Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Government Hires Company To Hack Into Video Game Consoles

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Navy is paying a company six figures to hack into used video game consoles and extract sensitive information. The tasks to be completed are for both offline and online data. The organization says it will only use the technology on consoles belonging to nations overseas, because the law doesn't allow it to be used on any 'U.S. persons.'" Should be a doddle.

121 comments

  1. This sounds a little paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does the US Navy really want to spend it's time finding out what sort of porn slashdotters were storing on their consoles, etc. They've got more important things to do, like protecting us while we watch our porn. And so we have the RIGHT to watch it.

  2. steganography? by mordjah · · Score: 1

    Woder what they are looking for.. Mostly wonder what can be found thats not already on facebook.

    --
    "A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
    1. Re:steganography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacking and streaming the consoles camera and mics perhaps? Accessing daddies credit card information? etc...

    2. Re:steganography? by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Funny

      Woder what they are looking for.. Mostly wonder what can be found thats not already on facebook.

      They're looking for clues to beat the Ironman Challenge in WoW.

    3. Re:steganography? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Im quite sure the kinect has a backdoor system built in. The Xbox can download files even while appearing off. im sure the kinect camera (not the IR field generator) can be turned on without the user knowing.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:steganography? by liamevo · · Score: 1

      Turn it off by the socket. No more crazy paranoia!

    5. Re:steganography? by spokenoise · · Score: 2

      They want you to believe that will help.... but it won't!

    6. Re:steganography? by JuicyBrain · · Score: 1

      I have the reflex of always turning my webcams towards the wall when I don't use them. I just hate the idea that someone COULD be looking at me through my own webcams. I guess I'm a bit paranoid...

    7. Re:steganography? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I have the reflex of always turning my webcams towards the wall when I don't use them. I just hate the idea that someone COULD be looking at me through my own webcams. I guess I'm a bit paranoid...

      I'm not paranoid and I'm not stupid enough to leave my webcams plugged into a computer or gaming console when not being used.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:steganography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they need a clue for this? It isn't like "don't die" needs 'splaining. :D

  3. Sensitive information? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're looking for the high scores of Taliban insurgents or what?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Sensitive information? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah that's what I'm wondering. What useful information could be gleaned from a game console? Do they think that the terrorists are using Xbox Live and PSN to communicate now or what? How would that be any more beneficial than the plethora of pre-paid cell phones out there that cost next to nothing and can be tossed regularly?

    2. Re:Sensitive information? by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      Maybe terrorists like to relax with their buddies with a game every now and then? They're people too, and I wouldn't be surprised if some aren't all that security conscious. Contact networks of such people would be useful, but I would have thought the DoD could get such data from MS/Sony with a warrant/subpoena. Hard to know what could be useful on the console itself.

    3. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't xbox live account be tied to a credit card and eventually has a paper trail to an address? On the other hand, prepaid phone can be bought by cash in a corner store.

    4. Re:Sensitive information? by Leuf · · Score: 2

      It would give them an excuse to start prying into the lives of anyone they associated with through gaming. Actually finding anyone who is a real threat is a secondary concern to having more people to have to look into and more ways to look into them so they can get more money and influence.

    5. Re:Sensitive information? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not necessarily, you can buy XBL time cards for cash, also...that's what I do, I refuse to give them my CC#. Ditto with PSN (you've got to be insane to trust them with your CC#, after all that bullshit last year.

      As long as there is an alternative to using my CC#, I'm going to choose that. When they get rid of that ability, I stop spending money with them. It wouldn't really bother me much, anyway, to be honest; 99% of my gaming is on PC these days.

    6. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x-boxs overseas are easily turned into servers or so i have heard.

    7. Re:Sensitive information? by wickedskaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah that's what I'm wondering. What useful information could be gleaned from a game console? Do they think that the terrorists are using Xbox Live and PSN to communicate now or what?

      It's been reported that that's exactly what's going on.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    8. Re:Sensitive information? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Never believe anything reported in The Scum.

    9. Re:Sensitive information? by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      A lot of people are asking, "What's the point? Why are they wasting their time doing this?" It makes me think that many people, if they saw a smartphone, a PC, and a game console, would take the PC and smartphone and perform data forensics on them, while leaving the game console behind. If that's the case, then it would certainly make sense to use the game console for one's crimes, essentially leaving the PC and smartphone as honeypots.

      In reality, I'm sure that the military and intelligence agencies are a lot more thorough than that, and this is them being as thorough as possible. If it were me, I'd probably set up a porn site (using steganography to share information) and communicate in violent video games, just because those forms of media are not traditionally associated with reactionary radicals (such as Christian abortion bombers and Muslim suicide bombers) and are often brushed off as symptoms of Western hedonism and moral decline. Sounds perfect to me. Of course, it breaks down when you're talking about atheistic anarchists (such as eco-terrorists), but I'm sure I could think of something.

    10. Re:Sensitive information? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that article reeks of FUD. I can't imagine a terrorist would sit here and fuck around with an Xbox or PS3 when they can spend $10 American and get a piece of shit prepaid dumbphone to communicate with their terrorist friends.

      I think stupid people just see terrorists around every corner. They're the "commies" of the 21st century; convenient bogeymen to sell more papers and drive more hits to your ads.

    11. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem: in order to get a console from such a person, they'd need to either know the person already OR sift through all used consoles and have some way to determine they're different from the law abiding.

      The second bit would be quite novel, given the US's demonstrated abilities there ..

    12. Re:Sensitive information? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Here's an example that is admittedly a bit of a stretch.

      The military busts up a terrorist cell and finds a PS3. Turns out the PS3 was owned by a highly-wanted terrorist previously as evidenced by credit card/bank info still in the console (if it exists as such). They now have a definitive link from that cell to another person of interest.

      I dunno, it's either something like that, or maybe they just want to look on the friends list?

