...and the freedom to be ransacked by the next hillbilly lynchmob / group of angry Dansk raiders etc... y'know... the reason we don't drive pickups with mounted anti-tank weapons like in Somalia.

What disengenuous examples! Hobart is cold DESPITE its location ie. adjacent to the warm Eastern Australian current. The California current should make California colder than it is, yet most of the Californian coast is classified as mediterranean. Sure, Chicago has a more hot/cold extreme inland climate, and New York gets its winter weather from inland also, but a Mediterranian climate is all about the ocean.

Both Hobart and Los Angeles are at the southern ends of their respective states which makes that comparison a misleading one.

The southern hemisphere is generally cooler. Take for instance the mediterranian climate. In the USA at the same latitude you have California with a roughly equivalent climate. In the south we have Tasmania for example which is significantly cooler.

In Mikkos own words it's time to act. I guess this means he is taking his own advice. I have in my own very small way been pushing up the price of surveilance : https everywhere, disconnect, duckduckgo etc... haven't been motivated enough for Tor yet because I share a slow connection. Still, we can and must act in small ways in our browsing behavior, purchasing decisions, and any other ways we can come up with. We're lucky that others of us are already acting in not so small ways, and we must support them.

I think colds contribution is valuable. Yes, most disagree, but he's one of a minority of voices arguing for blanket surveilance, unrestricted gun ownership etc... etc... and a minority of a minority in that the arguments are often thoughful and well researched (though I think perhaps a tad disengenuous ;) ). I have done extra research and have a more nuanced view because of more than one cold fjord post. Everyone is better off when their views are challenged and they're forced to think, even if/when the result is simply being better able to articulate a position - perhaps cold is getting more benefit there. ;) Echo chambers aren't good, and I certainly wouldn't wish for one.

No. Just no.

A state adversary WILL get in should they wish to, but any exploit runs the risk of being discovered over time. This is a better outcome than simply rolling over, and may even result in the NSA (or organisation in question) deciding the risk is not worth the benefit. Even if you're gagged and forced into cooperating, having made an agency use totalitarian powers is a good outcome - it's harder to deny the nature of the "project".

The BBC reporter seemed to do things right to me... first what the Reuters reporter said (with a link to the article), then the RSA, Reuters, RSA etc... Yes, the article expected the reader to draw their own conclusions, but isn't that what real news reporting is meant to do?

Why didn't GCQH force The Guardian to retract after being crushed under the Wheels of Great Justice (and some of the most accomodating libel laws in the western world?). Perhaps because all the important details were true, and the "journalistic enhancements" (which were basically true anyway) were mere detail on the periphery of the actual story.

One word : birther. I wasn't saying the laws were perfect, but the US model is particularly bad when it comes to agreeing on what constitutes reality. I'd rather stick to toxic rhetoric than venturing into too much creative writing when it comes to democracy.

Wasn't this about Microsoft changing Skypes architecture to enable surveilance? Hell, they were even brazen enough to patent aspects of it. They've even been scanning chats for URLs (which was news to me). Apparently the excuse was they were scanning the URLs for malicious software, which may be true... but most regard anything they say these days with a grain of salt, and rightly so.

I think the crowd that want to completely rid the UK of libel laws are very mistaken... yes, they make investigative journalism much more tedious and expensive, but they also protect journalists from being gradually replaced by glorified PR people which has largely happened in many other places around the world. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of hacks in the UK, but they at least need to keep some fingertips brushing reality occasionally. At least the UK electorate can be informed should they choose to be (which perhaps is rarely for some).

Errr... no...

The UK has tough defamation laws... so much so that many choose to litigate in the UK for stuff published worldwide. Existing in that legal climate would make The Guardian very careful - I'd imagine their legal team are used to vetting stories such as this one.

As an aside - perhaps the tough libel laws are a plus for the UK media. It at least forces Murdoch to spy to get his dirt in the UK rather than simply lie as he would in the USA.

If I must (for example) give someone a webcam into my life I'd prefer them to live far away and have as little interest in my life as possible. Across the largest ocean on earth is good.