, not all).
    • by WillKemp (1338605)

      We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

      This stuff was going on in the 80s. But in those days it was phone tapping. There were computerised phone tapping systems by at least 1984. The police's system in London (UK) crashed during the miner's strike because everyone was talking about pickets.

    • Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

      Let's note how this statement would have been modded and responded to back when these revealtions were first publicized...

      Put the question in the context where acknowledging that Snowden's info was common knowledge among tech industry professionals in that area makes the respondent able to use their answer to demonstrate their own technical prowess...well...

      then of course the NSA was spying...i mean...we knew it back in 2006

      • Chelsea Manning, Aaron Schartz, Snowden...

        all apparently very technically skilled/knowledgable people, perfectly capable of contributing to tech/society...

        now either dead or in prison (yes, Snowden's not a free man in Russia)

        assuming altruistic intentions on all (again, Snowden...but let's assume) they've all been punished much too severely

        we, as a tech community, need to protect each other from going off the deep end

        we all knew what was technically possible when the internet first came into use, cell phone

  • Can't spell Snowden right, eh?

    The last option should be changed to Snowen who, to match the typo.

    Slashdot's editorial service at its best.

  • by KermodeBear (738243) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @01:58PM (#47173507) Homepage

    Anything I do on a network connected device is vulnerable to the NSA or other alphabet soup in some way. At the very least, the data is. As we have seen there is no real expectation of privacy; these guys are too deeply connected to everything that happens, they have too much data, and they sure as hell have enough smarts and computing power to decrypt whatever they want.

    I still use cash when possible, when given the choice I use very long keys, anything important is encrypted, but to be realistic if "da gub'mint" wants to get me there's little I can do. Heck, unplugging entirely and living in an isolated cabin out in the far reaches of Alaska probably means I'm automatically labeled a terrorist which would draw even more attention. And if for some reason someone wants to create false records, who is to stop them? They will wave their "state secret" flag around and you won't even be able to question them.

    So, realistically, there's not much one can do. Big Brother won. There's no way it will ever go away, either. Even if they say they will stop, or that they cannot defeat X, will you really believe them?

    • by rwa2 (4391) *

      Yeah, maybe it's because I grew up around the beltway and knew plenty of nice folks who worked for the NSA. I'm not really worried about them.

      Here are some things I've done to improve my security stance against things that I actually feel are more of a threat, though:

      * Upgraded OpenSSL on my box, so the script kiddies don't get in.
      * Don't announce that we're going on vacation on Facebook or Twitter, and I don't post pics until I get back home.
      * Keep my important docs and firearms and backups in a fire safe

      • by mlts (1038732)

        I've wondered about an ID system with a smart chip, except based around a certificate and trust model. For example, Alice's ID would have a cert (each cert has a different life span [1]) showing that she is over 21, has a valid driver's license, is a US citizen, is not a felon.

        At the bar, the card gets swiped, the cert shows she is over 21, so is allowed in. No birthdate needed.

        When going for a loan, there is a cert showing her FICO score is above a threshold, her income is above a certain amount, and she

        • The United States has lists to indicate that someone: "can not fly", "can not be employed", "should be put in jail", "should be killed", etc.

          When you go to a bar and get your ID scanned, the response returned from the government could be: "kill him".

    • by jmv (93421)

      It's all about cost. It costs resources to break keys or break into machines. If you increase the cost by 10x, then they can break only 1/10 of what they could originally break using the same budget.

    • by jkauzlar (596349)

      One thing you can do which they won't find out about in advance is invade Crimea.

    • by s.petry (762400)

      Big Brother won.

      You giving up is not the same thing as them winning. As the quote says, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.". Sure, it's a tiring fight that I have been in for probably longer than you. I can see why people give up after a while, but that is your choice and not their victory.

  • by cpghost (719344) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @02:15PM (#47173627) Homepage
    Basically, I was already in paranoia-mode, long before Snowden went public with his story (that stuff was partly known and published in James Bamford's books on the NSA, the rest of it was common knowledge among us sysadmins working in sensitive sectors). So, after careful evaluation of what has been published so far, I didn't see any reason to change anything security-wise.
    • by jkauzlar (596349)

      Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?

      • by Jeremi (14640)

        Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?

        Or perhaps you live in China, or Myanmar, or USA circa 2032, any other country where the government takes a decidedly 'proactive' approach towards managing the political behavior of the public?

      • by cpghost (719344)
        There are some companies out there who don't want to see their trade secrets being spied upon, and sold / given to competitors. That's my primary concern: industrial espionage, done by state actors on behalf of their local companies. Everything that helps keep those state actors (and private spying groups that exist too) at bay, reinforces the security barrier. Even protecting the privacy of those who work at said companies, helps to make them less blackmailable, and less open to secret services "suggestion
      • To provide more cover for those who are more likely to be oppressed. This "They probably won't oppress me, so it doesn't matter." mindset is nothing short of selfish.

        Besides that, you can't really predict when the government will decide to come after you. I'm sure the people who made those Twitter bomb jokes didn't think the government would see it, take them seriously, and then harass them, but they did.

  • Is it suggesting making things easier to mine since no-one needs to do OCR on images? Or that plain text tools are antiquated enough to be non-networked and therefore safer?
  • by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @04:39PM (#47174773) Homepage

    I'd rather not say.

  • I mostly used Kubuntu and Xubuntu before this anyway, but I no longer trust MS to not have gov't backdoors built-in. Yes, I know nothing is 100%, but I'm more comfortable using an OS that's open-source over one that's not.

  • Not changed a bit. I have always tried to use non-trivial passwords, keep them different on all accounts that matter. Scan for malware and virus. On things that must be secure, they are not online. They might be computerized, just not online.
  • There has never been a time when I thought the words "private" or "secure" applied to the Internet.
  • If you treat email as if it were a postcard that anyone can read, and you don't provide information on the interwebz that you wouldn't be willing to shout out on a street corner (SSN, credit card number, etc..) you're good. If you think any online security is actually secure against a dedicated attack, you're going to get pwned.

    If you're less concerned about "security" and more about "freedom of speech", the same rules apply. In this day and age, if you say something (via postcard, on a streetcorner, on the

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory


Forgot your password?