      "Oh yeah, look at this friends list. It's like a who's who of the scum of the earth. Xx|

    13. Re:Sensitive information? by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      yes it is the red scare of the 21st century. there are people who grew up in that time that don't like living without that. there are companies that base them selves on what this entails on a national level too.

    14. Re:Sensitive information? by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to agree... but it seems plausible. Internet cafes overseas feature many of these games and it seems like a good alternative communication method.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    15. Re:Sensitive information? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      They are looking for patterns of gaming behaviour. Psychopaths let the camouflage drop when they are gaming and, well, play like psychopaths.

      Of course US intelligence will not spy on US citizens, that what Australians and Pine Gap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=pine+gap&hl=en&ll=-23.798833,133.737559&spn=0.006047,0.012392&sll=-25.324167,135.74707&sspn=3.058333,6.344604&hnear=Pine+Gap&t=h&z=17 are for.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bradley Manning uploaded his documents through a game network.

  4. My console - MY PROPERTY by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    and that includes the data on it.

    Besides, I wonder how they'll get the data if the thing isn't networked, eh?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:My console - MY PROPERTY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government doesn't give a shit about somebody else's property. Especially if you're a greasy, filthy foreigner.

  5. They can hack my original game boy and SNES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can build a ray gun which can extract all the porn and terrorist plots stored on my old Super Nintendo, I'll be very impressed.

    1. Re:They can hack my original game boy and SNES. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess I'd better hide my copy of Custer's Revenge, otherwise I could be on a one way ticket to Gitmo...

  6. Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some of the information provided in the article:

    “This project involves furnishing video game systems, both new and used, and creating prototype rigs for capturing data from the video game systems.”
    -- U.S. Navy listing

    "“R & D effort for the development and delivery of computer forensic tools for analyzing network traffic and stored data created during the use of video game systems.”
    -- Federal Business Opportunites website

    Some links from the article:
    Statement of Work [DOC]
    Contracting Activity document [DOCX]

  7. And that's why this is overseas to non-citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No US court will give them the time of day, as they don't have constitutional rights. They'll just say, go get your own diplomats to work something out, it's beyond our scope.

    1. Re:And that's why this is overseas to non-citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You wish. Take a very careful look at the "Patriot Act" and its unconstitutional permissions for warrant free monitoring of US citizens. Then take a look at the history of the NSA and other international "security" agencies monitoring citizens, and trading data with foreign "security agencies" to gain the security data on people they're not legally allowed to monitor themselves.

      The data's potentially useful. Credit card data, passwords, and information on when someone is home is very useful for tracking anyone. It also helps tracing and contacting other visitors, who are notoriously easier to recruit than family members.

  8. Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

    As someone living 'overseas' I am not exactly relieved to hear that.

    On the other hand I don't own a gaming console.
    But why do get the strong feeling they meant to say 'after PCs now consoles too'? Am I reading too much between the lines here?

    1. Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 2

      But why do get the strong feeling they meant to say 'after PCs now consoles too'? Am I reading too much between the lines here?

      Quite the opposite: you're reading too little.

      They're interested in game consoles because they already have the capability to hack into PCs, just like every other script kiddie on this planet.

      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    2. Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel better, the line about it being applicable only to foreign nationals overseas is a line of BS to placate the public. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, this will be used on all consoles, regardless of whether the owner is a US citizen or not.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah they just get their British, French or Israeli buddies to hack US boxes.

    4. Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quite whinning your not alone everyone lives overseas from some other place.

    5. Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American citizen living "overseas" I don't feel any safer. It's funny that living here in the EU I fear my own government more than I do that of the country I am living in. Thank God I have dual citizenship. The more I hear about the crap going on stateside the less I ever want to go back.

  9. I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What could THE NAVY possibly get from used game consoles?

    And why go that route to get it?

    1. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am sure they are looking for a fighter like they do here

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by gstrickler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry for the delay, but military bureaucracy means it takes a while to get all the forms approved before posting AF jokes.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In-game chat used to co-ordinate freedom-fighter manouvres?

    4. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That's the sort of thing that poses a serious problem, since those voice chat services aren't necessarily as easy to eavesdrop on as say... anything on AT&T. Lots of terrorists are relatively young men, including for example the french guy who just drove around murdering people, presumably a number of the wealthier of that lot have game consoles.

      Another option is just general data harvesting on potential spy, or turnable asset. You want to know who they talk to, maybe inject yourself into their friends list that sort of thing.

    5. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. If they had the disposable income level to own a game console and internet connection they wouldn't have so much time to be disaffected terrorists. Maybe the crazy leader type ones would, but most of the people those leaders use as their cannon fodder would never end up in terrorist training if they could afford luxuries like game consoles.

    6. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a consumer's mindset, first-worlder. Consider it as a tool which is supplied to someone, not as a purchase by them. So, this leader you refer to, would purchase 300 of them, and distribute them as needed.

    7. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire and a millionaire in his own right.

    8. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Certain countries like Iran have been buying PS3s to use for thee computational power. Maybe this has something to do with that?

    9. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by utkonos · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't think of Naval Intelligence being only devoted to things involving ships and the sea. They are an intelligence service first. In fact, it was Navy research that led to the Tor network.

    10. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      It's also assuming people are always the same. A 17 year old with an xbox can be a 19 year old terrorist with a 2 year old xbox. People change after all.

    11. Re:I was thinking a late April Fools joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there statement "non US consoles" due to current laws. Cause we all know how unknown organizations follow the "rules/laws"....

  10. Easier way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a five figure 'security-incentive' to the 3 major players be cheaper ?

