# Gmail and Skype alternatives



## freesbies (Oct 7, 2013)

After a long time using Google Mail services to send and receive mails and Skype to chat with family and friends, I need good alternatives to protect my privacy with my folks and family. Google has been my choice for mailing services, although I think there's a better way of securing my data and keeping privacy over my e-mails.

I have recently been using IRC chat rooms to talk about projects with people on the Internet, but I can't figure out a good alternative to replace Microsoft's Skype to chat in a safe and reliable way with my folks.

I searched for a while and the XMPP protocol combined with Pidgin (Jabber, who developed this protocol, won't accept registration at this time because they are moving their database to a new machine) seems a good secure alternative to Skype and for Gmail I can't find something that fulfills my needs.

What mail and chat service do you use? If so, why? :stud


----------



## zspider (Oct 7, 2013)

net-p2p/retroshare. It's hard to convince people to use it and it drags in Qt with it, but it allows for secure IM and message services as well as file sharing.

As for the email, you would have to find a paid service committed to protecting your privacy, obviously most webmail providers can't guarantee you that.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 7, 2013)

As an alternative to Skype you can give Linphone a try. It exists in the FreeBSD ports collection as net/linphone. On the subject of alternatives for Gmail, I totally agree with @zspider's comment. A good start is to check out the email encryption list to know some of the available providers (e.g. Lavabit was shutdown).


----------



## Pushrod (Oct 8, 2013)

If you want *true* email privacy, you are going to need to colocate a server of your own. In any other case, there is an admin that is not you who has access to the machine and thus the data on it.


----------



## kpa (Oct 8, 2013)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> If you want *true* email privacy, you are going to need to colocate a server of your own. In any other case, there is an admin that is not you that has access to the machine and thus the data on it.



Even that can not guarantee that the mails that you receive can not be read by outsiders. The SMTP protocol defaults to unencrypted transfer and you can not really force the sending party to use TLS encryption because the vast majority of  MTAs have no support for TLS transport when the MTA acts as a client.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 8, 2013)

You can try checktls.com to verify that  an email address uses TLS for secure transport. Also read STARTTLS extension for more details about how works the TLS email tests.


----------



## kpa (Oct 8, 2013)

Yes you can check which MTAs can use TLS but how are you going to force everyone who wants to send email to you to use an ISP or mail service that supports TLS?


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 8, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> Yes you can check which MTAs can use TLS but how are you going to force everyone who wants to send email to you to use an ISP or mail service that supports TLS?



Yep, that's another question not relative to trust or not on the latest improvements of the MTAs. If they don't convince you, it's quite simple to stop using their services. Implanting a unique large-scale awareness was never easy on the IT land, due its pluripotentiality factor


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 8, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> Yes you can check which MTAs can use TLS but how are you going to force everyone who wants to send email to you to use an ISP or mail service that supports TLS?



Install a Postfix MTA on your home base, and put among all the other pertinent TLS settings in /usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf the following:


```
smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt
```

This would refuse any none TLS connection attempt.

Of course this would mean, that you can't receive any non-TLS messages for your secured account. The sender would receive a "Message delivery failure notice" with a brief problem description, code 550.

My experience is that the servers of all my peers that I care of, can use TLS. For new peers there is the risk that they use outdated mailing systems, and unfortunately it happens too often that people do not understand the 550 notice. Anyway, I run that risk, and for those people I maintain a less-secured/restricted account.

Another problem that cannot be controlled by any restrictions on your own server is non-TLS connections of intermediate hops.

There are also advanced technics of TLS message interception by a MITM if he provides fake certificates to your or to any intermediate server. Here comes-in handy another big advantage of the own e-mail server, by that it can hold for the whole family and/or private community secured-1-hop e-mail accounts.

By using such accounts, you could discuss with your mother the mixing recipe for producing in her stainless steel pressure cooker the ultimate subnuclear-antiparticle-higgs-singularity-bomb (in plain: Baked Bean Soup), and no SSS (Secret Service Spy) in the entire multiverse would have a chance to intercept this conversation.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 8, 2013)

Hi @rolfheinrich, 

Thats make sense. So it's better to live with that inconvenience and not filter the non-TLS messages, than to lose some trusted deliveries. IMHO, this should be applied in some specifics cases as you said.  As protocol I prefer to continue using GnuPG to encrypt messages, for me that is more than enough.


