Slashdot Mirror


Congress Passes Bill Allowing Warrantless Forfeiture of Private Communications

Prune writes Congress has quietly passed an Intelligence Authorization Bill that includes warrantless forfeiture of private communications to local law enforcement. Representative Justin Amash unsuccessfully attempted a late bid to oppose the bill, which passed 325-100. According to Amash, the bill "grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American." According to the article, a provision in the bill allows “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of Americans’ communications without a court order or subpoena. That type of collection is currently allowed under an executive order that dates back to former President Reagan, but the new stamp of approval from Congress was troubling, Amash said. Limits on the government’s ability to retain information in the provision did not satisfy the Michigan Republican."

379 comments

  1. PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... mandatory. Seriously, what is the NSA going to do when the consequences of their arrogance propagate fully through our information culture? Eventually, everything of consequence is going to be held on private servers using private encryption keys that no one has access to but the users. The actual servers that push the information around are going to be shuffling around black boxes.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Matt.Battey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget it is the NSA who approves what type of encryption are legal for citizens to own. In the case of AES relies solely that combining 256 random bits with 256 non random bits, sufficiently, is too difficult to decipher except for the most powerful computer systems.

    2. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

      They can't practically stop people from using any kind of encryption. Once the encryption procredure is handled entirely client side, how would you even know if the data was encrypted to spec unless you tried to decrypt it? And that's an awkward thing to admit to people that are assuming your service doesn't even try to do that.

      Really, the whole NSA mission against general data has a big expiration date hanging on it. The cloud concept is obviously dead in the water in the long term unless the encryption keys and engine is kept client side. And are the terrorists of the future really going to be sending their terrorist plots over email and conventional cell phone calls? I can think of hundreds of ways to send information of an extremely criminal and national security relevant nature... completely anonymously... forever.

      The only reason they're getting anything now is because our enemies are computer illiterate. That is like relying on your enemy being literally illiterate... forever. It isn't going to happen.

      The whole thing is a giant waste of time and money. IF they had half a clue, they'd do their best to convince everyone that they're not actually going to wire tap everyone secretly. I know they say that all the time but they're not very convincing at it are they? Exactly. To be convincing, they need to be subtle. Which means the giant data centers and big laws flowing through congress are the opposite of what they should be doing IF they had a clue.

      But they quite clearly don't have a clue so they're just going to spend billions of tax payer dollars to accomplish jack shit. As usual.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >In the case of AES relies solely that combining 256 random bits with 256 non random bits

      In the case of AES relies solely that combining 128, 192 or 256 random bits with 128 non random bits

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not disagreeing with you, but want to clear up what it means to make cloud storage, or any type of server storage, secure and inaccesible from court orders:

      In the case of dropbox, data is stored encrypted, but the server software holds the encryption keys so it can serve the data to clients unencrypted. This means subpeanas and other legal/law enforcement actions can access the data by going to the server operators, who likely will not challenge the order.

      If you instead encrypt the data client side before you send it to the server, then everyone who accesses the data must also have the key.
      What if you want to revoke access for one person? You have to download the data client side, decrypt/re-encrypt with a new key, reupload, provide key to remaining sharers. So this technique only really works for data that you do not share, i.e. just your personal stuff, and is essentially what people do now when they encrypt data before uploading it to dropbox.

      Asymmetric techniques don't really apply here unless you're only sharing with one party. You combined your private key and their public key to encrypt the data, then only they can decrypt it. This does not work when dealing with 3 or more parties, unless some are going to share the same key for one side of the asymmetric encryption, in which case you're back to the same problem we had with sharing a symmetric key.

    5. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the encryption problem will be handled by the Terrorist Encryption Prevention Act. Since we all* know that only terrorists use encryption, obviously banning it or allowing law enforcement backdoors is the sensible thing to do.

      * Where "we all know" should be read as "Congress members know".

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget it is the NSA who approves what type of encryption are legal for citizens to own.