  11. not your property any more by cellocgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that I support the Navy (?? what? why Navy?) doing this stuff, or paying so much, but there is possible precedent. It's been pretty clear for a long time that anything you throw out in the trash is no longer your possession. So, before you toss that old game console, take a hammer to the memory bits.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:not your property any more by houghi · · Score: 2

      Why? What do you have to hide? You MUST be guilty.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:not your property any more by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Depending on where you live, the ownership of trash can be quite complicated. There's at least one case of a city in the US prosecuting someone for theft after they took some discarded equipment (I think it was an aircon unit) from the trash. Not theft from the former own, but theft from the city: They saw that trash as recycling scrap-metal value, and didn't take kindly to someone else stealing what they regarded as city property.

      I can't remember enough details to find any links supporting it though, so you'll have to make do with rumor from me.

    3. Re:not your property any more by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      anything you throw out in the trash is no longer your possession.

      Hah, as if those things "were" your property in the first place, considering all the DRM installed.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    4. Re:not your property any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, NYC gave a shady contract to some recycling company that was friendly with Boss Bloomberg and when random citizens decided to pick up metal scrap and recycle it themselves the city arrested them and investigated them for "organized crime" because so much stuff was being recycled by citizens that it must have been a coordinated operation. I shit you not. NY Times did a couple stories on it when commodity prices were high. Basically this one company has a contract with New York City so all discarded scrap metal on the sidewalk belongs to them so if you take a broken down washing machine off the side of the road you are now a felon.

    5. Re:not your property any more by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      practically, sony and ms would both kick you out for having a hacked(modded) console.

      it's just money thrown out of the window - or inside the window of this r&d company.

      and for what? those few consoles that have eyetoys and kinects attached?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  12. Uh, yeah... by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because the law doesn't allow it to be used on any 'U.S. persons.'

    As if that ever stopped them before. **rolls eyes**

    1. Re:Uh, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence please? I've successfully prosecuted this before. In spite of your lies, we make an extreme effort to comply with federal laws.

    2. Re:Uh, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a crazy law .. says something about being secure in persons, papers, effects? And then there's actions .. like warrantless wiretapping. Pretty sure those are in contradiction with one another. Also pretty sure is a law says something about due process. Then we have actions, like go directly to gitmo; do not pass go, do not collect $200. Interstate commerce clause? Surely that means there must be first commerce and second it goes interstate? Nope. If it could be interstate commerce, the federal government can stick its nose in.

      The government is the organization that keeps the government in line. You might notice that there's something of a conflict of interest there.

    3. Re:Uh, yeah... by Jessified · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, I'm wondering if this violates the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.

      Even if this hacking would otherwise be legal, the anti-circumvention clause does not allow for such a defense.

    4. Re:Uh, yeah... by lexman098 · · Score: 1
      Another troll AC.

      That's like someone claiming that politicians lie and you saying "WHERE'S THE HARD PROOF!?"

    5. Re:Uh, yeah... by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 1

      You obviously live in a box. Or, more likely, under a rock.

    6. Re:Uh, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this apply to items purchased under the laws of foreign jurisdictions?

  13. More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    More government spending, more invasion of privacy, more unauthorised behaviour, more deficit and debt, more government jobs (paid for with debt of-course), more government contracts, more money printing - inflation.

    Less real economic activity, less freedoms, less real value in money.

    Only one good thing hopefully will come out of this: fewer people supporting government actions, less desire to have this type of government, getting closer to the point when this becomes completely unbearable (of-course this will only really end when all resources end as government consumes them all).

    What's funny is people on this site saying that people consume too many resources, so there needs to be birth control done by government. When they get a reply that people are not a drain on the system, they are a resource that need to be freed from government oppression to solve the problems of resources, so many of /. posters argue against it.

    They want government to control every aspect of human life, including artificially controlling birth rates, so that government can get one more leverage point against the people while doing THIS kind of nonsense?

    The REAL drain on the system is GOVERNMENT.

    1. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      The REAL drain on the system is GOVERNMENT.

      Are you referring to the current US government, or are you one of those people who think "all governments are evil, therefore we should get rid of the idea of government" and we should change to some variation of Anarchy (Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-syndicalism, etc)?

    2. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more government jobs (paid for with debt of-course)

      Ah, but those jobs are TAXED and thus we now have a new source of income to pay off the debt! ;-)

    3. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Perpetuum mobile is fiction. Government workers do not actually pay income taxes and judging by your comment you understand that.

    4. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by joocemann · · Score: 1

      This is my concern.... GEOHOT was criminalized and attacked using government resources based on his so-called violations of EULAs.... And now government directed entities do similar things but are not comparably criminalized....

      No. Getting sick of the corporations.gov concept here... the abuse of citizens is so blatant and the preference fr corporations is absurd.

    5. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allowing a government to go into debt is like everyone under that government handing some spoiled rich kids their credit cards in place of their rich parents cards and approving all expenditures with the spending caps removed. And sorry, bankruptcy don't clear government debt and/or child support. Enjoy your lives as wage slaves.

      Government debt and taxation are key factors in inflation. So your paying for the debt but not paying it off, so still paying the interest and not really paying it off either. A crueler form of vigorish? Tax law legislators learned from the protection rackets of old, who learned from royalty and other governmental representatives as well as religious figures, sometimes in history they were the same.

      US citizens have forgotten the warnings of Jefferson, Franklin and so many others. They have even lost their Common Sense . The more power given and/or allowed to government, the weaker society becomes. FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" Veiled warning? After all, government was using it against its citizens before, after and during his time.

    6. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly confident the GP was making a joke, but I think you were serious. Government workers do pay income taxes. Unless of course, soldiers are not govenment workers, because they pay federal income taxes, and, depending on the state, state income taxes as well.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    7. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am very serious, I already talked about it at length here and many people didn't understand this simple concept then either - government workers do not pay income taxes.

      To understand this you have to ask yourself a question: what is income in the first place? I argue income taxes are illegal and collected illegally, but that's not the point here.

      The point is that under the definition of what income taxes are: they are taxes upon revenue or pre-tax profit (and thus you can read my argument about illegality of it, people don't have profit, they exchange their own labour for pay).