----------



## KenGordon (Oct 8, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> (e.g. Lavabit was shutdown).


I suppose some of the folks here have heard the Lavabit story? I found it to be extremely interesting... and scary.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 8, 2013)

Sure, I read a bit about the Lavabit shutdown just because it was splashed for the Snowden Case. No wonder for this reason 

Anyway, I think this matter should be treated in another *Off-Topic* thread. In fact, there are already some other topics about this issue.


----------



## sossego (Oct 8, 2013)

Do some further researching. 
You always have the choice of setting up your own mail server.
Skype has some very crappy code.


----------



## sossego (Oct 8, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> Sure, I read a bit about the Lavabit shutdown just because it was splashed for the Snowden Case. No wonder for this reason
> 
> Anyway, I think this matter should be treated in another *Off-Topic*. In fact, there are already some or other topic around this issue.


His post is relative to this subject. Some people are working on an alternative to email. The Lavabit founder is one of them. Google is an alternative to Skype.


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 9, 2013)

I'm surprised the Lavabit owner was willing to open Snowden's email up for $3K.


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 9, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> Thats make sense. So it's better live with that inconvenient and not filter the non-TLS messages, than lose some trusted deliveries. IMHO, this should be applied in some specifics cases as you said.  As protocol I prefer to continue using GnuPG to encrypts messages, for me is more than enough.



Hi @cpu82,

I am still in the process of sorting out all the notices that I read and all the lessons that I learned in the past few month about multiple threads from all sort of interested parties on citizens privacy. However, I came already to a couple of conclusions, and I keep-on installing, adapting, and fine tuning the counter measures. That said, eventually I may ease the requirements so clients can use TLS but may choose to not:


```
smtp_tls_security_level = may
```

The number of none-TLS aware clients is decreasing anyway.

In addition I have still my doubts about the integrity of the TLS-PKI, and TLS may be nothing more than snake oil for the crowd. So, perhaps it may be really better to encrypt/decrypt messages directly at the source/destination instead of or in addition to transport level encryption that may break at any hop.

I will evaluate GnuPG for my Mac OS X client. Thank you for the hint.


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 9, 2013)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> I'm surprised the Lavabit owner was willing to open Snowden's email up for $3K.



Was he? That part is new for me.


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 9, 2013)

Yes. There's an article online about how Lavabit sent the FBI an invoice for $3K and they turned him down saying it was too much. Which is funny when you compare Halliburton gets to keep the $6M they over charged.


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 9, 2013)

There's a redacted invoice online where Ladar Levinson estimated ~$3K for accessing Snowden's email account and the FBI said it wasn't justified.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 9, 2013)

Thanks for your clarification, @rolfheinrich. I note your useful tip, it is possible I may need to use it in the near future. Regarding GnuPG, I highly recommend it. A common question on which is the preferred algorithm for signing and encrypting with GnuPG could make you doubt at first. You can choose between RSA and DSA/DSA-2, of course it supports others algorithms, depending on the circumstances, a choice will need to be made. I hope you can take a thorough look at the matter.

Also I added as resource the link to one good website about GnuPG.

Kind regards.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 9, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> His post is relative to this subject. Some people are working on an alternative to email. The Lavabit founder is one of them. Google is an alternative to Skype.



I hope that it's true what you claim about the Lavabit founder after that the USA Government has decided to abruptly closed his business. Given that its model architecture that they used for their project as a secure email service provider was clever at these times.

If anyone knows more details about their new work initiative, I would like to read it


----------



## Erratus (Oct 12, 2013)

I like pointing back to the initial questions of alternatives for services which lost trust and confidence. net-p2p/retroshare has been named already. Searching the ports tree in the net-p2p category shows more alternatives. One of them might be net-p2p/i2p  which is in active development. Looking on their web site is informative as there can be compared with other approaches. Have a look on SIMILAR SYSTEMS
http://www.i2p2.de/techintro.html#app.i2pmail

Regarding commercial email providers there is always a legal component involved, depending on the country where they are located. Knowing the local law is mandatory for choosing a provider. Some European countries demand already on 1000+ customers technical devices installed locally with the provider. As can be read Lavabit in USA had much more customers and no such device installed. Disturbing is that authorities were greedy and wanted all data which might be common practice. Note that your privacy might disappear already when the provider is searched for other persons or your email is found in someone else's address book.

Some conclusions can be drawn here. The big email providers cannot protect your privacy even if they want to and offer encrypted services. Providers only can give away data they have stored. Decentralized systems come in focus now for various reasons. They get more attention from those seeking for privacy, and from those who are attacking exactly these systems now more than ever. For the big anonymizing services it has changed, that their traffic can be analyzed from a higher perspective which an ordinary attacker cannot reach. Always note that metadata are by ways more valuable than content. Choose your friends carefully - and don't have too much of them. ;-)


----------



## pkubaj (Oct 12, 2013)

If you want alternatives, check http://prism-break.org/ out.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 12, 2013)

rolfheinrich said:
			
		

> By using such accounts, you could discuss with your mother the mixing recipe for producing in her stainless steel pressure cooker the ultimate subnuclear-antiparticle-higgs-singularity-bomb (in plain: Baked Bean Soup), and no SSS (Secret Service Spy) in the entire multiverse would have a chance to intercept this conversation.



I wonder if I'm the only one who got your point (and I agree).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 12, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> ...after that the USA Government has decided to abruptly closed his business.


The government cannot close any US business. The Lavabit guy closed it on his own. Business in the US is private enterprise and only regulated by federal laws if they do business that crosses state lines. Even then, the owner can be thrown in jail and go bankrupt but the business can continue to run if it has someone to do it and have the funds.


----------



## Erratus (Oct 12, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I wonder if I'm the only one who got your point (and I agree).


At a weak endpoint content may be collected without actually doing any encryption.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 12, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> The government cannot close any US business. The Lavabit guy closed it on his own. Business in the US is private enterprise and only regulated by federal laws if they do business that crosses state lines. Even then, the owner can be thrown in jail and go bankrupt but the business can continue to run if it has someone to do it and have the funds.



Thanks for clear things up, but I'm sure that US Government pressured to conduct closing it. I think that Lavabit founder isn't a criminal :\

It's supposed that they are interested to start again when the informative storm go away.


----------



## Erratus (Oct 12, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> Thanks for clear things up, but I'm sure that US Government pressured to conduct closing it. I think that Lavabit founder isn't a criminal :\


I do not. They were silly closing a source they can use. With a gag order usually customers do not get any knowledge on what's going on.


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 12, 2013)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> If you want alternatives, check http://prism-break.org/ out.


Love that site; found out about it just a few months ago. RequestPolicy is a nice alternative to noScript - if people don't want to research links and deal with a lot of pop-ups.


----------



## pkubaj (Oct 12, 2013)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> Love that site; found out about it just a few months ago. RequestPolicy is a nice alternative to noScript - if people don't want to research links and deal with a lot of pop-ups.



Actually, it's not an alternative. Neither has what the other one offers - they should both be used in conjunction.


----------



## vanessa (Oct 12, 2013)

Skype lives nowadays on the smartphone, not on the desktop. So if you and your family have iPhones, be sure to check Acrobits' Groundwire - the only TLS enabled VoIP app (I know of). Someone please suggest an Android pendant here. 

For email: you don't really need a dedicated server but an end-to-end encryption, as unencrypted emails can easily be intercepted and read in transit.

And if you are *really concerned* - don't use email or IM at all! What Snowden told us is:

Encrypted emails have first class priority for the agencies and *do get tracked down*.
They *can decrypt them* (though the confirmation is still missing).


----------



## kpa (Oct 12, 2013)

vanessa said:
			
		

> S
> And if you are *really concerned* - don't use email or IM at all! What Snowden told us is:
> 
> Encrypted emails have first class priority for the agencies and *do get tracked down*.
> They *can decrypt them* (though the confirmation is still missing).



Snowden can claim just about anything now and people who don't understand cryptography will believe without a single question. I'd be very careful of making such claims as 2. because there are encryption schemes that are practically impossible to crack unless the secret key gets compromised trough social engineering or some other method. GNUPG is one product that offers such encryption methods and used properly it is very safe.


----------



## freesbies (Oct 12, 2013)

vanessa said:
			
		

> Skype lives nowadays on the smartphone, not on the desktop. So if you and your family have iPhones, be sure to check Acrobits' Groundwire



That's not entirely true, I chat with my friends on Skype and we all use desktop, althought I'm sick of Microsoft proprietary code, but that's why I opened this thread here on FreeBSD forums to receive better alternatives.


----------



## vanessa (Oct 13, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> Snowden can claim just about anything now and people who don't understand cryptography will believe without a single question. I'd be very careful of making such claims as 2. because there are encryption schemes that are practically impossible to crack unless the secret key gets compromised trough social engineering or some other method. GNUPG is one product that offers such encryption methods and used properly it is very safe.



Well, what he really claimed is that there were backdoors in cryptography software. So while the algorithms still can not be cracked, one could theoretically encode a hint for the secret key in a message header or somewhere else.

I didn't say I believe him, but to prove him wrong one has to inspect all the source code around (and keep inspecting).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 13, 2013)

cpu82 said:
			
		

> Thanks for clear things up, but I'm sure that US Government pressured to conduct closing it.


No. Lavabit founder closed it on his own because he claims he didn't want to user data to be potentially turned over, or something like that.


----------



## Erratus (Oct 13, 2013)

Take some inspirations from here when looking for alternatives:

http://www.ipredia.org/os/features

And some review and comparison:

http://www.hacker10.com/tag/linux-tails-alternative/


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 13, 2013)

According to another news, issue a gag order was appropriate in this case. Before the Snowden incident, it seems that other user had used it as a child pornography ring, this is absolutely abominable. It was a big hole about the Lavabit's Use Policy that the company could have solved at the time by expel the pedophile user for failure to use the above policy.

Sometimes choose the worst option as possible (shutdown) can't be avoided and the Lavabit's founder did it. I guess that he needs time to think the common questions about how/when/what/why, if he want to start a new project that can't be easily closed. And for a good start, I think he should learn how to properly apply the terms of use policy a.k.a. Terms of Service (ToS).

Also, it's very interesting to read Schneier's entry over the Lavabit's shutdown.


----------



## jrm@ (Oct 13, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> No. Lavabit founder closed it on his own because he claims he didn't want to user data to be potentially turned over, or something like that.



The NSA wanted him to hand over all his private keys.  You can listen to Ladar Levison describe what happened in this interview.


----------



## vanessa (Oct 14, 2013)

jrm said:
			
		

> The NSA wanted him to hand over all his private keys.  You can listen to Ladar Levison describe what happened in this interview.



Incredible listening! Have you heard that: Lavabit were one of the 'few gaps left in the surveillance'!


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 14, 2013)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not an alternative. Neither has what the other one offers - they should both be used in conjunction.


Granted, noScript stops scripts. However, a lot of scripts call to external sites - I'd say that 75% of the scripts I stopped with noScript are also stopped with RequestPolicy, and most local scripts are necessary for content (i.e. banks, webmail, etc). So just as long as I keep to good sites, RequestPolicy was a lot easier to use on a user-level than noScript. Just my experience.


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 15, 2013)

Regarding to Lavabit's resurrection proposal: https://rally.org/lavabit.

It looks like they will reopen again including some changes


----------



## fernandel (Oct 18, 2013)

How is https://jitsi.org/ on FreeBSD?


----------



## cpm@ (Oct 18, 2013)

fernandel said:
			
		

> How is https://jitsi.org/ on FreeBSD?



According to the FreeBSD Jitsi Wiki, all works fine (audio and video). Personally, I haven't tested it, but I'll give a try soon.