      There is no illegal encryption — not in the US. You can use anything you can get your hands on.

      Now, getting your hands on something, the NSA can't break, may be difficult — because they have sabotaged efforts to develop strong crypto. But not because it is illegal.

      That said, the existing freely available software — including OpenSSL — can be used properly to defeat would-be spooks. We know this — and the observation is confirmed by occasional stories on how the government leans on companies to reveal the private keys. If they could break the encryption itself, they wouldn't be demanding keys...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Thanks TechyImmigrant! Lost track of the block size for a moment. Over the last three years, I've been developing a block cypher. I was surprised to see that AES sole security is XORing the key with mono-substitution translations of the plain text. The 128 bit version can be broken on my laptop...

    8. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Never going to happen. The banks at the very least wouldn't allow it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You forgot N number of hashings. For added delight, pass it over again with another key. Or do it several times, so long as you remember your sequence. Forgot it? Oh dear.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Matt.Battey · · Score: 2

      Today on CNN, the commentators after the Brennan press conference said that the CIA was correct in saying that no non-bad-guys were killed by drone strikes. That's because the CIA redefined bad-guys to be any human of fighting age (13-60). So, that means that Grandma and your kid brother are free to use encryption, because they definitely aren't terrorists. They get to keep their shoes on at the airport, so there you go!

    11. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      You're assuming it is either/or.

      You have per client access rules and passively encrypt everything. What is more, the encryption keys can be held on office thin clients that transparently download the decryption engine and keys from an onsite server which likewise can serve both to remote users as part of their login script.

      Non-technical people won't even know it is happening. Technical people will of course. If you want to keep things just a bit more secure, you can have remote clients RDP into a Terminal server that retains the keys and engine in the office such that neither ever leave the office.

      None of this is complicated. I could set all this up myself fairly quickly. You can even double encrypt things if you want. Why tell dropbox you're even using your own encryption? No reason to do that. Just upload encrypted files and have them encrypt them again. It is all data.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (B)Limitation on retention
              A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless—
              (iii)the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning;

      You're really just playing into their hands by encrypting it. Then they can hold onto it for ever and ever and ever...

    13. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A republic - You couldn't keep it!

    14. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by JeffElkins · · Score: 1
      --
      Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
    15. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Not at all. I can think of several types of encryption that are not decipherable in any reasonable amount of time or with any reasonable amount of computing power. Even accounting for moore's law there are some very strong encryption methods that render the data so hard to decrypt that it is worthless to anyone without the key.

      I even know of at least one that is literally impossible to decrypt. Like... you would need to be literally god and able to bend reality around your finger to break it.

      Look, you don't need to make it unbreakable in most cases. You just need to make it so hard that they'll never bother.

      I can think of a few that are easily that hard and will be that hard for generations. And if I wanted to make something that no one could break even with a billion years of trying... I could do that as well.

      Look at the statue in front of the NSA. It contains 4 ciphers. The first 3 have been broken. The last one has not... by anyone. Type unbreakable codes or ciphers into google and see what comes up. There are lots of examples of codes that have never been broken. And that is the extreme response. I don't even need to do that. I just need to make it hard enough.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >The 128 bit version can be broken on my laptop...

      That's rather exciting. How does the attack work?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    17. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is where higher strategy comes in -- if they could crack it, first few but the very highest would know. But they wouldn't run around as if they'd cracked it. They'd keep it secret, using discovered things only rarely and even then with a believabla parallel construction, and not for legal reasons, but to hide the ability.

      This also applies to other hacks and cracks and taps legal and illegal, i.e. mundane spying, and not just. Bletchley Park stuff.

      Go read Cryptonomicon for a good feel for this stuff. Ultra code knew the Germans had been cracked. Ultra Mega knew the cracked messages themselves, and consisted of 20 people, but they would supposedly have a random plane "stumble" over an important sub so it could be attacked without revealing the code had been broken. I have no idea how close to reality it was.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're not going to beat me with a wrench without a warrant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is legislation and they have to allow it.
       