      But what is the profit that the government is getting from a government worker, who was paid by government just to return part of that money back? There is no new profit there of any kind. That's money that already came from profits of other people, who paid taxes for real - those who actually worked to do something to be paid outside of government. Those who participated in the real economy and created something of value and part of that value was then taken away by the government.

      However once the government has that money, it can then play games like pretend that government workers pay income taxes, while in reality they could just as well pay their workers the after so called income tax amount.

      The businesses are forced to withhold income taxes from employees (and if this wasn't the case, taxes would have been much lower, if people had to give a wad of cash to government by the year end, they would have revolted long ago).

      Government withholds that amount too, and it's on a statement, it makes it look like a gov't worker pays taxes, but gov't worker didn't actually PRODUCE anything that added any value to the original money that the government has collected already!

      Of-course they also can use deductions against their so called taxes, but that just means they are getting more pay, nothing else.

      Now, when a government worker pays taxes on his OTHER income, something he may have generated from other sources, not government (he sublet his house or he did something else that qualifies as 'income'), THEN YES, he paid actual income taxes.

      Otherwise it's an accounting trick.

    8. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm obtuse, but I'm reading what you've written, and I think you're just playing word games.

      From your definition of what income takes are, you say they or on revenue OR pre-tax profit. Revenue is the money coming in, right? That's incoming money. Income. And money that is left over after subtracting the expenses from this income, is called profit. I would argue that people can have profit, and it would be called savings. This savings would be the money left over that they didn't yet spend.

      I agree that the government is in a position to subtract the income tax amount straight from the worker's paycheck, and would most likely argue that they should, as it would make for less paperwork. However, I think this idea would not work currently because there are so many levels of government that have taxes of their own (federal, state, county, w/e), each trying to take their piece of the paycheck, that it's easier to do it the way it is done now, because of how the widtheld portion would have to be divied up.

      As far as your implied statement that government workers don't do anytihng, by saying only those outside the government create value, I think it's bullshit. I'll concede the point there is a lot of waste, in that there are a not insignificant amount of people who are doing little more than collecting a paycheck, but I also see some things that are not easy to put a dollar value on. As one example, what's the value of defense, the deterrant the military is? Those soldiers might be maintaining equipment, or themselves through training, which may seem to not have any value but their purpose is what? Defense, to protect the nation.

      I think I got a little distracted from my main point, which is that it is, in fact, an income tax that is paid by government workers. I'll leave the legality of an income tax for another time, but I don't have a problem with the concept of income tax.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    9. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Government workers do not add any value into the system, whatever they are doing, they are spending value that was added to it by people who actually produced something that market in fact was willing to spend real savings on (or real investment).

      Government workers can only spend what they have taken away, and they are spending it not within normal market, they are insensitive to market signals on everything that deals with prices, thus they cannot by definition argue that they are adding value, they are always subtracting it, they are not market participants.

      Also: profit is something that is made on investment, not on straight out work, as in: payment for labour is not profit.

      Profit is something that is made upon money that is saved and invested, thus individual income cannot be considered profit. Just because a person doesn't spend 100% of what he earns doesn't make that profit, it only makes it savings.

      Savings and profit are not the same thing.

      --

      Finally: a government worker is not generating any new income for the government. Again, a government worker can only take money that was already subtracted from somebody's actual market participation activity and spend that money in any way, that doesn't have to do with the market at all.

      A government worker does not in fact create ANY money that government DID NOT HAVE ALREADY. Thus this 'income tax' that government worker pays is not a tax on income, it's just an accounting gimmick. The government already had that money, it already took it from somebody. That's not new money that government received from actual productive activity.

    10. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As to you not caring about income taxes - most likely you don't pay any, or you pay very little, and just like the case is with the government workers, majority of people in USA are not paying income taxes (50% pay only 3% of all income taxes, those are bottom earners), so to them income taxes are a direct subsidy from the top earners, so obviously they want the taxes to go up on top earners, because bottom earners don't pay them anyway!

      So it's a direct subsidy, a direct wealth transfer and it is part of the problem with the economy, as those, who are paying these taxes are getting hurt and move their savings and investments and work somewhere else.

    11. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 2

      I must disagree. Roads, schools, and other public works provide value to society, and are paid for by the government, who has workers at least overseeing these projects. Just because the value isn't monetary doesn't mean it has no value.

      Payment for labour may not be profit directly, but it can be if the worker values their labor at a rate lower than what they are being paid. However, it is still an incoming fund to the worker. If you get money from any source, it is income. Is there a difference between revenue and income that I'm missing?

      Earlier in the thread, you said:

      The point is that under the definition of what income taxes are: they are taxes upon revenue or pre-tax profit...

      (Emphasis added)

      True, a goverment worker is not generating new income for the government(unless they're collecting fines, but I'm not going to look at that now). I don't see why any worker of the government needs to generate income, when the government is capable of generating more money on its own(inflation). Government should be spending the money it collects for the betterment of society.

      That government worker is doing a job that the government needs done. How is that any different than a company worker doing a job the company needs done? They are getting paid for services rendered, and it really doesn't matter where that money comes from. For the worker, that money is income, revenue, payment, whatever you want to call it. That money will be taxed.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    12. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I don't care about income tax, but that I don't have a problem with the concept. The current implementation leaves a bit to be desired, but the day everything is perfect is a day I doubt I'll live to see.
      It's true, I don't pay much in income tax, but then again, I don't make much, either, so that's expected.
      I like the idea of graduated income tax brackets, because it enables those who do make more to contribute more, but without burdening them as much. They have more money total, so they can spare more to give to the government that enables them to live as such. That's the short version.

