Slashdot Mirror
Carnivore Update
A reader writes: "Yahoo has a news item about the continued use of DCS-1000 AKA Carnivore. Looks like it's being used more than ever, and some privacy groups are still fighting in court for more disclosure about its use."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Carnivore is not here to 'keep us safe'. It's here to keep us quiet. Thank you John Asscroft, for making sure no one speaks out without repercussions.
BTW: The terrorists have already won...the election.
Even with the recent evolution in factoring, there's no match for a properly set-up pgp/gpg.
Why bother to rely on their niceness when you can easily be rather sure nobody reads your important mails?
"Still, SecurityFocus incident analyst Ryan Russell said the events of September 11th changed many citizens' minds.
"I think there is a lot less concern from the majority of people that they're going to be monitored," Russell told NewsFactor."
OK, now prove it. No one likes their communications being monitored. Has anyone actually gone out and ASKED people if they mind being monitored? Or is this more of the well, they don't seem to mind because they aren't bitching about it type of logic?
This cop-out crap about 9-11 changing the way everyone thinks of privacy is beginning to get extremely old. 9-11 was a national tragedy. Don't use it to slam dunk crap legislation down our throats...once you have gathered the wraith of enough people, then maybe you will listen. Most Americans are UN-EDUCATED on these matters. They also probably think that in order to be caught up in this, you need to be some militia-type with a bunch of ammo and automatic weapons to be investigated. Sad, really....
Sent from your iPad.
The thing I don't understand is this - it seems the people who get angriest about Carnivore are people like me, who have absolutely nothing to hide. I am not involved in any sort of criminal activity, and my "secrets" wouldn't earn an R rating if they were made into a movie. Yet this story makes me furious.
The people I know who DO have things to hide, who actually deal with sensitive corporate stuff, who do drugs and have affairs, these people tend to be very blase about privacy issues.
Why?
God is real unless declared integer
You said "If this is what it takes in this modern day and age for the law enforcement agencies to protect us, so be it. "
As Ben Franklin said ->"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Perhaps this will help you understand why it is important to stop this now.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing -- when you let the small evils pass, larger ones follow." Edmund Burke.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Nietzsche
Or try this on for size
"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."
by Rev. Martin Niemoeller, 1945
Perhaps I'm not so likely to jump back on the bandwagon because the situations that existed before 9/11 that brought about the events of 9/11 are for the most part unchanged.
- There's a good deal of moneyed hate for all that is Western culture. Don't think those in the EU get a pass. It's only a matter of irrational fortune that the London Stock Exchange or the Eiffel Tower didn't get nailed. What was the plan...50 airplanes all over the world? Something along those lines.
- Theocratic warfare is still quite prevalent in the middle east. Theocratic states don't play along national lines or rules. If God says it, screw your Geneva Convention, buddy.
- We haven't disproved the efficiency of non-state based warfare. In fact, all we've done is hope it goes away before something else happens. Of course, EVERYONE is worried about the unstated concern that the international organizations are really just fronts for foreign governments. It doesn't take a genius to figure out a half dozen methods for causing billions of dollars worth of damage in ANY major metropolitan area around the world with no possibility of being stopped.
- We don't know what was planned to go off, where it was planned to go off, and with whom it is to go off. If the terrorists had any forethought at all, they would've allowed for the possibility of a communications crackdown after the first strike. Carnivore is based on the hope that the terrorists weren't this prepared. Given that the people who carried out the hijackings were in the U.S. for years, this isn't something to count on. Then again, Richard Reid was so butt-loving stupid(he missed his first flight for crying out loud!) we may yet snap up the idiot in the enemy ranks.
To sum up: we don't know who the enemy exactly is, but we do know that the enemy does exist. To pretend the enemy doesn't exist is insanely moronic and, in the end, suicidal. Get over the concept that any inconvenience is a victory for the enemy, and at least allow for the possibility that the government may just be trying to save your pampered ass.Maybe all you do is check hockey scores, but some of us do real work on the Internet. Think about this, for example: What if I wanted John Ashcroft's job, and I was using email on the Internet to plan my campaign strategy. Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft not to take advantage of his position to protect his own interests, but what about the rest of the people in his organization? Do you want to bet your democracy on it? As a rule, in the US, we don't grant this level of inherent trust to our elected officials; we've found it unnecessary because we've created a government based on a set of checks and balances. A lot of people made a lot of sacrifices to bring you the democracy your enjoy today. You disrespect their memory to abandon what they've built just to make your own ass a bit safer for a while.
Carnivore allows one branch to "snoop" on the other two (and every citizen as well). Carnivore is root access to the email system.
Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft, but ask yourself this: Why is this administration demanding the ability to look at the inner workings of all other organizations (Carnivore), and simultaneously blocking requests by other organixations to find out about the administrations inner workings (energy policy scandal)?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One of the most interesting trends when any sort of privacy issue comes up on Slashdot is the rather large number of trolls - excuse me, 'folks with alternate viewpoints' - who come out of the woodwork to proudly proclaim that *they* have nothing to hide and therefore aren't concerned. And, as *they* aren't concerned, neither should you be - unless you're doing something illegal, immoral, or socially deviant, that is.
Rather intriguing that folks who aren't concerned about their privacy insist that everyone else not be concerned as well. In fact, they practically rant about it, insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with them is either paranoid or involved in some dark, nefarious scheme against All That Is Good And Right(TM).
If they were so bloody unconcerned they should be perfectly ready to accept the fact that others might have more stringent views, and accept them - but they aren't. No, they *demand* that you conform to their views on the matter - which indicates that they are indeed concerned: they want your life to be as open to inspection as their own boring little existence is.
Why? For the same reason that the halfwit readers of the Enquirer insist that public figures have no right to privacy: so that they at least have the chance to snoop on the life of someone more interesting. And participate in their destruction if they prove to be someone socially undesirable, like a bisexual or an atheist, or a bisexual atheist, or whatever is on today's hit-list parade.
In fact, the perverts who insist that they don't need privacy, and therefore neither do you (and they'll spend a great deal of energy making sure you don't get it), are nothing more than malicious little peeping toms hoping that legislation stripping away what little privacy we have left will provide them with the same sort of vicarious thrills that the Enquirer does now.
Make no bones about it: the truly unconcerned don't even bother to comment. They are, after all, *unconcerned*. Those that *do* make a point of commenting and then arguing about it are just plain shits - shits who want to first tell you you *can't* have something or do something, just to give themselves a false sense of power in their otherwise pathetic lives; and second, in the hopes of spying on you, either directly or through the government, in order to experience a real life second hand. Or better yet, in the hopes that your more interesting existence will be targeted and destroyed in a public fashion, malicious revenge for the ennui of their own useless, unimportant existence.
The people who argue against privacy aren't just expressing a viewpoint; they're lobbying to actively invade your life and try to extend some control over it. They aren't satisfied unless they know *everyone's* business and have the opportunity to rain all over the parade of people more interesting than themselves.
Make no mistake: these folks are just plain evil (with the small 'e'; they don't have the balls for the bigger one). Nothing more, nothing less. They are the enemy; a repulsive, squalling enemy, a mostly ineffectual, impotent enemy, but still an enemy. Bitch-slap the buggers whenever you can, for that's all that they deserve.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?