Ehhh... the term "adversary" is the standard term in any crypto paper or book for people who you are designing your system to be safe against. I'm very concerned about NSA overreach, but this is normal crypto terminology. It's true that this isn't quite algorithm design, but it's the most natural word I could imagine for such a scenario.

Sure, it's a term of art for spies. That they're using it to apply to us is the problem.

Again, it's "the most natural word" because they are spying on and actively sabotaging us, our products, and our security.

This may be true but one presumes that NSA employees should be first of all public employees and only after all that should they be cryptographers.

A soldier is literally speaking a professional killer but a killer who's focus is very limited and specific. It's natural for soldiers to talk about adversaries. We should still be very worried if soldiers start thinking about American civilians as adversaries.

This was my first reaction. It's disconcerting to see in a nontechnical document, but for all that these leaks disturb me, "adversary" amounts to no more than "the people who might be trying to find out what you're doing."

No, the NSA document clearly states "consumers and other adversaries".

The adversaries are not the people trying to find out what you are doing. The adversaries are the people trying to password-protect their private files. We are the adversaries.

Adversary is a term of art in both intelligence and cryptographic circles: it means an attacker trying to get your information/thwart your goals. . The NSA does not consider normal people adversaries in that sense. Targets and potential terrorists, possibly, but actively capable of screwing with the NSA, no.

If the sentence was written by a cryptographer, it most likely reads as the NSA is an adversary in the context of the cryptographic system(since they are braking it) and they want to make sure that only they and not the consumer or another intelligence service knows of their exploit.

Your interpretation depends entirely on "normal people" continuing to be sitting ducks for pervasive detailed surveillance.

If you want data security and privacy, you are an "adversary."

I think if one spent time talking politics with people outside of America, especially 3rd-world countries, this question would have come up a long time ago. The difference today is that now Americans are starting to wonder even without influence from foreigners.

If you declare war on an abstract concept, it shouldn't surprise you when your people start looking for tangible targets that fit the abstract concept, even if most of your soldiers are home.

Nope they are not the enemy, they are perverts. This just makes them very naughty, and should be punished for it. It's happening in small scale: some people are avoiding US products.

At this point we can probably trust China better, even though the US feared them saying. We have a saying in Belgium: Zoals de waard is, vertrouwt hij zijn gasten. (Like the inkeeper is, he trusts his quests.) Meaning, if you are spying you suspect the others to spy to. Guess the saying IS actually true!

My government has declared war on me, heaven help them..

They shall find no succor nor shall their works persist.

America spies on the rest of the world, while it's partners spy on americans. The agencies of all participating countries then collaborate to exchange "insight." So, America ends up spying on itself as well but without the legal implications(?).

All this to get around laws.

The workarounds, extensive bureaucratic support structures, and concomitant costs remind me of Oracle's enterprise product licensing terms, conditions, and caveats.

"But the NSA showing an apparent deep hatred and resentment of the American public as a whole? That is not only a surprise. It’s inexcusable. And perverse."

For me, as a European citizen, the thing that really strikes me is how many American people react to this entire 'NSA mass surveillance' situation:

Average European interpretation: Mass Surveillance is evil, no matter who's doing it and no matter who's being monitored.

Average American interpretation: Monitoring non-Americans is okay. What, wait, the NSA is now monitoring Americans? Monitoring Americans is evil!

To me it feels like Americans, like the author of this article, seem to think of themselves as something 'better than other human beings/world citizens'. I find this very repulsive.

> To the consumer and other adversaries

This sounds like bullshit to me. It's implied that the consumer is an adversary from the way this quote is written, but it's probably just poorly ordered. Perhaps it would have been more precise if they had written it "To adversaries and the consumer".

But it wasn't written that way. The word "other" has a specific meaning in that context, which means it isn't an ordering problem.

You can always find some excuse or another.

The fact of the matter is, the consumer (we, the general public) IS targeted by the NSA and our privacy is about to be terminated forever.

So yes, we now have the evidence to understand that we are "the adversary".

The real question is who exactly is now not the enemy as far as they are concerned?

Americans are extremely dangerous from the point of view of non-Americans.

Also see "who is not an adversary?"

https://soundcloud.com/madiha-1/students-question-the-nsa-at

> So now you wonder about the most-outspoken apologists for the agency, guys like Ruppersberger. You wonder if some blackmailing is going on or whether these folks just hate the country they serve.

There's another possibility:

Getting money or power (and ultimately money) out of this.

It's probably the most widespread motivation of "representatives" in DC nowadays.