# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  New Telecomm Provider Would Put Privacy First

## Lucille

New Telecomm Provider Would Put Privacy First




> [Nicholas] Merrill, 39, who previously ran a New York-based Internet provider, told CNET that he's raising funds to launch a national "non-profit telecommunications provider dedicated to privacy, using ubiquitous encryption" that will sell mobile phone service and, for as little as $20 a month, Internet connectivity.
> 
> The ISP would not merely employ every technological means at its disposal, including encryption and limited logging, to protect its customers. It would also -- and in practice this is likely more important -- challenge government surveillance demands of dubious legality or constitutionality.
> 			
> 		
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> ...


Sure.  Too bad the fedgov will never let it happen.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

Interesting ...

----------


## V4Vendetta

This Internet provider pledges to put your privacy first. Always.

Step aside, AT&T and Verizon. A new privacy-protecting Internet service and telephone provider still in the planning stages could become the ACLU's dream and the FBI's worst nightmare.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...y-first-always

Here is his fund raising page!
http://www.indiegogo.com/calyx

Nick Merrill

----------


## Kluge

Heh. I'd expect to see a few "companies" pop up that promise these things but are really a CIA/FBI front. After all, anyone who's interested in privacy is probably up to no good, right? Just because they can't use the info in a court doesn't mean they can't use it to set you up.

How's that for conspiracy theorizing?

----------


## W. A. Mozart

> Sure.  Too bad the fedgov will never let it happen.


That's what a VPN from the Netherlands is for.

----------


## DamianTV

I definitely want to check these guys out, but from a skeptics perspective.  If they can walk the walk, I will throw money at them!

----------


## Mckarnin

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...-first-always/

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Heh. I'd expect to see a few "companies" pop up that promise these things but are really a CIA/FBI front. After all, anyone who's interested in privacy is probably up to no good, right? Just because they can't use the info in a court doesn't mean they can't use it to set you up.
> 
> How's that for conspiracy theorizing?



Pretty good.  lol


I'd still be supportive of an unknown effort like that, since once it showed how viable it is, others would enter.  The big telecoms have done nothing but sell us out 100%, so even an fbi run privacy service wouldn't be much worse.

----------


## WilliamC

Check out tor project, I don't use it for normal surfing but when I'm not using my computer I let it run and help provide anonymous internet access to those in oppressive countries.

Well, more oppressive than ours.

Well, more _openly_ oppressive than ours.

----------


## thoughtomator

I'd sign up for it the moment it became available, even at 2x the price. I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm simply not comfortable with my life being an open book to anyone with the means to snoop.

----------


## DamianTV

I think Yieu's statement that I put in my sig was good enough to be called all encompassing.

----------


## Reason

/staying tuned.

----------


## MRK

I've long had a dream to launch a freedom satellite that would be used to transmit data securely to people in totalitarian states across the world.

----------


## Romulus

I want to trust this... but not sure. Sounds like it could be a front...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Off topic...

Seriously, I really, really try not to dupe posts and threads.

I posted this story again, but I searched, Nick Merrill and Calyx, specifically before doing it.

Nothing.

Is it because the OP had the story in quotes or is my search fu fail, or what?

WTF?

----------


## Reason

//////////

----------


## No Free Beer

Don't worry. Google will use the government to impose their will on any competitor.

----------


## tommy949

With privacy , cool

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I've long had a dream to launch a freedom satellite that would be used to transmit data securely to people in totalitarian states across the world.



I hear China and Russia drooling now... - OOH! FREE uber expensive clay pidgin!  - Notify the ASAT R&D teams immediately!






> Off topic...
> 
> Seriously, I really, really try not to dupe posts and threads.
> 
> I posted this story again, but I searched, Nick Merrill and Calyx, specifically before doing it.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> Is it because the OP had the story in quotes or is my search fu fail, or what?
> ...


search fu fail! - j/k.  From my understanding, RPF's waits for low load times to do this type of indexing due to load volume.  I'm not sure how often that is or if it's based on current board usage falling below a certain level and being in the middle of the night... that sort of thing.  Point being, new posts don't show up right away.  I think...


If this company wants to be another QWEST and fight the gvmt tooth and nail for every request - more power to them!  Much better than the big telcom's that just hand out access to their circuits to the gvmt for monitoring and censorship.  It's a lot like the telcoms and inet providers locking you into plans and then massively overcharging and bleeding you dry.  Unfortunately, with current laws they have to retain records, give access and spy on their customers for BIG GOV!  They can fight it - and that is a plus!  a HUGE plus!, but in the end, if they want to stay in business they have to comply.  Any company willing to make it hard, however, is worthy of our business!

-t

----------


## ghengis86

> New Telecomm Provider Would Put Privacy First
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  Too bad the fedgov will never let it happen.


My thoughts too. How could a company refuse the Feds national security letters and keep the doors open?  Double secret courts and all that...

----------


## youngbuck

> Don't worry. Google will use the government to impose their will on any competitor.


I wouldn't doubt this for a second.

----------