      Hell maybe not even legislation what if a new regulation came out stating this. They would have to abide by it or shut their doors in the US.

    20. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "What is more, the encryption keys can be held on office thin clients that transparently download the decryption engine and keys from an onsite server which likewise can serve both to remote users as part of their login script."

      This would be a great architecture for a business when talking only about accessing data that is shared among employees.

      However, if they want to share certain files with another business to remotely access the encrypted data, then you have to also share the encryption key to support client side decryption, and you encounter the same problem as before. There are certainly businesses that have moved the majority of their data storage to the cloud, but there are a greater number who haven't made that kind of commitment, and only use cloud storage for sharing certain files/data with business partners. You could host a local server that retrieves the data from the cloud, decrypts it using the onsite stored keys, and serves it to authenticated business partners. This would mean deploying onsite the your own implementation of a web API or website that provides the interface for third parties to login and access authorized data. Half the reason to move to the cloud is to avoid implementing, deploying, and managing this kind of infrastructure.

      And of course for individuals sharing with other individuals, this approach doesn't work either.

      Essentially, as even your example demonstrates, somewhere a central system must orchestrate access and decrypt the data or provide keys to clients. Moving that system onsite mitigates risk by putting it in your control and affording the business the opportunity to legally challenge information/search requests, but it also decreases the benefits of using the cloud since you've now moved a major piece of infrastructure back onsite.

    21. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 2

      Someone could probably make a business of exactly the architecture you describe, providing a small onsite appliance that does this orchestration. So you use their cloud storage solution, and they provide an architecture that guarantees only your onsite appliance has the keys capable of decrypting the data.

    22. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can decrypt RSA inline at 100Gbps. This can be easily scaled.

      MITM attacks are in place before key exchange occurs to get client keys making it that much easier to decrypt data.

    23. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If you want to sell people an appliance they don't need.... sure. You could host something like this on pretty much anything. Grab a raspberry pi for whatever they're selling for now... or one of their more powerful competitors that are about the same price... and that is all you need. Or simply host the files on a file server that is already resident on your network. Pretty much any office network is going to have a file server of some description. Any of them can handle this operation. The work of bringing them into memory and running the decryption will be done client side by the thin client/terminal server anyway.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    24. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what is the NSA going to do when the consequences of their arrogance propagate fully through our information culture?

      One thing they'll do is get their oligarch friends to deny services to people who use encryption to keep the government from knowing their identities, like they've been doing with banks and TOR, by implying that people who use privacy protecting encryption are criminals.

    25. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 2

      It doesn't. As far as I can tell from his vague description of XOR'ing "random bits" with "nonrandom bits", he's talking about a very specific mode of using AES, which is OFB or CTR. In both cases it is clearly documented that reusing the key stream would destroy security. As long as you follow the specification for these modes it is secure.

    26. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not really, if you want to give another company access to your data, are you intending to give them total access to ALL your data or specific access to specific files?

      If only specific files, then simply decrypt those and host them separately with either a key you are willing to share or no key at all.

      This is not rocket science.

      As to individuals sharing with other individuals... same thing. Decrypt, host separately... done.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Children below 13 were killed by drone strikes, too.

    28. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're not going to beat me with a wrench without a warrant.

      They'll do that and much more. Haven you been living in a cave (like a terrorist)?

    29. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe for the neckbeard types, but the attitude of regular folks is to have customer service fix everything.

      Currently:
      User: Hey, um, I can't login. I forgot my password.
      Customer Service: I'd be happy to help. Is the number you're calling from your home telephone number?
      User: Uh, yeah.
      Customer Service: And can you please verify your name?
      User: Er. Bob Dole.
      Customer Service: Your new temporary password is 1234. You'll be prompted to reset it when you log in. Have a nice day.

