They have this in their stylesheet across the website

p{color:#999;line-height:1.4;margin-bottom:.75em}

so paragraph tags, sadly, have the ugly grey font color by default

I could never do this. I type my ssh password as a bash command too often. My file would turn out to be a password history!

Is your ssh password `ls`? That's not a great password.

I think he means he types it out accidentally, we've all been there. Bonus points for when you're doing it on a screenshare or projector.

Use ssh keys

That you cannot read the private key of.

Do you mean on a yubi-key type thing, or do you mean password protected, or do you mean something else entirely?

Ah never thought of that... I use ssh keys myself so never a concern. You could scrub the file of all entries where you are ssh'ing in?

Yikes. You use SSH passwords?

I'm not well versed on the details of U.S. government surveillance, but is it not the case that collection of phone logs, for instance, does not entail the government directly infringing on or even caring about 99.999999% of the public's private activity? My understanding is that these types of surveillance programs technically exist so that logs can be pulled up retroactively or algorithmically in rare but important cases.

I am asking because I am intellectually curious. It seems to me that _on average_ people could stand to gain from surveillance and possibly predictive algorithms for crime. I would like to better grasp the other side of the argument.

That argument has been made by repressive regimes to justify all sorts of witch hunts: "Our records say you were friends with John; you should have known he would be branded a subversive traitor. Why didn't you turn him in first?"

Stats make this even worse: "Sorry. The computer said we have to lock you up for your own good."

Also, the framers of the US constitution had a deep mistrust of government (they just overthrew the brits!). The right of revolution is something they teach (at least used to teach) in US schools: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

Tl;dr: If law enforcement is too effective then you can't defend yourself from unjust governments. This is why we have juries and the right to bear arms / form [state in addition to federal] militias.

Thank you for your reply. Your argument makes sense to me, however I am still having some difficulty understanding how ultimately surveillance is anything but negligible in aiding law enforcement to oppress U.S. citizens - compared to the government's already existing enormously superior weaponry. IF the government were out to get me, I can't imagine how I could stop them, even if they had only basic information about me. UNLESS I am a criminal mastermind, in which case it seems like the government would NEED information about me to stop me, which would probably be a good thing? I dunno... do you at least see where I'm coming from? I haven't formed a concrete opinion about it all, and I am a student of cyber-security. Presently considering all points of view.

EDIT: I guess your point is that the surveillance information can be used to /justify/ an attack on a citizen, so that the public accepts it. But somehow I imagine the government could already easily falsify records to do exactly that without deep troves of info?

The ideas I presented are from a long time ago. Arguably, modern military technology made grass roots revolutions impossible in first world countries (or will soon, given drones, etc).

Dragnet surveillance creates capabilities like "shoot the 1% of people in this city most likely to oppose me." A more effective / socially acceptable version is already being implemented in China. They have a number that measures how good of a citizen you are. As I understand it, it can be used to vet people for all sorts of things (employment, credit, housing, law enforcement targeting, etc).

So, now, if you say something wrong in private, you might end up begging for food on the side of the road.

Of course, the input to the score is secret; presumably it can be adjusted up or down by (abusive?) people in authority.

Even if I am wrong about the details of the Chinese system (maybe it has great checks and balances for all I know), it is easy to see how government agents could abuse such a system.

Honestly, I do not disagree. In some ways I imagine that mass surveillance may even be necessary for the protection of the country, considering the potential for destruction that even a few people with the right technology and planning possess. Following your logic, it seems that the mass surveillance maybe has more potential to help than to hurt (since the govt already possesses plenty of resources for destruction).

Given how many people on here are adamant about anti-surveillance I feel like I must be missing something... like I get the overall premise but it seems to exclude a lot of important considerations...

For me, I imagine a scenario like the movie GATTACA where in a future world an employer can base their entire hiring decision on what your genome says about you (theoretically, a lot). Imagine a world where business giants judge you by correlating huge amounts of data about you. "You shop for expensive purses and small dog toys, therefore statistically your personality is x, y, z"

I don't know for sure, but if you try to get a job at certain places where they require you to get clearance, THEY WILL read your search history, emails etc, and that is. Information collected via online surveillance tells much more about you than your genes. Even from genetic standpoint, there is a thing called epigenetics. Environment affect about half the traits of who you are, so knowing what you eat, who you meet, where you go and so on would actually be quite revealing.

Um, no they don't: https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86-non508.pdf