I hope ondelette, KB, or Arne chime in on that thought. I could display my towering ignorance of the issue by trying to describe why it might be not much of a solution. Eg, IIRC, there was an individual in Boulder, CO who had developed an encryption package that was nearly impossible to de-encrypt. IIRC, he couldn't bring it to market because relevant agencies didn't have - or, might not be able to develop - an encryption key. But that was years and years ago - I'm not sure where the situation is now. My guess is the most commonly available encryption packages are fairly easily deciphered by someone determined to de-code the message?

MOst all computer programs are Windows, Linux, ancient DOS--how hard would it be for programmers to write some new programs on their own and sell them for computer-users. after all Windows is the universal application that probably enables the encription of emails...

I keep thinking of the law of physics-for every force there is an equal and opposite force.

While one may not think of soundwaves/freqencies as a "force" of the electromagnetic spectrum-they are. Maybe we just haven't found that "opposite" force yet-and may altogether stop a call from going through-which of course would be counterproductive to a phone call! But maybe from the state level to somehow be able to jam/scramble once it leaves a states border. In addition they could also set up their own billing system for telecoms-to keep state records within the state.

I sense much despair in posters here who want to have the problem solved and see the Democratic complicity in it. DUh.

We now know this-so it's time we organize at state levels to contest it.Should also petition for recall elections of those sellout Dems (Lieberman would be my first target).

I don't know how I know-but I know(ok, I do-but I'd rather not get into it)....things WILL get better people!

That's not to say things can't get worse before they get better-but they will in the end get better-may just take a year or so.The best way to ensure this is to pay close attention to Presidential politics-and start there.

As usual, dead-on and depressing. But the most striking thing about the sorry place we have reached is only implied in your post.

You write:

This doesn't mean there is a complete erosion of freedom equal to all of those societies. Free speech still basically thrives; we elect our leaders; and individuals retain a fair amount of autonomy in their personal choices.

In the bogeyman totalitarian states of yore, the kind of wholesale dismantling of the rule of law that took place would have been impossible absent the muzzling of the intelligentsia. Stalin and Hitler and Mao had to jail or threaten to jail folks like you in order to bully everyone into obedience.

I would argue that we are now in a far more dangerous place: they don't have to threaten any of us, because hoi polloi are so opiated by Britney's knickers and America's Next Top Bimbo and the other inanity that makes up our REAL national dialog that the theft of our Constitution (and of fair elections) can be pulled off in broad daylight.

In short, the dazzling feat the Bush team has accomplished is the creation of an autocracy in which free speech exists, but is without consequence. We shout and scream and beg our fellow citizens to give a damn about the end of the rule of law -- actions that would have sent us all to the Gulag or worse in past surveillance states. But they need not bother with jailing you or any of the rest of us. They can let us pull the fire alarm, because they have so numbed and dumbed down the nation that they are confident that no one will respond.

In the dystopia of Fahrenheit 451, books had to be burned. In ours, they can be safely ignored, because the citizenry is functionally (and willfully) illiterate.

ever read your phone bill-with all of the extra charges attached to them. They aren't paying these outsourced companies out of thier own pockets-it's being passed on. Why not challenge them on "taxation without representation" and make them explain these charges-and how they took it upon themselves to make the decison to outsource to other companies without letting customers know.

Surveillance is also targeted to those extra evil people who look at naked bodies. Defilers of Jesus!

See, shoots_self_242_times_a_day has it right when she says Bush breaks the law for the good of the country, not to get a BJ because that just feels good.

Calling it 'Illegal Surveillance' just sounds bad but it's really good for you, for god, and for your country. You just don't know it because you are not as smarter as George Bush is.

(just lost my lunch)

It is a play with Grandsons day.

I love the snow and sledding today.

The ice makes the hill slicker and fast.

It’s zoom, zoom until the fingers don’t last.

You, Bop, probably sleep in your long underwear?

Then read Glenn and try not to swear.

Because tender granddaughter ears.

Have time before they join our fears.

>none of the presidential candidates (other than Chris Dodd and Ron Paul) demonstrating the slightest concern over any of it

I expect the MSM to pretend Kucinich doesn't exist, but it's profoundly depressing when you do. See:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=76693

PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is readily available for all platforms, but gaining public trust and general acceptance for it is another issue.

People won't use PGP unless it becomes ubiquitous, but it won't become generally used unless people need it to communicate. This is an example of a "deadlock." Maybe if Microsoft makes encryption standard, and embeds it into their software. It would then become exactly as trusted as Windows.

Also, the only way to send encrypted mail via a public-key system is to have repositories of keys. Who will operate them? The government? Microsoft?

Even with a trusted authority in charge of the keys, the security is limited by the physical security of your systems. Think the NSA couldn't crack your Windoze box? Assuming that Microsoft hasn't put in back-door entries and that the NSA doesn't know about them.

In my opinion, encryption is useful to keep your kids out of your porn collection, or your parents out of your email, and maybe your business competition out of your finances, but it won't keep the NSA out of anything.

I suspect that as soon as a significant fraction of the internet traffic goes encrypted, there will be a push to make encryption that the NSA can't crack illegal. There was already at least one attempt at back-door-ing the available encryption.

The effort to do this evaporated a few years back, simultaneously with a huge build-up of computational power in the NSA, and a huge ramp up of money sent to contractors to handle internet surveillance. Probably coincidental, I bet.

This is a cart-before-the-horse issue. First, force Congress to stand up for the law and the rights of citizens. After that, you can worry about encryption if you still want to.