How is this news? We've known this since Mark Klein[0] leaked the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to the press in 2006, more than 6 years ago. If you're doing anything illegal with a method of communication that doesn't have end-to-end encryption, then you're really stupid. Fortunately for the authorities, the vast majority of individuals who commit crimes are really stupid.
Sigh. I keep seeing comments like these whenever such article is posted. But there are 2 problems with that mentality:
1) Just because we the HN readers and Reddit readers, and other people who take an active interest in either being up to date with this sort of stuff, know about this, doesn't mean that population at large either a) knows about it, b) believes it (this sort of stuff sounds too much like conspiracy theories, even if it's real in this case).
2) Just because there were some news about it a few years ago, and there was like a mini-outrage for like a week, and then nothing really happened, doesn't mean we should stop talking about it now, and just let them continue doing it. The point is to keep raising awareness, and incite people to fight for their rights, and demand answers from NSA and the administration. More than that - demand change.
Re to 1): well, this is HN, so you're just preaching to the choir. Why not instead spend the time/effort spreading awareness among the general public? They're the ones that decide elections (and thus policies, or at least I hope).
Re to 2): again, this isn't going to raise awareness. The vast majority of people here already know about this.
When the general public's candidate pool has been narrowed down to two candidates by the media, is the general public really deciding elections anymore? It becomes multiple choice where both options are pro-plutocrat and pro-authoritarian.
We've also known since 2007 that "you can't hide secrets from the future with math[1]." So, if you're doing anything illegal and that information is available to a network, it's a matter of time, not encryption.
Also worth pointing out, in the video he reminds us that the definition of "crime" is not set in stone.
If the time that it will take to break the encryption is significantly longer than your expected remaining lifespan (and anyone you care about), then you probably have nothing to worry about. In any case, sneakernet is an option that is always available.
These estimates of security should be considered an upper bound, not a lower bound or average. In other words,
> If the time that it will take to break the encryption by brute force is significantly longer than your expected remaining lifespan
....just because we don't know about a vulnerability in SHA-3 today doesn't mean that we won't in ten years. SHA-1 and SHA-2 were once thought to be secure, and they may yet be even more broken than we realize.
Furthermore, that also makes a major assumption about computing hardware. Particularly with the (possible) advent of quantum computing and the possibilities that large-scale quantum computing would provide, I think it's impossible for anybody to do more than speculate about the future like that.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein