Six years ago today, in the wake of some of's revelations, I wrote: "Let's talk about what's legal, and what's right for a second."

"Should the government be able to digitally investigate us for our security? In certain instances, yes."


I continue: "But shouldn't we expect the same level of privacy of our digital communications and storage as we expect from information stored locally? Also yes."

That means, FISA act or no, secret courts or no, the suspects need to be alerted that they're being watched."

"The same goes if their data has been seized."

"You can only push this wiretapping metaphor so far, and I think that when it comes to stalking me digitally by seizing my *aaS 1's and 0's, that's when the line has been crossed."

Present tense now: I'm struck by how poorly this hot take has aged.

Knowing exactly how badly our constitutional rights are routinely violated, we voice activated wiretaps on centralized services mostly to turn off the lights without using our hands.

It's really sad how much comfort is a currency we humans will readily exchange for liberty.

It's up to us who know what underpins all of this to make it possible and ultimately easier to use censorship resistant tools than it is to use the tools we currently have.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!