|
Yet another reason Feinstein is the worst senator. I hope she gets Alzheimer's assuming she doesn't have it already.
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
He is correct that it is functionally a meaningless difference. People get put on lists for metadata even if the ACTUAL data was harmless. If I had called Osama Bin Laden the day before the SEAL raid, and said "oops sorry wrong number" then hung up, I'd probably be on a no-fly list at very the least. Either way the data is immaterial as far as investigation and trial evidence is concerned, if they have already pegged you as a person of interest, which again is based on metadata.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
the posted:What I'm wondering is, for the average middle-class person in America, is it even possible to live a normal life and not be surveyed constantly? No. It has been fairly difficult to escape observation even in the late 90's these days it is actually impossible, but complacency etc means that as long as you are keep your head down, you (probably) won't end up disappeared, and if you do, well I guess you were just unlucky. Nothing we can do right? Lets just keep voting for people like Feinstein because we are loving idiot sheep and think that she is somehow better than an 'other'.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:So, you're arguing we shouldn't investigate people who call Osama bin Laden because some of those calls might be accidental? Transparency is all I'm asking for, but ideally no, we shouldn't be criminalizing someone for who they associate with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Calling Osama bin Laden shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, no, but you're insane if you think it shouldn't make you a criminal suspect. Remember you become a suspect and are pre-judged guilty based on the metadata, nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not sure why. None of us are privy as to why they're doing it, and assuming that it's for "economic imperialism pursuant to American hegemony" seems to be based on precisely as much information as saying "it's because there was a national security threat that required tapping the phone lines of German politicians including the Chancellor." You've created a false dichotomy. There is nothing necessary about spying on anyone. The cold war is over, the future of the human race isn't at stake anymore. Give me one scenario, however outlandish you want make it, that would justify the current American intelligence industry. In short, WHY is the NSA justified spying on ANYONE?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
In your Tom Clancy scenario, you are making the mistake of assuming that the NSA ISN'T the shadowy organization. Why do you assume that the US Government has your best interests at heart? Or that any individual has put the "stability" of the US above their personal short-term gain? Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they are selfish and do what they do because they are paid to, why would the NSA be different?
ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
The NSA ISN'T a nation, it is an organization that is hiding it's actions from the democractic representatives of this nation, and further, that organization is made of individual's of varying accountability, and precious little oversight. We can only trust it's intentions are what it says they are. But, without transparency, there can be no trust. Keith Alexander might as well declare martial law "for our own protection" of course, and rebuke anyone who doubts him with the same nebulous claims of "national security." As for US Hegemony being preferable or even approaching Utilitarianism I suggest you take an Ethics 101 class as well as learn some Post WW2 US History.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it? Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Clandestine spying on internet communications has actually been occurring since at least 1997 (that was when the technical ability was installed), and phone communications before that. But it was extremely limited in scope, and the ability to only collect metadata with short retention made it a non-issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
There is a huge difference between trying to put stuff back into pandora's box, and actively collecting information about the citizenry then keeping all that information secret. One is a fairly benign, but ultimately futile endeavor, the other is the stuff dystopian nightmares are composed of, nothing is worth that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
In the meantime, the NSA will still have a permanent presence in the COs and Exchanges of Verizon, ATT, Comcast, Timewarner, Sprint etc. etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
i am harry posted:We also have these sort of surveillance systems being sold. As I look out of the door-window of my second floor apartment into one of the many parking lots of this lovely "gated community" I cannot help but envision a time in the not to distant future when places like this become "gated corporate compounds" with their own behavior rules, security force, and the occasional knock on the door or email from the office that my online movements or expressed thoughts are a concern as they do not fit in line with encouraged group-think of the neighborhood. You can always leave those. You can't leave the US Sphere of influence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:In all honesty, that's just an issue of looking at things in a twisted way. Agreed. "America, right or wrong, America."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
quote:And admittedly, from a certain perspective it would be in the FBI's interest to hold evidence of US lawmaker's wrong doing A Man With A Plan posted:And unless you think the largest employer in Maryland (NSA) is entirely staffed by Orwellian thugs out to crush your freedoms, it's hard to assume that they don't care about freedom of speech, living in a good country, and whatever else just as much as you. It's selection bias. People who feel that the NSA has overstepped it's legal authority and do not accept it's trade-off, like me, aren't going to be working at the NSA. People who would be right at home in 1984, are more likely to apply and be accepted. So no, they don't care about freedom of speech nearly as much as I do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Encryption isn't binary. Given infinite time all encryption is useless. But just because we don't possess perfect encryption doesn't mean that it is all worthless. The nsa still has finite storage and finite resources. Thus unless you are using a trivial "encryption "method Like ROT13 or something stupid, there is value in the average person clicking the "encrypt" button in WhatsApp. Even better if the encrypt button was default, and didn't depend on a central server for encryption to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Its Miller Time posted:I had a quick question I was wondering about recently. If I, a normal person, called up my friend Joe and said "Joe I just murdered Jeff", if the government wanted too could they get a copy of that call for court? Probably. 20 year's ago the answer was probably not. Progress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You're making GBS threads on people who want to make the Internet more secure and your entire argument boils down to encryption not being a panacea that perfectly solves every security and privacy issue related to the internet. If your goal isn't to troll/derail, what exactly is your goal? What solutions are you proposing? None as far as I can tell. Perhaps he is more interested in policy solutions limiting the NSA etc, so that they can't (legally) press "CTRL-C and copy the internet". Encryption is a good thing, but not a solution to the problem of state surveillance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
sectoidman posted:I'd like to point out that a properly-implemented one-time pad is mathematically unbreakable without the key, even with infinite time. A one-time pad isn't encryption any more then giving your friend a USB drive is. It's a substitution cypher, and it's useless for two-way communication and completely academic in any discussion about securing two-way communications.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This is exactly saying "dont bother locking your doors, a criminal will just break the window and jump into your house." We all understand that there are a variety of ways that information leaks out of your control. Everyone here understands that. The existance of other security vulnerabilities that affect the internet doesn't have anything to do with the desirability of universal encryption. Nobody has the goal of perfect security because that is impossible by definition. "Locking your doors" is actually an apt analogy because it is pointless for solving the problem of being robbed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:That isn't accurate. Locking your doors will not stop a robber determined to break into a specific house but burglars prefer an easy targets if they are targeting an area instead of an individual. Sorry I meant it's pointless for solving the Social problem of robbery and the cause of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:And what I'm trying to get at is what exactly you mean by that, why do you consider it a problem? If it's purely the principle of the thing then the only recourse is to completely dismantle the NSA. Good luck with that. You are really dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
I haven't looked at Signal's code but there is no reason that even in the inevitably flawed implementation, that all past conversations would have to be compromised. Perfect Forward Secrecy works and has been standard for a long time in internet communications. I doubt Signal is using a single key for all sessions forever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Zombywuf posted:And what I'm trying to get at is what exactly you mean by that, why do you consider it a problem? If it's purely the principle of the thing then the only recourse is to completely dismantle the NSA. Good luck with that. Why would that be a problem indeed.... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance Oh..
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 08:21
|
|