Well, there is a way actually. But first you need to restore the power of the vote so that legislators are accountable to the people and the people alone.

This means dismantling the five main pillars that are used to nullify, misdirect, or otherwise diminish the power of the vote - both a a signaling mechanism that members of the electorate can use to unify themselves, and as a reliably severe punitive tool that the electorate can use to avenge themselves when their "representatives" betray their interests. Listed in no particular order, they are

1. Gerrymandering (aka partisan redistricting) 2. Closed primaries 3. Private campaign finance 4. The "revolving door" that allows private industry to offer well-paid sinecures to public "servants" who have systematically betrayed the public's trust. 5. Myriad restrictions on ballot access.

It's important to recognize that while each of these pillars diminishes the power of the vote, the really insidious effect comes from their interaction. But those knock-on effects can all be stopped by addressing the fundamental - and fundamental anti-democratic - structures at their roots.

Eliminating any one of these abominations tilts the balance back in favor of the good guys. All of them together can be lethal to the ambitions of people who's own ambitions are anathema to a self-governing republic.

Even though I'm not a US American (where this problem seems to be the gravest in the Western world, partly because of scale, partly because the US' system was the prototypal modern Republic where many lessons haven't been learned yet at time of the foundation), I've been thinking exactly that for quite a while - your list pretty much describes what need to be solved. But I have to ask - how would one go about doing this in the US? How do you change a system with such a momentum? Through the monopoly on violent force and largely complacent mass media the establishment's grip on the system seems to be air tight. And if you just wait until the shit hits the fan (I predict this will happen with enough doubling of damages caused by natural disasters that will almost certainly be coming in the next decades), it could turn both ways - the current system could be replaced with a way more horrible totalitarian regime as well as it could be fixed towards giving the power back to the people - the former is even way more probable when you look at history. The only case I know where drastic change has gone over relatively well is South Africa - everywhere else you look there was a huge struggle, usually war.

Well that would certainly be a preferable situation to where we presently find ourselves, but I don't know that the root cause is addressed in that. The root cause being the fact that one entity (government, class, group, whatever) is exempt from the rules. That exemption, no matter how apparently small, ruins everything. It is like drinking water from a reservoir where across the way you see a dude with his pants down taking a dump into the water. Oh, and the exemption can't be fixed - because it defines a state: the monopoly on violence. It is a logical flaw. I'm not that thrilled with everybody in the voting population having some small amount of ownership of my life either, especially when 42% of them believe in ghosts.

Who remembers when Cheney removed his house from Google Earth? All the while the NSA et al were building insane domestic surveillance systems.

That's pretty much when I understood what "oligarchy" meant and how very much there we were.

Snowden didn't help my mental picture of the country.

I've always enjoyed the work of John Young. [0] The eyeball series isn't nearly as interesting as most of the mirrored leaks, but it serves to frustrate such attempts at airbrushing the homes and workplaces of the anointed.

[0] http://cryptome.org/

This kind of defeatism is not helpful. Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors. The kind coercion used in western societies might appear to be more effective, but there is no reason to think that direct political action could not work. When it happens, like in the case of the occupy movement, you can see by the media reaction, how uncomfortable it is for the powerful.

Your suggestion of a democratization of spy programs is actually one of the premises of "The Circle", the book is meant to paint a dystopian future.

> Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors.

They were more brutal because they substituted brutality in lieu of these sorts of technological innovations. They couldn't spy on everyone, so they had to crucify the few opponents they could definitively catch (or some sacrificial lambs, when they couldn't.)

Not to mention, it's much easier to overthrow a brutal dictator. Your government is killing your friends, drafting your family into the military, and sending your coworkers to work camps? Hell yeah, we won't stand for that! But if your government is just quietly watching, while your family is sitting at home, with food in their fridge - will you pick up a weapon to fight against that regime? Will your friends, family, neighbors?

Well the good thing about not living in a dictatorship is that you have freedom of expression and freedom of association. So there really isn't any need to resort to violence, at least in principle.

You are right to point out that the majority of people are just comfortable enough, struggling to pay for debts they incurred in one way or another and generally have no incentive to fight totalitarian overreach of the state.

Unfortunately the institutions for the indoctrination of the young are set up in a way by now, that they are very good at producing hyper-focused well-working replaceable cogs for industry, together with their Ayn Rand reading, libertarian overlords in one nice package. They do all that, while setting you up for a life of indebted servitude, if you don't happen to choose a profession that requires you to be highly compliant with the current system to be successful.

So I guess if there is one thing to fix it would be education, a properly educated general public would hopefully be less apathetic and compliant than it is today. Technology has the potential to make education much more widely available and independent of having to assemble in one place and be subjected to abuse and brainwashing of authority figures.

> ... libertarian overlords ...

Ok, go ahead and square that with the operation of the government today. I'm pretty confident you will find it impossible to construct a convincing argument.

That was a stupid choice of words... What I meant to say was neo-liberal, I guess. Since the whole comment is mostly hyperbole anyways, I will let it stand as is.

Well thanks for not doubling down. FYI, "Ayn Rand" and "neo-liberal" doesn't really belong in the same breath either - I'm guessing you've never actually read anything she has written. This might be a moment where you consider the body of knowledge that your opinions rest on, and the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".

Name one thing accomplished by the occupy movement. If anything, they were a distraction from the worst culprits of the unholy corporate-government alliance.

Well, they made a nice few-second appearance in Google's Zeitgeist 2011 video, and also spawned some fun memes (#OccupyJupiter comes to my mind). That must be worth something. </sarcasm>

I personally question the goal of fighting it. More and more I begin to believe that it's "privacy vs. progress of mankind - choose one". Privacy for privacy's sake is not something I think is important - the problem is always with the ways lack of it could be abused. I can't see how we can save privacy without getting rid of computers - after all, even if you reduce number of sensors, the remaining void can be filled back by throwing more computing power at data you can get.

It isn't really an issue of privacy, it is an issue of consolidated power through a monopoly on certain types of information.

It isn't defeatism when you recognize your present course of action as being ineffective, and look for alternatives. I'd also like to know what, in your opinion, the occupy movement accomplished (aside from demonstrating how ineffective slacktivism is).

I was thinking recently that the best thing that could happen to Internet privacy would be for someone to build a Palantir clone with an open API, such that anyone could dox anyone else for $0.10 a pop. Being able to dox yourself (like Googling yourself, but PRISM-er) in real time would basically give you an OPSEC REPL, perfect for figuring out how to reduce your exposure.

You can be sure that if Tor was main stream that would happen, but there aren't enough potential customers right now to justify the risk.

> There is no way to reverse this.

It's easy to reverse some of this. If they're recording license plates and they or someone else will do it regardless, then stop having license plates. The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.

Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical. That clearly isn't the case -- the constitution has been preventing police from searching your home without a warrant since 1789, even though they absolutely do have the operational capability to do that.

More to the point, even if they're not prohibited from spying, as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost. Encryption works. Tor works. In many cases the lack of prohibition on spying would be irrelevant if not for the existing prohibitions and impediments to strong anonymity, as with regulations on digital money transfers.

What's interesting is that your conclusion is still mostly right. Government secrecy is the cancer of democracy. But governments being transparent to their people in no way requires people to be transparent to their governments.

> The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.

You seriously believe that? You think the government makes common sense decisions? So ok, no more plates. How long until we hear about them logging the serial numbers broadcast by our tire pressure sensors? Or what about the unique magnetic signature of our vehicles detectable by all the loops already embedded in the road? If the government has the technical ability to do something that will expand power and responsibility, it will do it. It has been demonstrated time and time again.

> ... as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost.

Yeah we'll see. Tampering with NIST, clipper chips, export controls. This is not sustainable, people will eventually tire. Also, the argument sounds very similar to what was said about TSA security theater: "No, we aren't impeding your freedom of movement - you can take the bus!" Guess what, the TSA is at the bus station now. "No, we aren't violating your fourth amendment rights - if you want to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures than you can use encryption!" Guess what happens next. It is a bullshit argument - I shouldn't have to run myself ragged.

> Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical.

No, my point is that you can't prevent something technically practical while the government operates in secret, enjoying a monopoly on information. That is why warrantless home searches aren't extremely common, because it would be impossible to do in secret - old papers have very little to do with it.

> You seriously believe that? You think the government makes common sense decisions?

Decisions like that are made in the open. You can tell if your self-driving car has a license plate on it and keep lobbying to remove it until they do.

> How long until we hear about them logging the serial numbers broadcast by our tire pressure sensors? Or what about the unique magnetic signature of our vehicles detectable by all the loops already embedded in the road?

So it's a cat and mouse game. So what? If they want to log RFID tags they have to spend a billion dollars putting readers everywhere, at which point people rip the tags out and the readers are useless. Find some other way (and some other billion dollars) to fingerprint individual cars and people will realize that it's profitable to sign up their self-driving car to transport Uber passengers and suddenly tracking the cars is meaningless. And so it goes.

> Tampering with NIST, clipper chips, export controls. This is not sustainable, people will eventually tire.

All of those things failed. Nobody gets tired of winning.

