[javajosh]

Did you read the article?! It's a straw-man pointing out that the only way to ensure privacy is with the protection of law:

>If we really want to protect our privacy on the net what we need is more than better technology, we need fundamental changes in our laws and how we enforce the privacy laws we do have. Then, and only then, will we have a fighting chance of keeping our privacy on the Internet.

[bpatrianakos]

You're right but I don't think this very likely. I think changing your online behavior is the only real way to escape surveillance. That basically means either not using the web or only using it when you don't care about who's watching.

Changing the laws and/or enforcing them would be ideal but then it seems we'd end up right where we are again. Part of the reason for the secrecy of these programs isn't only national security but a way to circumvent the laws. From what we know about the current NSA controversy, these programs are mostly legal and being enforced just fine. Courts are ruling in favor of these things. That's not to say a debate over the 4th amendment isn't unreasonable.

Sometimes I feel there's a part of me that believes we could change the laws. The problem may not be our representatives exactly but rather the power that's been given to the military industrial complex. It's like a totally separate government unto itself, creating problems to solve to justify its own existence.

[saraid216]

Yeah, but even that is wrong. It isn't fundamental changes in our laws; it's fundamental changes in the way we interact with our governments. And that's far too much to ask a privacy advocate to do.

[Zigurd]

Foreign state actors are not subject to your national laws. You need to protect your data in depth.