----------



## Erratus (Oct 19, 2013)

*Reasons not to use e-mail and PGP*

An often heard recommendation is just to encrypt your email. If you need strict privacy this is an advice you should not follow blindly. 
Some interesting thoughts one should know when using PGP and alike. 
http://secushare.org/PGP

A resume found there:





> [font=Times New Roman]Electronic privacy is a crime zone with blood freshly spilled all over. None of the existing tools are fully good enough. We have to get used to the fact that relevant new tools will come out all the time, and you will want to switch to a new software twice a year.[/font]


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 19, 2013)

I remember seeing the NSA vs Zimmerman playing out in the news. After the NSA backed off in the end I just assumed they were able to crack the code. Has anyone thoroughly combed through GPG's code?


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 19, 2013)

Has anyone used, or are using, Bitmessage E-mail Gateway?


----------



## Erratus (Oct 19, 2013)

@tzoi516 I'm not sure what's the point you want to make. Mine is, that just using email adresses compromizes privacy. The content may be safely encrypted, but the game is also about metadata.


----------



## tzoi516 (Oct 19, 2013)

Erratus said:
			
		

> @tzoi516 I'm not sure what's the point you want to make. Mine is, that just using email adresses compromizes privacy. The content may be safely encrypted, but the game is also about metadata.


I'm not making any point, just threw out some thoughts. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with you. It's like gossiping, once it leaves your lips (or mind for that matter) it's not private anymore. Plus, unless you build something yourself you can never be guaranteed 100% it will function as advertised - why did the NSA backoff in the end? I still use GPG, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that it could be hacked.


----------



## sossego (Oct 19, 2013)

The methods and protocols which are associated with communication along with basic human respect will determine the amount of privacy.


----------



## fernandel (Oct 20, 2013)

I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir_(web_browser) on OSX but they don't have Linux version.

P.S.

I am sorry...wrong post.


----------



## ronaldlees (Nov 2, 2013)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> If you want *true* email privacy, you are going to need to colocate a server of your own. In any other case, there is an admin that is not you who has access to the machine and thus the data on it.



I would add that the colocated server should be in a country perceived as privacy friendly.  Switzerland used to be a choice, but IFAIK is no longer on the go-to list.  Anyone else have suggestions for countries of known neutrality and privacy friendliness?


----------



## Zare (Nov 2, 2013)

Actually, if you need full privacy, you'd have to purchase your own metal, use full disk encryption, and record a local copy of it's remote management controller's SSL certificate. Then you ship it to collocation.


----------



## ronaldlees (Nov 2, 2013)

Zare said:
			
		

> Actually, if you need full privacy, you'd have to purchase your own metal, use full disk encryption, and record a local copy of it's remote management controller's SSL certificate. Then you ship it to collocation.



You are absolutely correct.  Still, it boils down to trust on other levels.  The colocator would still have the ability to monkey with your network.  The problem does not involve governments only, but includes the dark-side entities.  I came to realize that my $300/mo payment for colocation services would always pale in the face of potential bribes.  So, it boils down to the ethics of the colocator.  Sometimes, even the normally good ethics of the ISP are compromised by government demands, via which the colocator might - with no guilt - morally dismiss himself for the breach.  Governments are not automatically "ethical".

Been looking for a good server farm management corp in the Solomon Islands ...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 2, 2013)

ronaldlees said:
			
		

> I would add that the colocated server should be in a country perceived as privacy friendly.  Switzerland used to be a choice, but IFAIK is no longer on the go-to list.  Anyone else have suggestions for countries of known neutrality and privacy friendliness?



IMHO, you cannot trust any server collocation outside of your own house.

In the U.K. purportedly, your home is your castle. There, the people could set up their own Home File/Mail/Cloud Server, and wait for a regular judge to sign a dedicated search decision before a Secret Service Stalker (SSS) may get his hand on their server -- which is most probably never ever going to happen. The disadvantage of U.K. is, that purportedly it is raining over there every day.

Seriously, in every of the countries in the western world that I know of, nobody is allowed to enter your house without a dedicated search decision. Even in the U.S., the pre-emptively blank search decision against more than a billion of internet and telephone users world-wide, signed by a secret judge, would not be valid for a SSS to secretly enter your house and get his hand on your machinery, in that case instead, Stand your Ground would apply.