> Also, the argument sounds very similar to what was said about TSA security theater

The analogous thing to not having TSA security theater is not having mass surveillance. You're arguing the opposite -- mass surveillance for everyone. You can't make the slippery slope argument when you want to start at the bottom.

> No, my point is that you can't prevent something technically practical while the government operates in secret, enjoying a monopoly on information.

Which I'm not disagreeing with. Government secrets should be aggressively minimized. But once again, governments being transparent to their people in no way requires people to be transparent to their governments. And there is apparently some dispute about what is technically practical.

> That is why warrantless home searches aren't extremely common, because it would be impossible to do in secret - old papers have very little to do with it.

Which is all we need to do here. Make it so that spying on you requires them to physically enter the space you're in so that it's only practical to do it according to the rules with probable cause rather than in bulk in secret.

> Decisions like that are made in the open.

Yes, and rarely. I've spent 5 minutes trying to think of such an example and failed, maybe you have something in mind?

> If they want to log RFID tags they have to spend a billion dollars putting readers everywhere, at which point people rip the tags out and the readers are useless.

Lol, you throw out a cost like it would be some sort of problem for them to spend money that isn't theirs. You know how you keep people from ripping the tags out? You require manufactures to install them in every vehicle manufactured after September 1st 2007. If people actually start tampering with this legally mandated safety device, lean on the states to add it to the vehicle inspection requirements... for safety. But few will tamper with the tracking, er, safety device - because it adds convenience to their lives and they can't even be bothered to install PGP.

> All of those things failed. Nobody gets tired of winning.

Only the clipper chip failed. Also, I'm tired - as are many of my friends and coworkers. Up until two years ago about 80% of my time was spent as a security researcher, I burned out. I'd like a systemic fix, because I'm tired of the game.

> ... not having mass surveillance. You're arguing the opposite ...

I argue the opposite as a method of harm reduction, I thought I made it clear in my top post that an end to state spying would be ideal. Where you and I part ways, I think, is that I believe that it is impossible to prevent and verify. You seem to actually believe the whole "consent of the governed" thing.

> ... only practical to do it according to the rules with probable cause rather than in bulk in secret.

Until they start monitoring power consumption, in the interest of finding grow houses. [0] Or monitoring sewers in the interest of catching bomb makers. [1] Please don't suggest that we add this to the cat and mouse game, where I now need to invite strangers over for pee parties and hook my dryer up to a noise generator that randomly turns it on in order to stay ahead in the privacy game.

[0] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2469854/internet/bitcoi...

[1] http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/sewer-sensors-detec...

> "The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway."

Because self-driving cars will be in constant contact with some central digital infrastructure that will be tracking everything ("for quality control purposes") and the authorities can far more easily and effectively tap into that data than place license plate readers along the roadside. Tying the "session" together between purchasing information (that's already centralized and freely accessible), car route, and user history, is a piece of cake.

or be rich like jobs was and be above the law in those mundane matters like license plates.

Much like the Constitution you mentioned, I feel we need some sort of document that explains the intentions behind surveillance and the limitations by which it can be legally used. We have no problem upholding the bill of rights, so why would it be hard to create a set of guidelines for future regulation of surveillance? Making it open is not a complete solution (though it's still a good idea), because we're still not setting any limitations as to how this information can be legally used. We need to do more to protect the rights of the citizens involved.

People like Edward Snowden have said surveillance can be used for good purposes. For example, fast forward and imagine auto insurance companies using this traffic monitoring data: Instead of structuring their prices based around age/gender/racial/class discrimination, they can use actual statistics to determine a little more about how safe someone is driving. Or instead of civil engineers having to waste time, money and other resources doing traffic studies...what if they could see the effects of their work in real-time? I think this technology could be used for very good purposes if there was just some transparency and rules surrounding it.

The purpose of an insurance is to share the risk of individuals with a great number of people. To pinpoint the risk to a single person is against this purpose. They can get away with this because you have to have a insurance by law. Therefore this practice should be forbidden by law.

No, the solution would be to get insurance against high insurance costs. This already happens with medical insurance. If you're already sick your insurance costs more. But if you get insurance in advance, before you know you'll be sick, it's cheaper. The same could happen with driving. Get insurance before you've driven, before you know you'll be risky.

> We have no problem upholding the bill of rights

Who has no problem? The gov or the people?

The only way within the system is I guess the Supreme Court. They have already laid a framework establishing that tracking requires a warrant, even if it's just making the police's job more efficient and it's data they can get from a tail.

If the license plate tracking gets to that point within metropolitan areas (presumably where cameras are most dense) or they start doing it from blimps or whatever, at least there is precedence for striking it.

