How do you know? The Internet backbone was developed using US government funding. How do you know that the US government did not put backdoors there? It did in the case of the long-distance telephone network.
We can have our cake (terrorist monitoring) and eat it too (maintain individual privacy)
I agree that this could be done in theory; I'm not sure it can be done in practice.
there's just no reason to believe such a thing to be true
No reason to believe what to be true? The US government's placing of backdoors in the long-distance telephone network is historical fact. That historical fact is a reason to believe that what the US government has done once, it could do again. It may not be a reason you want to accept, but it's still a reason.
The NSA can't stop you from visiting Hacker News. That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. The NSA does not have the ability to do this.
That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events.
When it became public knowledge that the US government had backdoors in the long distance telephone network, that did alter people's behavior and the course of events. Similarly, the public knowledge that the NSA is spying on the Internet is altering people's behavior and the course of events.
I agree the NSA can't stop people from visiting HN, but they can certainly change the incentives faced by people using the Internet. Perhaps this doesn't meet your definition of the word "control", but you still seem to find it significant.
this is not historical fact
What isn't? Are you saying that you don't believe the US government put backdoors into the long distance telephone network? Or that you don't believe the NSA is spying on the Internet? Or are you just saying you don't care, because you can still visit HN? That doesn't change the historical fact; it just means you don't care about that particular historical fact.
Wrong kind of alter. You're talking about practical changes, but in no way was anyone forced to change their behavior. In this instance, 'alter' would be something the NSA did which literally changed an outcome. As in, block access to Hacker News, or redirect gmail.com to gmail.nsa.gov. The NSA does not have this power, nor has the US government ever done this.
What isn't? You're not saying the stuff I mentioned isn't historical fact; you're just saying that the historical fact doesn't meet your definition of "alter" or "control". Right?
If so, I'll be glad to adopt your definitions of terms for the purpose of this discussion. Then my question is: is "control" by your definition the appropriate threshold at which to be concerned? If so, why? If not, what is the appropriate threshold?
(If you're just objecting to the word "control" because Schneier used it, that's an argument about words, not about substance. Maybe Schneier should have used another word; but that doesn't change the substance of what he said.)
This is an argument about words, because words matter, dammit, and I refuse to pretend they don't.
The word used was control. The NSA does not control the Internet. The US has not commandeered the Internet - frankly, they've always had power over the Internet because it was invented and is still maintained in the US.
As for where concern begins, concern should never leave us. We should always be concerned. It is fundamentally different, however, to claim someone or something can monitor a thing vs. manipulate that thing. It is an entirely different scenario and set of conversations that get had when someone monitors something vs. when someone controls that something.
The US has not commandeered the Internet - frankly, they've always had power over the Internet because it was invented and is still maintained in the US.
So basically, the US hasn't "commandeered" the Internet because it didn't have to? It already has power over the Internet, so it didn't have to take any? I don't see how that in any way opposes the point Schneier was making in his article. He wasn't talking about "control" in the sense of the NSA dictating who can visit what website: he was talking about "commandeer" in the sense of the NSA being able to commandeer whatever information it wants, whenever it wants, from any provider of an Internet service.
Aside from the details that show the NSA having employees in companies install monitoring hardware worldwide? Or those that assist in providing data in return for some themselves?
None of that counts to you because "there's just no reason to believe such a thing." You are essentially saying you don't believe anything you may have read in the past few years counts as control.
What IS control then, other than the ability to control others, which the US/NSA has attempting to keep on top of since the shift in data traffic trends in the 1990s.
Did you just ask "What is control, other than the ability to control others"? Do you honestly not recognize the shell-game you're playing with that question?
You're responding to all of the things I said with tricks and games. You don't want to talk facts, so I don't want to talk with you. I'm done, unless you want to stop drawing conclusions and start painting a real picture.
How do you know? The Internet backbone was developed using US government funding. How do you know that the US government did not put backdoors there? It did in the case of the long-distance telephone network.
We can have our cake (terrorist monitoring) and eat it too (maintain individual privacy)
I agree that this could be done in theory; I'm not sure it can be done in practice.