Slashdot Mirror
US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Arik Hesseldahl writes that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, says that the NSA tried to penetrate and compromise Tor, but it was only because terrorists and criminals use it, too and our "interest in online anonymity services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies." It was all legal and appropriate, Clapper argues, because, "Within our lawful mission to collect foreign intelligence to protect the United States, we use every intelligence tool available to understand the intent of our foreign adversaries so that we can disrupt their plans and prevent them from bringing harm to innocent Americans. Our adversaries have the ability to hide their messages and discussions among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same social networking sites, encryption tools and other security features that protect our daily online activities." Clapper concludes that "the reality is that the men and women at the National Security Agency and across the Intelligence Community are abiding by the law, respecting the rights of citizens and doing everything they can to help keep our nation safe.""
The rest of the world just sees the US committing hostile acts on every citizen of the planet, and also that the US is undermining freedom and communication across the world. You have to stop what you're doing, because you're wrecking everything, and your "justifications" are hollow.
Stop it.
Now.
In a combined statement the FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security announce a startling discovery: terrorists and criminals use cash. As a result, law enforcement agencies are seizing cash and "near cash" equivalents such as bank accounts from all US residents. Quoting law enforcement officials, "We have only just learned that cash can be used for criminal and terrorist activities. We hope the public understands the eminent danger of these systems and cooperates with these seizures. Our goal is always to prevent harm to the public and once we learned that cash was used by nearly 100% of all terrorist and criminal activities in some form or another we knew we needed to act."
What dilemma? Freedom has responsibilities, and so does protection of privacy and rights.
These "justifications" are just B.S. designed to ramp up fear so funding gets extended.
You are all being played as suckers and you really should think about taking your country back.
Also, any so-called "IT" staff that go along to implement this - you are collaborators of the worst kind, shame on you.
The same argument can be made about cars, trucks, planes, trains, fertilizer, guns, etc. It's not IT specific.
Also, thinking about prior art is willful infringement. This one goes to 11. Don't even look at it.
To put it another way: free speech means some folks will say things that match your opinion (a "good" thing!), but sometimes, they dare to say stuff you don't agree with! And the latter can't be allowed.
Or, for the mandatory vehicular analogy, a car can be used to bring kittens to an orphanage, or to plow into an orphan on the street and splatter it over the pavement.
That's not a problem with the tool but with the user. And the reason James Clapper here wants to forbid you to use encryption is pretty nefarious, even if he claims to want only "your good". So he and his agency should first learn to behave before telling us what to do.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Our government explicitly says, privacy is a threat to our safety, and it is the duty of our government to prevent privacy from being possible at all costs.
Go ahead, people. Keep voting for the republicans, because at least they are not democrats. Oh, I mean, keep voting for democrats, because at least they are not republicans. NOTHING is going to change that way. They'll keep boning us up the ass with this "oh noooo... can't have privacy.... TARE! Fnord! War on TARE!!!!"
Actually y'know what? Fuck y'all. YOU are responsible for this. Not me. I have not voted for either major party in DECADES. YOU... YOU are responsible for allowing this to happen. YOU have gotten the government you deserve, you half-wits. Sadly, I am the one who has to suffer for you turds voting for the jackasses (Bush, Obama, whatever) who allow and enable shit like this.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
He says they are. Now, give me one reason why I should believe him. Where's the oversight? Why should I trust him?
I'm in IT security myself, and "trust" is a big issue. Trust saves you time. If you trust an entity, you put some burden of security on someone else, the entity that you trust. E.g., you trust a CA and its issued certificates so you don't have to verify all the various certs out there yourself. We trust the CAs out of convenience and out of practicality. And in turn CAs are audited and checked constantly to ensure they are up to speed with their security. Still, security blunders happen. But at least there are means and ways to not only detect them but also to remedy them, and most importantly: It is your, and only your, decision whether or not you trust a CA. You can decide unilaterally to declare certs issued by one or even all CAs as untrustworthy for yourself (and yourself alone).
So we have oversight, security audition, breach discovery and unilateral opt-out (or even opt-in).
NONE of these features apply to the NSA. Hence there is exactly ZERO reason for me to trust that entity AT ALL, from a security point of view. I cannot audit them, I cannot determine the security of their setup, I cannot determine the actual scope of their work and most of all I cannot decide against trusting them.
Sorry, but there is no reason to trust him. On what? His word? Well, great, here's my word that I won't do anything stupid, dangerous or illegal. It's just as good as his. So he can stop spying on me now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Considering that a lot of countries consider you a pedo if you fuck a 17 year old, I stick with 18, just to be safe.
Yes, I know, common sense would say you're right... but then again, common sense has no room in laws concerning sex, drugs or copyright.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is fascinating how there are so many initiatives to change the properties of the US government and the Constitution just because it has become harder for Republicans to win elections.
- Mark Levin's desire to add 11 new amendments to the Constitution.
- ALEC's efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment
- Movements in states to secede from the Union.
- Forcing students to vote in their home districts instead of where they live 9 months of the year.
- Requiring government-issued IDs less than a year old for voting, even as the offices that issue those IDs are being closed in poor and minority neighborhoods.
All because Republicans can't get a majority of Americans to vote for them*. It's even caused guys like Smitty to stop calling themselves Republican, hoping the stink of the Party of Reagan will somehow fade.
(*In the 2012 congressional elections, half a million more votes were cast for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives than Republican, yet Republicans maintained a 234-195 seat majority. It was only because of red state gerrymandering that there is a Republican majority in the House, even as blue states move toward non-partisan drawing of congressional districts.)
You are welcome on my lawn.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.” - John Adams
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."