It's not going to stop the collection but it should at least prevent the data being used against you in court. Of course, parallel construction. Sigh...

A second way within the system is that people start to vote for politicians who are serious about privacy.

Give us a kindly king! We've got systemic issues that need to be fixed. What would you say if I suggested a form of government where you're well-being and happiness is contingent on the wisdom and industry of every other person? Yeah, not a great plan - but here we are.

Some things the public should not be able to spy on. Using the example of the DEA, we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers, or when and where they're planning to make a bust. We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS. And public relations would break down if we can't keep our allies secrets, either. Our military's plans shouldn't be made known to the enemy, of course. Many secrets are kept for good reason—letting it all out indiscriminately just doesn't make sense.

> we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers

You should learn about how CIs are blackmailed, used, and discarded, and, often enough die. If informants were outed and the use of CIs ended, it would be a benefit to everyone.

Wikileaks? Cables? We lost all our allies, right?

Don't fear radical transparency. It will be to your benefit.

Radical transparency would be good, so long as it's not exposed to everyone in the world. We often forget the multitude of wickedness in the world, and while the US government smells, there are actors on the outside that wouldn't hesitate to manipulate/destroy us the moment we free up information.

Undoubtedly, the power between the people and the government is unbalanced, but unrestricted transparency is not a one stop solution to the problem.

That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?

Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way?

With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their wickedness, most of those wicked people can't afford a bus ticket to the next town, much less to actually do anything with their wickedness.

> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?

Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.

It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes.

How is it logical that a few kids in SF building some world-changing piece of software is expected, but a few kids in _____ building a piece of software and whaling a few executives in the DOD, DOJ, DOE and damaging critical national infrastructure is beyond possibility.

How how does is it not clear that exposure of an infrastructure of information gathering would eradicate our ability to do anything but read newspapers about what's going on in the rest of the world?

Yes we need better or different protection against domestic spying. As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.

We need a continuation of the values and knowledge development that our current tech-centric generations hold. When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.

> There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.

Come off it, and stop watching "24" reruns. The risk you face, I face, everyone faces, is practically nil. We all know the numbers. You have no need to pay more attention to terrorism than you pay to lightning, or slipping in the bathtub.

Moreover, this is true in places that don't have an HSA, an NSA, a CIA, or an FBI. There is no difference in outcome regarding terrorism in Latvia where they all they can afford is to deploy an anti-terrorism potato, or in Alabama, where you have camo'ed citizens armed-up and waiting for ISIS to invade.

I think you underestimate how large a target the US makes itself in the world, and what it would mean to do what you're suggesting.

And, 24 was rubbish, if it's any consolation.

> As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.

I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true.

> When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.

I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?

I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not going to kneel before some spectre of Actors on the Outside (ooooOOOOooohhh).

We live in perhaps the finest times of this specie's history, and it's foolish to limit and harm ourselves out of an unspecified anxiety that somebody, somewhere could do something to harm us. We cannot live in fear.

> We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS.

Yeah it's a huge mess here in Sweden. /sarcasm

Security through obscurity? No doubt a great deal would need to change, but we've tried the method of giving a select group of individuals an immense amount of power and hoping for the best. It hasn't worked out that well. So I'd recommend that you consider the present situation, because the prospect of you knowing my tax information, by comparison, doesn't seem so bad.

Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still security through obscurity, simply because they are secrets?

No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :)

Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...

> a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key.

I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad.

People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.

If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."

If security through obscurity is having secrets at all, all security is obscurity.

What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

Normal people don't have a moat.

A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for anyone then every time you come home from work all your electronics will be missing.

Replacing that "security through obscurity" with actual physical security is not something most people can afford.

What is more likely: I was suggesting that people secure their homes with a moat; or I was demonstrating that, contrary to the post I was responding to, not all security relies upon obscurity?

Most people can't have moats, they don't live in detached houses. Apartments and high rises are much more common, moats don't work there.

And what good is physical security if you don't have it? If it doesn't exist in practice then pointing out that it exists in theory is just being pedantic.

lol, ok buddy - being described as pedantic by a person who just helpfully volunteered the revelation that normal people don't have moats is just too weird.

Heh, true. I've seen too much time thinking of computer security, and neglected to think of real world security.

You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will. Cutting off or significantly curtailing their revenue would have a similar effect.

EDIT: There would need to be a concomitant cultural change as well. As it stands folks are not aware of or engaged with what their government is doing.

Even if we replaced every government official today, it could quickly devolve back to its current state.

>You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will.