For 300 US$/m you should be able to comfortably connect your own stuff in your own house at any reasonable data rate.


----------



## ronaldlees (Nov 2, 2013)

My home is my castle?  Methinks someone has drained the moat, poisoned the gators, and paid off the draw bridge operator.  So, I'll take you up on the in-house co-location.  Hmmm ... I guess it's just "location" then ... but only if the house is on the island 

Really, the castle is abridged if the telecoms are not working completely in your interest.  It's probably a near-impossible situation.   

Those islanders take no bribes, because they have no reason for money or jealousy (except for the island girl).  If they have clean loin clothes and a good fishing trip, they're happy.  They say that is changing, though.  Yep - some of those ocean-going outrigger kayaks have fish finders on them now.  They need money for those ... so the demise of their paradise is on the horizon.  Still, the weather's nice.


----------



## Erratus (Nov 8, 2013)

Did Lavabit deceive their customers about the security of their email service or did they not know about their shortcomings?  





> Itâ€™s not clear whether the Lavabit crew consciously understood the systemâ€™s shortcomings and chose to misrepresent them, or if they really believed they had built something based on _canâ€™t_ rather than _wonâ€™t_. One way or the other, in the security world, a product that uses the language of cryptography to fundamentally misrepresent its capabilities is the basic definition of snake oil.


 http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/


----------



## Crivens (Nov 8, 2013)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> I remember seeing the NSA vs Zimmerman playing out in the news. After the NSA backed off in the end I just assumed they were able to crack the code. Has anyone thoroughly combed through GPG's code?



Maybe there is no need - this is just how you poison the trust in the software. It is like the police picking up some small mobster, keeping him for tea and cake and putting him back to the street thanking him (loudly) for his cooperation. Doubt in GPG is planted now, mission accomplished.


----------



## tzoi516 (Nov 8, 2013)

Erratus said:
			
		

> Did Lavabit deceive their customers about the security of their email service or did they not know about their shortcomings?    http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/


Ladar Levison was in a recent video with some ex-military personnel for a joint project they're starting called Dark Mail. In the video he mentions that he has worked with authorities in the past for access to accounts. Whether or not he gave them access or provided data I don't recall, but the fact remains there was a way to comply in the past. Not intentionally sewing seed of doubt, but Ladar's associates being that close to NSA and being ex-special forces guys makes me worry some about the new project.


----------



## AdamElteto (Nov 9, 2013)

ronaldlees said:
			
		

> I would add that the colocated server should be in a country perceived as privacy friendly.  Switzerland used to be a choice, but IFAIK is no longer on the go-to list.  Anyone else have suggestions for countries of known neutrality and privacy friendliness?


Iceland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Iceland


----------



## Martillo1 (Nov 10, 2013)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> Ladar Levison was in a recent video with some ex-military personnel for a joint project they're starting called Dark Mail. In the video he mentions that he has worked with authorities in the past for access to accounts. Whether or not he gave them access or provided data I don't recall, but the fact remains there was a way to comply in the past. Not intentionally sewing seed of doubt, but Ladar's associates being that close to NSA and being ex-special forces guys makes me worry some about the new project.



So are you saying it is the classic Honey Pot?


----------



## Crivens (Nov 11, 2013)

Martillo1 said:
			
		

> So are you saying it is the classic Honey Pot?



You will never know untill too late. Maybe he is the bait for some honey pot scheme, he does not even need to know that. But several ex-army, still-army or ex-special forces persons I know hold their oath (to protect the people) in higher regard than the gouvernment or the REMFs* in the top of the chain of command. Therefore I would not judge him by the simple fact who these persons are. If some of them were known to be on the shady side, that would be a different matter.

What has happend is that he got a court order to hand over the meta data for one user, and he complied. He also stated that there would be no way to hand over the mails in clear text, which is entirely possible. That all is fine under the current law and the past law, which is not infused with so much paranoja as the current status. But now they wanted to have all keys for all users and a way to impersonate his services. That is where he closed the door on the thing.

