Here's a really good video of Bruce Schneier (a well known security technologist) speaking at M.I.T. in February 2014 discussing
the NSA surveillance and what we can do about it. It's 54 minutes long, so try to watch it when you can. He speaks for about 39
minutes and takes audience questions the remainder of the time.
He discusses the NSA code names, some of how they inject, implant, and trick computers into giving up their identities. He also talks about how they
are working with backbone providers, telecom providers, and other agencies/government. And of course, discusses things that we can do about the
spying, especially bulk data collection and increased encryption (to name a few).
He also points out that this is largely a political problem BUT we are past the point where simple legal interventions can
He says the most fundamental and important issue for the information society to solve is how do we design system to benefit people
as a whole while simultaneously protecting people individually?
Admins/Mods: I tried to search ATS to make sure it had not already been uploaded. If I missed it in my searches "Bruce Schneier," "NSA
Surveillance," "Bruce Schneier MIT (and M.I.T.)," I apologize.
edit on 5-6-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)
5-6-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)
Very interesting address; I particularly like Schneier's closing words regarding how to respond to the argument that ubiquitous surveillance is a
necessary, if unfortunate, 'cost' when considering it acts towards ensuring the nation's relative safety from future terrorist acts (such as those
that occurred on 9/11):
"The counter argument to fear is indomitability... that we are stronger than this, that we are better than this, that we don't have to stoop to this
kind of stuff. That we can respect our laws, our country, our liberties, our ideals, and still beat the bad guys. That we don't have to subvert
everything we hold [dear] in order to beat them."
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.