      Your proposed future:
      User: Hey, um, I can't login. I lost my private keyfile.
      Customer Service: Oh. Well, we can't help with that. Sorry.
      User: Wha..whaa.. WHAAAT?!!
      Customer Service: Really sorry, can you see if you have a backup made somewhere?
      User: WHAT. THE. EFFING. HELL. I have my wedding videos and my baby's first words in HI-DEF on there!!
      Customer Service: I'm really sorry.
      User: FFFFF..UUUUUU..UUUUUUUUUU.
      *call terminated*

    30. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Except for they won't because the whole financial system would instantly collapse.

      come on... think a few moves ahead.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    31. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not use the protocol that PGP uses? The data is encrypted with one symmetric key that is unique to each packet or archive. Then copies of that symmetric key are encrypted with each party's public key. So, the sender sends to nine others, there are ten public keys attached that can decrypt the data's volume key, assuming the sender wants to retain the ability to read the contents.

      The hard part is making sure the keys belong to the right people. However, this isn't that difficult. That is what keysigning parties and a web of trust is for. In fact, because a keysigning party is about validation, just handing every guest a printed sheet showing people's key ID and thumbprint, then having the guests cross-check them and physically tick off the ones they have vetted is good enough.

      I once worked on a project for a company that had multiple offices for messaging around the globe. All messages were encrypted with the receiver's key and had an expiration date. They were dropped into a message pool, propagated to the other sites. The receivers had special software which looked for their key ID, pulled messages out, and the user could decrypt them at their leisure. Since the data was pushed out similar to NNTP, only the site where the message originated from knew who the sender was, because it was just a part of the changes propagated to the other sites. To save space, all messages expired after a time.

      The result of this was a messaging system that was secure, and was plausibly deniable. The sender and receiver got their messages, but the sending site didn't know where the receiving site was, and vice versa.

      This was done internally because one of this startup's site was in a very repressive country (no, NOT the US or the UK...), and needed to communicate securely and freely about some topics.

    32. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Private spying gets you information, public spying gets you intimidation. Possibly they have changed their goals.

    33. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we all* know that only terrorists use encryption, ...

      Unfortunately, it wouldn't even be necessary to lie like that.

      1. Terrorists do bad things (oh, by the way, we call anyone who does things we don't like a terrorist)
      2. Terrorists use encryption
      3. Therefore, encryption must be banned
      3a. No? Why do you hate America and love terrorists?

      The majority of America would not see the problem with that logic and eat it up...

    34. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Yes and company security is designed by neck beards. So... corporate security will at least have that.

      As to personal security... To a certain extent, this is every douchbag for himself. So... fuck em'.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    35. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by mlts · · Score: 2

      Incorrect. The NSA/NIST produce official, standardized versions of crypto libraries (which is a good thing because there are a lot of people who are clueless about the math principles behind crypto, and would use something braindead like ECB, or if hashing passwords, not bother with a salt.)

      In the early 1990s, there was the Clipper chip that would have Skipjack loaded onto it on a secure site. This was something cryptographers were worried about because once that chip became common, the other shoe would drop, which was to make crypto illegal.

      There were attempts to make crypto illegal. Around 1991, the honorable senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, was trying to pass bills to make encryption illegal, which is why PRZ wrote PGP 1.0 (and subsequent versions) in the first place, so there was a tool out there, legal or not, to protect people.

      As it stand now, whatever encryption algorithm I use is legal here in the US. Realistically, a mainstream algorithm is a good choice since there are a lot of homegrown ones which would get easily broken by a decent cryptographer.

    36. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      PRIVATE encryption of everything just became mandatory.

      Go look back at the bill, start at page 22.

      Observe that unencrypted communications can be retained for five years. But any encrypted communications can be kept indefinitely.