*I do not think the forum filter will allow me to spell out this acrynom. Please look for yourself


----------



## tzoi516 (Nov 12, 2013)

Crivens said:
			
		

> But several ex-army, still-army or ex-special forces persons I know hold their oath (to protect the people) in higher regard than the gouvernment or the REMFs* in the top of the chain of command.


The ones I've known fell into 2 categories:

1. McVeigh - they view the government is violating their constitutional rights and prepare for armegeddon.

2. Country comes first - they might not like the party in charge, but their loyalty overrides that emotion - which isn't "protect the people", it's "protect the country".

I personally don't like either view because they swing into extreme territories: 1. Alex Jones, the Bible over education/facts, false flag, 9/11 was an inside job, arm yourself to the teeth, yadda yadda yadda, or 2. blind loyalty - you might not like it, but it's for the best.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Nov 12, 2013)

The problem is that the bad guys now use the internet to do bad guy stuff and the cops want to stop and catch the bad guys while they're in the act. Unfortunately, the laws and restrictions in this area are scarce, quickly put into place, or created by the uninformed in such a way that the every day citizen feels they are being attacked whether intentional or not.

Eventually the dust will settle and more thought will be put into this.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 12, 2013)

tzoi516 said:
			
		

> The ones I've known fell into 2 categories:
> 
> 1. McVeigh - they view the government is violating their constitutional rights and prepare for armegeddon.
> 
> 2. Country comes first - they might not like the party in charge, but their loyalty overrides that emotion - which isn't "protect the people", it's "protect the country".



Those are around, also. But I can say, gladly, not among those I know. That you only find those two types of specimen in your army is, to me, a very very alarming thought.

My oath certainly was to the people of the country, not the country and not those in charge. We also have the right and even the duty to not only disobey an illegal order but also to arrest those higher ups who give it. This lessen was learned at a high price.


----------



## tzoi516 (Nov 12, 2013)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Those are around, also. But I can say, gladly, not among those I know. That you only find those two types of specimen in your army is, to me, a very very alarming thought.
> 
> My oath certainly was to the people of the country, not the country and not those in charge. We also have the right and even the duty to not only disobey an illegal order but also to arrest those higher ups who give it. This lessen was learned at a high price.


I was in the Navy, and the UCMJ is a political tool sometimes. I have yet to see a junior ranked person take a senior person into custody, outside of an order. The oath, as I remember, was to country.

As for the crazies, those were mainly Marines and SOF personnel. There are a few I've met that deviate from the crazies, but they usually are in the minority.


----------



## AdamElteto (Nov 12, 2013)

*Only a Sith deals in absolutes...*



			
				tzoi516 said:
			
		

> The ones I've known fell into 2 categories:



"known" or just heard/read about? The reason those are the two types you hear (and consequently, "know") about is that nobody bothers to do media coverage on men and women in uniform who are not either blind loyalists or destructive psychos (the two absolute ends of the extremity scale). Those two extremes comprise a fraction of a percent of the total Armed Forces. You would be surprised how many service members are also members of the ACLU, EFF or other civil rights organizations.


----------



## tzoi516 (Nov 13, 2013)

Know, known, and have read/heard about.


----------



## saxon3049 (Nov 13, 2013)

AdamElteto said:
			
		

> "known" or just heard/read about? The reason those are the two types you hear (and consequently, "know") about is that nobody bothers to do media coverage on men and women in uniform who are not either blind loyalists or destructive psychos (the two absolute ends of the extremity scale). Those two extremes comprise a fraction of a percent of the total Armed Forces. You would be surprised how many service members are also members of the ACLU, EFF or other civil rights organizations.



Just as in life in the army you find all kinds, I know people currently serving who have both positive and negative opinions on the subject of domestic espionage, but most of the people I know sit in the middle ground and can't really decide and I don't think this situation will be fixed for a long time, a generation or two at least.


----------



## sossego (Nov 13, 2013)




----------



## Martillo1 (Nov 15, 2013)

In these subjects I adhere to what Theo de Raadt says: Stop trusting and look the code yourself.


----------