      If we were to get rid of income tax, where would government reveue come from to fund the public works and such things it does currently do? I understand a bunch of stuff would be cut, which would be a good thing, but I can't see the government getting enough money from sales tax, property tax, and whatnot.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    13. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      This:

      but that I don't have a problem with the concept

      and this:

      It's true, I don't pay much in income tax, but then again, I don't make much, either, so that's expected.

      - my point exactly.

      It's a direct subsidy from some people to majority, that's why those who pay disproportionate amounts into that try their best to minimise it and now just move their investments and work out of the country.

      I like the idea of graduated income tax brackets, because it enables those who do make more to contribute more, but without burdening them as much.

      - you are disregarding the fact that with a flat income tax it would be actually at least FAIR while those with greater income would still contribute much more, because for example 20% of a million is 200,000, while 20% of 100,000 is 20,000.

      So it is completely wrong and unfair and destructive to the economy that the income tax is so disproportionately hurting people who are actually able to re-invest into the economy, because clearly they are not using most of their income to buy stuff for themselves.

      Steve Jobs spent less than 4% of his entire fortune in his life, this means 96% was re-invested into the economy, which is exactly what we need people to do.

      Thinking that having people with money give that money to government makes economy better is illiterate, but also it's basically based on class envy and unfair redistribution of wealth via the force of gov't.

      I urge everybody who is in higher tax brackets to move their investment capital and the jobs elsewhere, where it's not as obviously rigged by the system against the minority.

      If we were to get rid of income tax, where would government reveue come from to fund the public works and such things it does currently do?

      - gov't shouldn't be doing much of anything. Before 1913 it was barely detectable that there was a federal government and that was exactly the time (after the Civil war, but mostly 19 century to the WWI) when the US economy did so much that USA became basically world's super power, biggest creditor nation.

      What was USA before 19th century? An afterthought to the European nations. 19th century put USA on the map as an innovator and a super economy for a reason, and that reason was mostly absent government regulations and taxes and no inflation (except the Continental, but hey, they used to say: not worth a Continental. Soon they'll be saying: not worth a Federal.)

      US federal gov't was able to run on legal taxes: excise, import. 50% of taxes were derived from alcohol sales. Governments are doing too much and during crisis they should be doing even less, because they created the crisis and by doing more they turn crisis into catastrophes.

    14. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      19th century put USA on the map as an innovator and a super economy for a reason, and that reason was mostly absent government regulations and taxes and no inflation

      Nah, it's the other way around: there were little/no regulations and taxes for a reason, and that reason was because the USA was booming economically

      Government only acts when there's a problem. Back in 19th century few people complained to government.

      Nowadays we have record companies and copyright holders complaining to government. So here we are.

    15. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that some form of government is immune to corruption?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    16. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      If we had this discussion about a week ago, I would have agreed with a flat income tax across the board for everyone. However, a flat income tax is more unfair to the lower income earners than the graduated income tax is to the higher income earners. Even with the higher tax, they still have more money to live on than those in the lower tax. I get that life isn't fair and all, but those who are earning more are doing so because of what the government is providing. Yes, they would be paying more (amount-wise) even with the same percentage.

      Your example of Steve Jobs only spending 4% of his money is a good one for this. I have an admittedly simplistic understanding of how investments work, so please bear with me. He spent 4%, and that money was directly put back into the economy. That 96% that he never spent, he accrued intrest on it by it being loaned out* and other people using the loaned money. He now gets more money he's not going to spend. What good is having the money if he's not going to spend it? It was in his means to be able to pay a higher percentage in taxes. I think there is a paint where once someone has an amount of money where can't really spend it all, there really isn't a point to getting more.

      *I'm sure there were stocks and other things, but I really don't get how stocks provide value. People biy them, and then hopefully sell them to someone else for more than they paid, but I don't see any value being created.

      As far as those in the higher brackets taking their wealth out of the country, I think that's part of the problem. If the tax system was a hell of a lot simpler and there wasn't a way to avoid the taxes, then I would have no problem with a flat tax percentage. I think it's a social issue, people wanting as much as the can get away with, and I don't see that changing.

      I agree with small government. The government should be doing as little as possible, things like infrastructure, defense, crime control, and yes, regulations when needed. Gov't should not be trying to expand its powers, but keep with the minimum necessary to keep society going. The interstate highway system is a good thing, and I don't think it would have been done by the private sector. Look at internet and cell phone providers, they don't have full coverage, and in many cases, people are lucky to have a choice between internet provders. These companies don't want to spend the money expanding infrastructure, nor improving it. That's not really due to regulation, but greed.
      Envirnmental regulations can be a good thing. Car emission standards are good, considering how many cars are on the roads. There wasn't very much travel in the 19th century. States like California take it to the extreme, but that doesn't mean all regulations are bad. The USA is still an innovator today, even with the regulations.

      Yes, gov'ts are doing too much, and that can create problems, which can snowball into larger problems by doing even more. You'll get no argument on that from me.

      As far as what the USA was befor the 19th century, it was a newly created country. It was more of an afterthought because it just became independent of those same European countries. It took a couple decades to get things sorted out, and then yes, became a powerhouse in the 1800s, and still is. Off hand I can't think of any country that upon inception, was an instant major player. These things take time.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    17. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      no, but that doesn't mean you give up on the idea of government entirely, If you don't have a government-based system, you will end up with a corporate-based system. At least the government PRETENDS to be beholden to the voters, corporations don't even pretend, they are already quite used to telling their customers what to buy, how to dress, and how to think. There isn't even a FRAMEWORK for enforcing corporate responsibility, at least with politicians you can recall them and have a new election.

      What do you think will happen when the guy who owns all the highways (and you know someone will own them all eventually) decides he doesn't like you? sue him in a court that doesn't exist?

    18. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If we had this discussion about a week ago, I would have agreed with a flat income tax across the board for everyone.

      - so what changed in a week, you didn't mention?