      Also note that the law doesn't say anything about who enciphered it nor about if they are able to decipher it. If it was encrypted at any point along the journey it qualifies for unlimited retention.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    37. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by towermac · · Score: 2

      No, that's what happened. And when you don't have that random plane, you let your friends and allies die.

      Or give up the only weapon you have that is working, when your ships and planes and soldiers are losing. That's how you lose a war.

      I'm just glad I wasn't one of those 20 people. Dang. Because they did a good job, I don't have to know what that feels like.

    38. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      cite an instance of them torturing/water boarding a citizen just going about his business in the US without a warrant?

      And no... sitting on a fat guy until he suffocates does not count. Police have been doing that for.... ever. We're talking about information security. They don't extort passwords out of people without warrant. It doesn't happen.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    39. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My god... read my fucking posts please. I am talking about keeping the keys client side. Which means if you do a man in the middle attack they get nothing but encrypted garbage.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    40. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by golodh · · Score: 1
      a red herring and a dead end.

      @Karmashock

      Because when everyone starts encrypting everything, law-enforcement officials may just get the authority to demand your encryption keys from you, or alternatively, to oblige you to decrypt the stuff for them. Otherwise they'd be stymied. Australia and the UK already have legislation in place to compel people to decrypt their stuff on demand.

      And because it's not practical to encrypt everything on every gadget you own with backdoor-free encryption. It's just too bothersome for a normal person.

      And because if you don't "cooperate", police may actively search for anything they might conceivably pin on you, so that you can later be offered a plea-bargain in which you reveal your keys in return for the DA dropping twenty-odd far-fetched charges you'd rather not risk having to defend against (even if you could afford a competent lawyer).

      And because once you're registered as someone they have encrypted data on, what's easier than to monitor traffic from and to you for (a) patterns (b) weak encryption and (c) passwords.

      And because it is probably only a matter of time (a decade or so) for special-purpose quantum computers to become available that can crack your encryption.

      And because we're spending a few billion a year making sure that commercially available encryption has weaknesses or even backdoors that are known to the NSA.

      So I don't think it's a good idea to tell yourself you're safe from surveillance behind simple technological measures. If anything, it will only mark you as suspicious thereby warranting more effort.

      Your main protection was the law, and that just got moved out of the way.

    41. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But he claimed he had an attack that works on his laptop. I'm still waiting.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    42. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by sconeu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep. Google for Churchill Coventry dilemma

      Churchill let the Nazis bomb Coventry, rather than expose the fact that the Brits had broken the Nazi codes.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    43. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by suutar · · Score: 1

      which only proves that if they've done it they've successfully suppressed reporting of it. Certainly, you can assert and I can hope that they wouldn't... but neither of us can really prove it.

    44. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children below 13 were killed by drone strikes, too.

      Naa, they were brown, so they weren't people either...

    45. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      What is more, the encryption keys can be held on office thin clients that transparently download the decryption engine and keys from an onsite server which likewise can serve both to remote users as part of their login script.

      Better yet, issue the users a smart card that contains the encryption key. They plug that into the thin client with a pin in order to log on. That way you also avoid weak password stuff.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    46. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Simple workaround to the 5 year limitation, then: encrypt at the tap, transfer to the storage network, decrypt for storage. Boom, it's been encrypted and they can keep it forever. Fuck.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    47. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because when everyone starts encrypting everything, law-enforcement officials may just get the authority to demand your encryption keys from you, or alternatively, to oblige you to decrypt the stuff for them. Otherwise they'd be stymied. Australia and the UK already have legislation in place to compel people to decrypt their stuff on demand.

      Better their actions are visible, they have to work for it and make a legal showing in order for a judge to compel production vs. todays warrantless environment carved out by the third party doctrine's failure to be rationally integrated into the modern world.

      And because it's not practical to encrypt everything on every gadget you own with backdoor-free encryption.

      Does not need to be perfect. Just good enough to make people work for it.

      It's just too bothersome for a normal person.

