Green Oasis

Brian Schweitzer, Montana Governor, tells the federal government to go to hell when it asks his state to agree to comply with the REAL ID Act. It’s carte a jouer pokermeilleur poker onlinejouer gratuitement au poker texasjouer au poker texas holdemtélécharger le jeu poker gratuitesjeux poker texas holdem gratuitespoker en ligne patrick brueleverst poker netpoker sur le net,www poker net,poker netpacifique pokerjeu pctelecharger jeu poker holdemtelecharger logiciel poker gratuitestelecharger texas holdemstreep poker gratuitesregles au pokeronline poker roomjeu flash poker texasjouez pokerpoker reseau gratuitesworld poker tourspoker en ligne francejeu video de pokersexy poker onlinegratuites jeux yahoole jeu de poker françaispoker casino gratuitespoker tour reglesjeux poker gratuitementregles officielles pokersexy pokertélécharger gratuitement jeu de poker en ligneworld class pokerpoker gratuites sans inscriptionpoker en ligne argentjeu de poker holdemjuego del poker libreinternet pokerjugar omaha poker gratisjugar 7 card stud gratistorneos pokerel poquerpoquer webparty pokerjuego del poker en lineafive card stud,7 card stud,play 7 card studstrip poker downloadtorneos de pokerdescargar poker gratispoker en linea libre wonderful to hear a politician talk sense for once when it comes to security—though I’m sure it helps that there’s no way Montana or any other state could financially afford to comply. REAL ID is a farce. It won’t make us any more secure; it only makes the politicians look like their doing something.

I’m drawing a line in the sand: I will never comply with this bass ackward legislation.

Bruce Schneier, renowned security pundit, wrote in his latest Cryptogram newsletter that the dichotomy between security and privacy is false: increased security doesn’t necessarily a decrease in privacy like some inversely proportional law of nature.

We’ve been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often—in debates on security versus privacy, writing contests, polls, reasoned essays and political rhetoric—that most of us don’t even question the fundamental dichotomy.

But it’s a false one.

Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don’t have to accept less of one to get more of the other. Think of a door lock, a burglar alarm and a tall fence. Think of guns, anti-counterfeiting measures on currency and that dumb liquid ban at airports. Security affects privacy only when it’s based on identity, and there are limitations to that sort of approach.

Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back, and—possibly—sky marshals. Everything else—all the security measures that affect privacy—is just security theater and a waste of effort.

By the same token, many of the anti-privacy “security” measures we’re seeing—national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining, and so on—do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.

The debate isn’t security versus privacy. It’s liberty versus control.

So don’t let a politician sandbag you into giving up privacy for promises of greater security.