      My point is of-course that it is unfair to hit people with higher rates, this allows a gradual increase of rates, so that the majority of voters don't face the same rate of taxation so from their perspective increase of marginal rates is a direct subsidy - immoral, unconstitutional and just bad for economics from every perspective:

      1. It diminishes available amount of capital investment.
      2. It grows government.

      However, a flat income tax is more unfair to the lower income earners than the graduated income tax is to the higher income earners.

      - no, it's not 'unfair' to the lower income earners, it's quite a bit more fair. It's bad for the low income earners, but this is precisely why it's done this way - it allows the politicians to raise taxes by using the vote of majority upon those, who are seen as overachievers anyway, supposedly they will keep bearing this burden of taxes for all others to enjoy, all others who are using the collective violent force of government to rob those who make more money. It's disproportionate.

      Your argument is well received only from POV that taxes should be lower across the board, but of-course the only correct income tax is 0. The only correct payroll tax is 0. The only correct corporate tax is 0. THAT coupled with REAL MONEY ensures that government cannot grow beyond its organic role, because when gov't is funded with real money that is received from not overbearing taxes, like excise, import, sales taxes, then at least it's not bound to anything that any person is actually doing - they are not forced to give up all of their income and spending information to the government by the year end. Also this removes the legal liability for tax evasion or tax avoidance or tax protest. Those things are impossible in a free society. As people we agree that we have to have some form of government, if we do not explicitly set one up, it will appear anyway, it's just going to be something spontaneous and likely even more abusive (like monarchies). So to have a government means to give it a role and to fund it, and USA of 18th century found a good compromise - tax imports, sales, excise. Do not tax income (if the Founders wanted to tax income, they would have made that specific provision, but they understood something about freedoms, they just had a war with a King exactly about that sort of thing, and it was only 3%. Serfs used to pay 25% of their income to their masters. To be elevated to the level of serfs in terms of individual freedom, many people have to see their taxes cut in half today).

      I get that life isn't fair and all, but those who are earning more are doing so because of what the government is providing.

      - that statement is FALSE.

      Out of 37 richest self-made people in America, 34 were born in 19th century. 30 were born before 1850. Only 3 were born in 20th century - Buffet, Walton, Gates. This shows poorly for the argument that government involvement makes rich people richer. This shows the exact opposite. The bigger the government the more difficult it is for anybody to make more money. And there is a reason for it - government is standing in the way of people doing business. From regulations and laws to taxes and insane foreign policy and protection of preferred corporations - monopolies and to printing funny money. All of this and some more is what government does that ensures that people are poorer, not richer.

      Even the people who are relatively poor were increasing their wealth much faster in 19th century than in 20th. That's because wealth is all the products that the people are making, not money. And as long as there is competition and sound money and little government involvement, the market creates more and more products at lower and

    19. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      A week ago, I had a discussion with a few people about income tax. Prior to that, I hadn't given it much thought, just that a flat tax would be the easiest and simplest way to do it. I started to like their point, so I was looking into it. I think I could be for small government without the constitution, but I don't think I want to. A flat tax would treat everyone equal, which would be necessary under the constitution.

      I agree that the progressive tax is a money grab by the government, but I didn't think of limiting the goverment's power by limiting its income. I guess I figured it would just print more as it needed. And rather than cause more/worse inflation, I saw the tax as a way to curb the inflation. I think we agree that both inflation and unfair taxation are bad. And rather than try to pick the lesser of two evils, a trap I fell into, you want to pick the "no evil" option of changing the system. I think what we may continue to disagree on is the percentage for income tax, but I have yet to read your post on the illegality of such. Hopefully I do that soon, before I forget.

      As far as the interstates, I have no good reason for Hawaii having one, unless they made a bridge and no one told me. I suppose infrastructure could be done entirely privately, though I'm still not seeing it. The initial investment for roads would cost a ridculous amount to get the land, and without the idea of eminent domain, one land owner could derail the entire thing. If however, you mean the maintenance and upkeep of said roads, after having paths for them to go, is done by private companies, I can sort of see that. I don't see wholly private roads as a good idea.

      I don't see how property rights protect against environmental pollution. Let's say we both have a river running through our land, and you're downstream of me, and I'm too lazy to properly dispose of some waste so I instead dump it in the river. I would be within my rights to do that, as it's on my property, but it would impact you in a negative way. I don't see any recourse you would have for that if there aren't regulations in place that make what I'm doing bad. An absolute cap on damages is dumb, but I can see a system where the fine would be three times the damages as calculated a certain time has passed, for instance. Enough time for damages to be reasonably computed.

      As far as internet/phone, I wasn't trying to say everyone should have the same level of service for the same price, but that they should have an option to use it at some level. I don't think dial-up counts as a reasonable alternative, either. When internet companies decide not to service an area because it would cost too much for too little return, I get that. But the fact that they are preventing competition from filling in those gaps is stupid. I guess that's part of the problem of them being monopolies?

      As far as the stocks and bonds thing, that short bit was some useful information. It seems to me that the intent is good, but it has been twisted. Stocks raise capital for the company when issued, but then all of the traders that aren't holding onto them as a longterm investment are not adding any value to the system.

      The social problem of people wanting things for free, and the sense of entitlement annoys the hell out of me, partly because I can't rationalize it. If you never work for anything, then you never accomplish anything worth doing. I just don't see how people can want that. I want to do things that mean something, even if the only one who thinks so is me.

      As far as the invest back in the economy, I don't think I wrote well enough to what I meant. I don't mean for the chairmaker to shut down the chair factory as soon as he reaches X amount of money. Instead, I meant more for the chairmaker to stop pulling money from the chair factory, and to have it put to use by the chair factory that generated it. I get that successful people usually like what they do, and I wouldn't want to prevent them from continuing to do it. In a round

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    20. Re:More gratuitous behaviour by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      but I didn't think of limiting the goverment's power by limiting its income. I guess I figured it would just print more as it needed.