      Being connected to the Internet or owning a computer was just too bothersome for a normal person at one time too.

      And because if you don't "cooperate", police may actively search for anything they might conceivably pin on you, so that you can later be offered a plea-bargain in which you reveal your keys in return for the DA dropping twenty-odd far-fetched charges you'd rather not risk having to defend against (even if you could afford a competent lawyer).

      What else is new?

      And because it is probably only a matter of time (a decade or so) for special-purpose quantum computers to become available that can crack your encryption.

      Quantum computers will exist and they will be able to perform useful work yet there is currently no evidence they will ever be able to crack encryption. Nobody has any clue how to scale count of entangled qbits. All known error correction schemes either break down or require fanouts of supporting circuitry with their own exponential growth curves.

      And because we're spending a few billion a year making sure that commercially available encryption has weaknesses or even backdoors that are known to the NSA

      No need to invoke NSA intentional actions when most of what goes on can be explained away by market forces and incompetence.

      So I don't think it's a good idea to tell yourself you're safe from surveillance behind simple technological measures.

      From what I read the point is overreach has consequences... when people are told they have no right to privacy and the government can take whatever information it wants without any legal showing then people naturally tend to respond with "fuck you" followed by infrastructure investments to physically deny any such capability.

      If anything, it will only mark you as suspicious thereby warranting more effort.

      This is increasingly a fruitless enterprise as the number of people using the technology approaches everyone...

      Your main protection was the law, and that just got moved out of the way.

      Last I checked supremacy clause is still in effect.

    48. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the navy bout that one..

    49. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by colinb8 · · Score: 2

      You can Google for "Churchill Coventry dilemma" but make sure you read the sober articles, not the conspiracy theories. As it happens, when I just Googled the top five links all deny that Coventry was deliberately sacrificed.

      For a short trustworthy account of Ultra I suggest "Top Secret Ultra" by Peter Calvocoressi.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz
      ... while Churchill was indeed aware that a major bombing raid would take place, no one knew what the target would be.

      Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Section at Bletchley Park, which translated and analysed all deciphered Luftwaffe messages. He wrote "Ultra never mentioned Coventry... Churchill, so far from pondering whether to save Coventry or safeguard Ultra, was under the impression that the raid was to be on London."

      Scientist R. V. Jones, who led the British side in the Battle of the Beams, wrote that "Enigma signals to the X-beam stations were not broken in time," and that he was unaware that Coventry was the intended target. Furthermore, a technical mistake caused jamming countermeasures to be ineffective. Jones also noted that Churchill returned to London that afternoon, which indicated that Churchill believed that London was the likely target for the raid.

      http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/he-let-coventry-burn
      ... What did Churchill know and when did he know it? The most succinct summary came from one of Churchill's private secretaries, John Colville, in his book, The Churchillians (London, 1981), page 62: ''All concerned with the information gleaned from the intercepted German signals were conscious that German suspicions must not be aroused for the sake of ephemeral advantages. In the case of the Coventry raid no dilemma arose, for until the German directional beam was turned on the doomed city nobody knew where the great raid would be. Certainly the Prime Minister did not. The German signals referred to a major operation with the code name "Moonlight Sonata." The usual "Boniface" secrecy in the Private Office had been lifted on this occasion and during the afternoon before the raid I wrote in my diary (kept under lock and key at 10 Downing Street), "It is obviously some major air operation, but its exact destination the Air Ministry find it difficult to determine." ''

    50. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by colinb8 · · Score: 1

      Adding to towermac's "No, that's what happened", that's also my recollection from past reading of several books on British Intelligence in WW2. For now I can't find direct references to confirm that, so instead these sources.

      http://www.robomod.net/pipermail/soc-history-war-world-war-ii/2006-January/000421.html
      "when BP first broke into naval Enigma in mid-1941, the Admiralty took immediate advantage by sinking _all_ the supply ships for surface raiders that were in the Atlantic. (This was at or just after the cruise of BISMARCK.) This clean sweep alarmed the Germans significantly."

