Despite increasingly heated rhetoric from opponents of government surveillance, a recent survey shows that most Americans would be okay with many kinds of Internet snooping as long as the snoopers told them first.

The results showed “a surprising willingness by participants to accept the inspection of encrypted traffic, provided they are first notified,” according to the researchers behind the survey, which was titled “At Least Tell Me.”

Although the respondents put up with surveillance, half of them said that they believed it constituted an invasion of privacy.

Surveillance tools can create security vulnerabilities that permit hacking, illegal spying, privacy violations, and identity theft. But around 75 percent of respondents agreed that Internet service providers should be allowed to surveil traffic as long they notified users and received consent.

Most respondents also agreed that employers should be able to monitor the encrypted Internet connections of employees even without notification or consent, especially when an employee used a company computer. There was less agreement when it came to employees using personal devices; approximately a third of respondents opposed surveillance in that case.

In other situations—using the Internet at schools, in libraries, and on public Wi-Fi—most respondents said that surveillance was fine as long as they were told that it was happening.

The one exception to the overall trend in the survey involved warrantless government surveillance, but even that issue exposed a sharp divide.

Half of respondents objected outright to such spying. But 10 percent accepted it without qualification, another 10 percent said it was acceptable with notification, and a quarter of respondents said it was acceptable with consent.

The survey asked specifically about TLS interception proxies, software that intercepts and examines encrypted Internet traffic. Such proxies are used for protecting computers against malware, identity theft, and surveillance. Anyone with enough money can buy a TLS proxy. The same technique can be replicated with fake security certificates, rogue authorities, or clever attacks.

Despite accepting surveillance in a number of situations, 60 percent of respondents said that they would react negatively if they discovered that a network they currently use employed TLS proxies.

“I would be angry and would feel that organization violated my trust,” one anonymous responder said. “I would wonder what information that organization had been collecting on me and what they planned to do with it. If it was my employer, I also would think that organization did not trust me and would consider working somewhere else.”

Most respondents said that trade-offs often made surveillance acceptable because it could help schools and workplaces while defending against hackers.

The researchers described “confusion, doubt, worry, equivocation, and reasoned conclusions” among the participants as they wrestled with the big questions of privacy and security.

“I think it is perfectly acceptable for organizations (companies, schools, libraries, etc.) to use TLS proxies because it protects their computers,” one participant wrote.

“It keeps hackers from getting to sensitive or confidential information of the organization. In addition, it blocks harmful viruses that can cause a lot of damage and expense in repair. It can also keep individuals from accessing websites (employees from playing online games or minors from accessing pornography). It is perfectly reasonable for companies to employee this device for these purposes when an individual is using their computer. We should not expect privacy when we are using someone else’s computer.”

Approximately 90 percent of the survey’s 1,976 respondents were American. The researchers conducted the survey online earlier this year. Respondents skewed toward young adult, single, childless males, most of whom considered themselves Internet security savvy.

From The Daily Dot

Are all cops bad cops?

The vast majority of cops are not shooting WalMart shoppers or killing people in custody. Most cops are not pepper spraying protestors or shooting dogs.

Nor are the preponderance of cops nepotists abusing their power for friends and family, nor steroid users who make arrests for drug use.

But what attributes do apply to all cops?

When ordered to, all cops enforce laws against consensual and victimless crimes like drug use, filming police, licensing requirements, gambling, selling raw milk, and prostitution.

“Helping” the situation.

Yes, the police don’t write these laws.

Cops are not soldiers, conscripts, draftees, or prisoners who are forced to stay in uniform. They can quit. They choose not to.

However, US citizens cannot unsubscribe to police services. Police are paid through taxes which are automatically imposed on you… and the tax laws are enforced by the police. They don’t provide customer service and are not required to.

Warren v. District of Columbia holds that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services based on the public duty doctrine. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County have ruled similarly that the government is not liable to protect individuals.

All cops are granted special legal protections when it comes to abuse of power or misconduct. For example: In Maryland there is a 10-day cooling off period before any questioning may be conducted regarding a lethal force incident. In California, the cool off period is three days. Regular citizens are normally taken into custody and separated.

In grand jury proceedings that are attempting to indict an officer for misconduct, the prosecutor is the only official who may put forth evidence. The prosecutor usually has a personal relationship with the officer under indictment, who is also often from the same jursidiction. This results in a clear disincentive to condemn a coworker in the law enforcement system.

Police may also appropriate loose cash and call it “civil asset forfeiture.” In Ohio, police may simply guess your speed (no radar) and give you a ticket. Cops may attempt to arrest you for filming them (public servants) and charge you with “illegal recording” or “wiretapping.” Also in Ohio, police may take your personal information (driver’s license number, Social Security Number, et cetera) and give it to an agent to use while undercover. Police are permitted to lie to you; you are not permitted to lie to police.

I don’t believe that all cops are bad. However, all cops are working for a system that is bad — a system that grants badges extra rights, and is perhaps unnecessary.

When the NYPD went on strike earlier this year, arrests dropped 56 percent and tickets by 92 percent. No parking or criminal court summons were issued. The city carried on without the boys in blue.

Marinaleda, Spain has no police at all.

There are other alternatives if you’re uncomfortable with simply removing police entirely.

A private security firm.

The Sharpstown, Texas police fired its entire police force in 2013 and replaced them with a private security firm called S.E.A.L., cutting crime by 61 percent and saving Sharpstown $200,000 a year.

Private, armed security in neighborhoods is on the rise in the US. Robert Stokes, an associate professor has stated that 20 neighborhoods in Atlanta and at least four in Detroit have hired private guards for protection. Volunteer patrols and neighborhood watch organizations have sprung up all over Detroit after the city’s financial meltdown.

What can you do?

Avoid talking to the police. It can’t help you. Everything you say can and will be used against you or others.

Remember that police are fallible humans, much like yourself.

Look into alternative, voluntary solutions to government. Consider doing a search for the following terms: Non-Aggression Principle, Voluntaryism, Anatomy of the State

This opinion piece written by an anonymous independent contributor for TruthVoice