      - US government is not allowed to issue bills of credit, which is currency. It's only allowed to coin money by the Constitution. The Fed was set up as a supposedly independent body, with a dual mandate of 'price stability' and 'maximum employment', it was set up after 100 years of prices falling! What is its record on both of those things? Well, when it was introduced it was specifically prohibited from buying gov't Treasury bills. Shortly after the Congress lifted that prohibition and introduced so called 'debt ceiling'. They have NEVER failed to raise it. Of-course it's not a real ceiling, the real ceiling is hitting now that nobody wants to buy US Treasuries (the Fed is buying nearly ALL new debt from the Treasury! And they have the gall to talk about oil prices rising due to 'speculators', while in reality speculators are actually preventing the prices from going much higher with all this inflation, because so many speculators are still betting the prices will come down. They are also victims of government mis-education and can't see where the inflation is coming from and that gov't can't stop itself from printing more money at this point, it's political suicide, since it would cause a massive shock with interest rates hitting high double digits.)

      As far as the interstates, I have no good reason for Hawaii having one, unless they made a bridge and no one told me.

      - they do have one. H-1.

      The initial investment for roads would cost a ridculous amount to get the land, and without the idea of eminent domain, one land owner could derail the entire thing.

      - it's more of gov't nonsense, people find accommodations that are bilaterally profitable.

      . I don't see wholly private roads as a good idea.

      - I always take private roads if they exist where I am, they are much better maintained and there is less traffic. Generally though, it means that the taxes are not used to build them, which makes much more sense, why should people who never use them be subsidising them? Their costs will be built into price structure of goods delivered into them and into cost of people using them, but when it's market based it makes much more sense, because there are signal - yes, there is more business here, so it makes sense to increase capacity because the profits show it needs to be done. OR: no, there is no reason to build more capacity here, the profits aren't showing more demand. This is something that gov't can't do in principle, they can't figure out what projects are just NOT worth continuing, they are not price sensitive, so they end up wasting as much money as possible, because this gets coupled with various preferred contractors, and those people are just too happy to oblige building more and more unnecessary stuff at higher prices than market would set up.

      I don't see how property rights protect against environmental pollution. Let's say we both have a river running through our land, and you're downstream of me, and I'm too lazy to properly dispose of some waste so I instead dump it in the river. I would be within my rights to do that, as it's on my property, but it would impact you in a negative way

      - that's what property rights are for, you can't pollute MY part of the property, so you can't pollute yours. This is what gov't can be used for (it's an easy example, though I would still NOT use it there either,) but it's easy to see. If gov't is set up to protect individual rights AND property rights, then it's role is to be an efficient arbiter in such cases. You'd be severely punished by the system, that should be a deterrent good enough. If you don't stop, I think it should go all the way to cleaning up your mess and forcing you to pay for it, even confiscating whatever you have to pay for it! TH

  14. Incidentally... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    With today's consoles being walled-garden cryptographic playgrounds, I am hard pressed to think of any useful exploit tools that wouldn't run a substantial risk of qualifying as 'circumvention devices' for DMCA purposes...

    It makes me wonder if the law(s) that probably do make almost any sort of spying legal also enable otherwise illegal tools, or whether the MPAA just isn't going to be suing the Navy as a pragmatic matter?

  15. the hacking is the easy bit by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Finding a console that will yield useful sensitive information is why it's worth 6 figures.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  16. The constitution protects people, not citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you need a warrant for citizens, you also need a warrant for non-citizens, no matter where they are. The jurisdiction of the constitution constrains American government employees no matter where they are in the Universe.

  17. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they are refusing to do this to U.S. game consoles, because that's against the law. And that's important. And they wouldn't break the law by doing something like that.

    Good for them.

  18. cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like they are going to find a way to use those cameras built into the latest and greatest video game controllers. And if we can do it then the bad guys will start doing it to us and our troops.

  19. Sounds like the Navy is a bit bored by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    maybe we should scale their budget back, since they have 6 figures and all that manpower to waste all while running a TV ad ever fucking hour, slash it to 25% and give them a real challenge

    cock minded morons

  20. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why you are broke.

  21. What they are looking for is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peoples online information like usernames and passwords, email address and real address with this information they can access your online life, not everyone who owns used consoles are geeks sitting in basements a lot could be people in positions of power or influence in foreign goverment to large foreign organisations if that does not pan out they can still use your idenity to spy on your country otherwise they have to plant agents that take a long time before they can be used as to remain anonymous but with your idenity it makes things much easier and when there finished or compromised they move out and guess who gets the blame for betraying there country.

    Think on it is it that far fetched?

  22. But I thought that was impossible by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    Microsoft says Xbox hacking claims are ‘unlikely’.

    "A report emerged last week from a security researcher claiming Microsoft’s Xbox lacked important security features that might protect owners who sell used consoles from having personal information stolen. Ashley Podhradsky of Drexel University claimed to have purchased a used Xbox console and used readily available hacking tools to recover the prior owner’s credit card number and other personal information. “Microsoft does a great job of protecting their proprietary information, but they don’t do a great job of protecting the user’s data,” Podhradsky said at the time.

    Microsoft has since responded to the researcher’s claims, stating that they are likely inaccurate."

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  23. More Roman_mir nonsense by damn_registrars · · Score: 2
    I used to be quite sure you believed in what you said. Then I started to doubt it as your posts became more and more trollish. Now I'm almost certain you are just trolling to make the extreme right look silly. It is amusing to watch you do that and yet still repeatedly get moderated very highly for spouting off self-contradictory nonsense.