      The round up of the supply ships was done in June 1941: 3 June Belchen, 4 June Esso Hamburg, 4 June Gonzenheim, 5 June Egerland, 15 June Lothringen

      The information came from U110 and the inevitable other sources. The plan was to deliberately leave some of the ships alone, sink or capture enough to disrupt the network but no "perfect score" so several ships were to be left alone. Unfortunately for the planners at least one sinking was simply pure chance, the ships found each other. Thereby creating more alarm in Germany than the planners wanted.

      [That reminds me of Peter Fleming (yes, the brother of Ian) - he was a head of British deception operations in South East Asia and said something to the effect that before you tell the enemy a lie, you need to know what the truth really is.]

      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/lK9Bw0ZptJU
      ... In the Med in 1941-1942, ULTRA allowed the British to intercept a very high proportion of the Axis supply ships going to North Africa. If the British had simply flown straight out to the target each each time, even the Germans would have realized they "knew something". Certainly it would have become obvious to the British sailors and airmen, and there were Axis agents in Egypt who would have relayed this fact. Therefore the British air and naval commanders in the Med made sure that no Axis ship was attacked until it had been 'spotted' by an Allied air patrol, and for each patrol sent to a known target, two others were sent out at random. ...

      http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10926
      ... Until May 1943, the Milk Cows operated more or less at will, mainly because the North Atlantic Shark Enigma was not reliably broken until then. After that, their fates were sealed. In the next three months, another five of them had been sunk. A year later, all ten of the type XIV U-tankers had been lost. In the majority of cases (except U-464), their demise was directly attributable to their location being learned by the Allies through their signals being intercepted and decrypted. In all cases (except U-490) they were initially detected by aircraft. This was not by chance, as the aircraft were ordered to search the particular area in which they were expected. ...

    51. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      I think typically each file would be encrypted with a separate symmetric key. Then you can choose who is able to decrypt it by sticking a header with this key encrypted for various public/private key pairs. Then all you have to do is remove one of the encrypted keys, not re-upload the whole file.

      As far as I know asymmetric encryption is never used the way you say in practice. It is too slow. It is used to encrypt a key for a symmetric cipher that is then used to encrypt the actual data. And that "combining your private key and their public key" statement is nonsense. Your private key is useless for securing information originating from you, since your public key is, well, public. It is useful for authenticating that information came from you, which is independent of recipient.

      This is all setting aside the fact that once a party has access to some data, "revoking" that access has a sortof squishy meaning because they can just keep a copy of what they retrieved before.

    52. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what is the NSA going to do when the consequences of their arrogance propagate fully through our information culture?

      What do you think they'll do? They will follow England and require-by-law that you turn over all encryption keys upon demand. Or be held in prison (under contempt) until you do.

    53. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by bmo · · Score: 1

      This needs to be modded up.

      Encryption doesn't need to be "perfect"

      It just has to be convenient and ubiquitous enough to make the government do actual work to get your stuff, forcing agencies to spend money from their budgets. It's assymetrical enough to drain those budgets given enough strength.

      --
      BMO

    54. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Already in law if they provide a warrant. And if they provide people due process, then I don't care. It is the avoidance of due process that is the problem in the first place.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    55. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      First rule of computer security is physical security. Anyone able to sit down at that worker's desk had better have clearance or the security is bullshit. That includes the fucking cleaners.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    56. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      not without a court order and that will require due process.

      The issue is not the government forcing you to decrypt stuff. If I had a safe that I locked something into, then a court could order me to open it... at any time from 1500 to today. So that's nothing new and not a problem.

      The issue is that they're opening stuff without a paper trail, a court order, involving a judge, or providing in any way due process to the accused.