Theoretically. First you would need someone with these beliefs to run for office. You would need them to win office, in a position where they have the power to change the laws. Then you would need them to resist the temptation to listen to lobbyists trying to change their mind. Then you would need a vote to pass. Then you would need the government agencies to agree (just because the law says something, doesn't mean everyone agrees). Generally this would take going to a high court who forces the government to comply. Hopefully that court is public and not a private rubber stamp committee.

Theoretically, we can revoke government positions. But we need politicians to do it on our behalf, and we don't really have politicians who are willing to do that.

What's needed is a team of 51 people winning Senate seats and a team of 218 people winning House seats. Getting that team in place will require a sustained, 4-6 year effort since a 3rd of representatives are elected each year.

Pulling off such a takeover is possible, though it would be a lot of work. Voter turnout for Senate and House has been between 36% and 53%.[0],[1] Traditionally campaign finance has been considered a barrier to electing good representatives; however, the hold campaign advertising has over our election process may be weakening. People under 35 spend less time consuming traditional media where campaign ads run and more time on YouTube and social media. A campaign focused on voters under 35 might be enough to create significant change. In California, for example, there are almost enough people between the ages of 18-35 to make a win possible if those people voted as a team.[2]

[0]: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.p...

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...

[2]: http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/california/demograp...

Nope. These are rights granted by the Constitution. The difficulty would be in getting people to care.

You're not wrong. The problem, though, is that I'm still right. Yes, theoretically we can change things. The way this happens is through our elected officials, not via us directly. If our elected officials are unwilling to change, there's not much we can do to force it. Literally the only way the Constitution allows for us to change things is if we vote someone into office who will change it, and then it still hinges on them actually changing things, which historically hasn't happened.

You can repeat the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but just because something sounds easy on paper doesn't mean it's easy or even plausible in reality.

Texas tried to make TSA gate-groping unambiguously illegal, and the federal government credibly threatened to end all flights to and from Texas, causing Texas to back down.

There was an lapd officer(s) that were murdered within the last few days and the murderer used the waze app that shows the reported locations of speed traps and the government is already asking google to prohibit that information in some form. Knee jerk reactions to current events are never going to end well for openness of data.

Not quite true. There were recent stories that the LAPD commissioner was calling for Waze to remove police tracking from their app. [1] There was a callout of two NYPD officers being killed in December by a shooter that used Waze before the attacks, but did not use it to track their locations leading up to and during shootings.

[1] - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLICE_TRACKING_AP...

Knee jerk reactions to anything rarely lead to positive outcomes, transparency is no exception.

> It is no mystery why the Constitution included the provision allowing citizens to arm themselves with the same class of weapons that the government possessed.

It's worth noting that no longer do citizens have the ability to arm themselves with "the same class of weapons" as the government. Unless you're willing to sell APCs and cruise missiles to private parties, there's no way a rebellion can outgun country's military.

I don't think it is worth noting, I doubt it would be productive to go into John Birch Society / Oath Keeper territory :)

Thought experiment: if gov programs were forced to be transparent, would they be any less brazen?

Not at this rate. I think officials see the Snowden-fallout and say, "hey, that wasn't so bad. the public barely cares. Yo Comey, hit the press & equate encryption to child abuse; we can win this narrative." Lack of transparency is certainly an issue, but i'd say the bigger one how to make sense of this information to the public.

In principle it could be reversed politically by the government just saying no. In practice no one seems that bothered though.

Yeah, and in principle the NSA can't dragnet domestic signals, but here we are. Relying on the honor system has led us to something right out of Gulliver's Travels, with government bureaucrats advancing through a game of leaping and creeping...

+1, I totally agree. Easier said than done though.

I remember when NIST was force to release the source code to NBIS. [0]

We just need a lot more of that and we'll be good :)

[0] http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/nbis.cfm

America has a gum problem, we can all agree.

That said, I feel like the right to bare arms was included specifically for overthrowing oppressive governments (and in case the British came back?).

At what point does a government become sufficiently oppressive as to be overthrown by the people? Without defining that, I feel like government can just keep employing the "but terrorists" excuse and the overton window to keep stripping us of more and more of our privacy and rights.

Great change rarely comes with-out great violence. It is sad, but appears to be true. Considering Americans and other FVEY countries are for all purposes living very well compared to their cousins makes me doubt this will ever happen.

Sometimes I get upset when I encounter a gum on the street, but I stop short of calling for more gum control. And, I don't have any idea where any person gets the idea that they have the right to tell another person whether or not to shave their arms.

As for the second thing you said, sounds like you probably just need a little more soma.

You should move to Singapore. They fixed their gum problem, without impeding the right to bare arms.