    Let's take a look at some examples you just provided:

    more invasion of privacy,

    This makes no sense in relation to the article. The summary plainly states that the Navy is purchasing used consoles and hacking in to them. These are being sold on the very same free market that you claim to love so much.

    more unauthorised behaviour

    The only one who doesn't authorize hacking in to game consoles that are freely purchased and outright owned are the manufacturers of said consoles. However you repeatedly post that you want to see the end of all patents and copyrights, so you should not be defending companies that want to dictate how end users use their products, either.

    more deficit and debt

    That is a straw man argument, at best. At this point government deficit and debt are like global entropy - they can only increase.

    more government jobs

    No reasonable person would ever argue for more unemployment. Of course, you are known to not be the least bit reasonable.

    Less real economic activity,

    How is the government purchasing items and putting people to work less economic activity? Oh, yes, it isn't.

    less freedoms

    Nonsense. By your argument if the US Army sourced a new scope for a rifle, other than the one that it was initially purchased with, that would also be "less freedoms".

    What's funny is people on this site saying that people consume too many resources, so there needs to be birth control done by government.

    That would be an interesting argument, if the post you linked to actually made that argument. Too bad it made no such argument in any way, shape or form. Did you mean to link to a different post?

    They want government to control every aspect of human life

    Can you show an example of someone on slashdot saying such a thing? Yeah, I didn't think so.

    The REAL drain on the system is GOVERNMENT.

    You can say what you want about the government, but you certainly haven't demonstrated that claim. If anything, you have supported the ever-increasingly-hypothesis that you are indeed just a slightly-more-refined-than-average troll.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  24. The military is always over budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military is always over budget... maybe they can get some credit card numbers to cover the spending.

  25. Whew! by tylersoze · · Score: 1

    "the law doesn't allow it to be used on any 'U.S. persons.'"

    Well that's a load off my mind. It's nice to know all we US persons have to worry about is being flagged as a terrorist and executed with no due process in a drone strike, but at least they won't hack our game consoles.

    1. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being flagged as a terrorist and executed with no due process in a drone strike, but at least they won't hack our game consoles.

      But they do both while you are off US soil, right?

  26. company resells tech to other countries by decora · · Score: 1

    they will then spy on americans.

    hey, its the free market!

  27. Virtual Training Camps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps consoles and games are the next-gen virtual training camps?

  28. Blowback by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    I always find it an odd amusement, us US'ers being so hell-bent on interfering with everyone's business--but our laws say you can't do it to us. Then we complain when some guy we don't like in a country we don't like does the same, as if our displeasure at being treated the way we treat others is acceptable.

    Then again, like hell they aren't going to do it to us Yanks if they can find loopholes.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  29. why not just get MS, sony, and Nintendo to do it? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    why not just get MS, sony, and Nintendo to do it? they can use there own code and make it easier and maybe even hide it better.

  30. Is US trying to alienate the entire world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As another person who's not an American citizen, I'm thinking oh good, another reason for me to not deal with Americans, to avoid buying anything that's American, ever visiting that country, or being nice to any Americans visiting my country. It's weird, 15 years ago in my neighborhood we all admired USA, now the majority of people I talk to tend to spit after mentioning America... Why are you guys so hell-bent on making everybody hate you?

    1. Re:Is US trying to alienate the entire world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not hell-bent on any such thing. It's our out of control government that does. And the sooner it collapses the better it will be for us all.

  31. Mod parent up by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  32. act of war by SuperDre · · Score: 2

    but doing it on consoles of other countries, it means it's actually an act of war (IMHO) as it's not something that is allowed by INTERNATIONAL Law.. but oh wait, the US doesn't give a rat's ass about international law unless it is in their favor.. So now if the US does it to our consoles, we are allowed to do it to their consoles...

    1. Re:act of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An act of war to buy used game consoles and see what's on them? Really?

    2. Re:act of war by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Espionage is something that international law will never allow and that every country does, has always done and will always do.

      If you're thinking "Oh, those nasty Americans" you are incredibly naive. The Chinese, Israelis, British, Russians and everybody else who thinks they might be able to get your information are already in there, or trying like hell to make it so.

      That is, if they happen to think that you know anything worth stealing. For most people, this means that they're not being watched, because most people don't have a fucking clue about anything, must less the secrets that governments try to conceal from one another.

  33. Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck, the president ordered an American citizen be killed without trial, the law means shit to the government, they do whatever they want and get away with it.

  34. Yeah RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant be used on Americans....Hmmm.

    The Navy should not be in that business at all.

  35. My Dad is a GS15 at NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad works at NSA in the InfoSec/Cyberwarefare/etc etc etc department, on both light and dark sides (defense and offense), as they're known

    This is what he has to say about spying on US citizens:

    "You'd be surprised at the amount of effort to not unintentionally (or intentionally, of course) capture anything about US persons (here or abroad) or anything about anybody here in the US - without a court-ordered FISA warrant. This includes the identification and purging of all possible traces of such inadvertently collected information (e.g., going after guy X in country Y and find out that he's a US citizen).

    Some big-$$ projects are oriented towards doing such purging in a very automated manner. It's not cheap.

    We regularly (yearly) undergo a mandatory set of readings on how this all works. It's taken *quite* seriously.

    Do a mind experiment and try to figure out how to do this - thoroughly, efficiently, and safely."

    Also:

    "Forgot to mention: The kinds of things that are cited in several comments about that article are the purview of the FBI..."

  36. Beowulf cluster fuck? by hicksw · · Score: 1

    Hacking the USAF playstation cluster?

  37. x-box camera by norteo · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be great for the big brother to access all the x-box cameras?

  38. don't spend too much time on him... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Not only does roman_mir not have a clue of what he is talking about, he doesn't believe in it anyways. He's just here to get a rouse out of slashdot readers when he takes all of the bullshit that comes out of the cult of ron paul, rolls it into one undigestable pile of crap, and serves it up piping hot. It's not worth while to point out how what he says cannot possibly work, because he's not here for a discussion.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  39. i can't say anything about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US government is no to piracy as well as hacking so why they are now hiring hackers?