      I don't mind courts ordering me to decrypt stuff. I do mind the executive doing it without involving the judiciary or giving me my day in court.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    57. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      by that same logic, they could be aliens from the x-files or something.

      fallacious logic is fallacious.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    58. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they were providing emotional support to the targeted reb... Terrorist, so they were Enemy Combatants.

      what the drone strike system is in reality is a system for Jemen etc governments to order strikes on their dissidents - and USA gets the blame.

      really, they're not strikes against people who would pose a threat to anyone in USA, but who are against the central, often dictatorial tribe politics engulfed government in said countries they happen in.

      really, there's not any sort of attempts even to do ground apprehension and to bring into trial or do thorough investigation and the intel is based on what the locals say - so what they have in effect created is a system of ordering hits for rival mafia(tribe in local lingo) gangs.

      said countries aren't even in state of war, so just double tapping people with missiles is pretty weird for any outsider and not doing anything to help anyone

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    59. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrogance? Try oppression. You are talking about the people holding the special right to employ physical force against you, not some asshole co-worker who brags about his salary. The term "arrogance" only gives them the benefit of the doubt.

    60. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They can't practically stop people from using any kind of encryption.

      They can criminalize it, and then evidence of its use makes you a criminal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time for reverse-gzip - the rebigulator, if you will. The idea is to start with a small message:

      "Hey, fancy going for a pint tonight?" ...encrypt it:

      "asdhasdjkhasdkjasdkashdasdwqw" ...rebigulate it:

      "dsfshfuykhfferwerrhwerhjkfsdofiueioroeirerqwehqweudyasdadwkljqoeiweorujk" ...send :-)

    62. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I think currently AES 128 is broken down to 2^126, with an average break time of 2^125. You're saying you can churn though 4.25*10^37 operations on your laptop? Assuming you have an 8 core 10ghz CPU, and assuming all operations take 1 cycle, it would take 16,859,817,298,134,397,170 years on average. Do you know something about AES that we don't know?

    63. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add, if you were able to access 38 trillion terabytes of data that was all encrypted with the same key, you could possibly figure out the key for 128bit.

    64. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      is too difficult to decipher except for the most powerful computer systems.

      What fantastic computers do you know about that are able to break AES 256? Has a current strength of about 2^254.4. I'll round to 2^254. That means if you have 100 trillion computers, each doing 100 trillion operations per second, it would take 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to break one key.

      If you had a theoretically perfectly efficient computer, it was described that attempting to break AES 256 would require converting our entire Sun's mass into pure energy, and then some. Since we do not live in a world with perfectly efficient computers, it's more along the lines that we'd have to convert the entire Milky Way into pure energy.

      I think galaxy destroying energy consumption is still beyond the abilities of our government.

    65. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Under what circumstances was any type of encryption ever illegal for US citizens to own? There were systems that were illegal to export for a while, until it became blatantly clear that export control on encryption was stupid.

      AES has been extensively studied, both inside and outside the NSA, and the general belief among people who know what they're talking about is that it's sound and very usable. Snowden's revelations say nothing about any breaks in it. It might be possible to brute-force AES-128 using a quantum computer sufficiently large that we may never be able to build one. It is not possible to brute-force AES-256 with standard or quantum computers, using only the resources available in one solar system (such as the entire output of the Sun until it turns cold).

      It's not possible to prove mathematically that any encryption is uncrackable unless and until we prove that P != NP, which is one of the Millennium Problems and not expected to be solved any time soon, so we're going with "resists the efforts of lots of very smart people who know what they're doing all over the world" as a measure of strength.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      From Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-boat War", as the war went on the German Navy was increasingly certain that the Allies were reading their Enigma-encrypted messages. Admiral Doenitz complained to those responsible, who pooh-poohed it as impossible and offered a version of Enigma with an additional rotor to keep Doenitz placated. This did make it considerably more difficult until new decryption machines were available.

      The Allies attributed a lot of their intelligence to HF/DF (High Frequency Direction Finding), and while that was useful it wasn't responsible for nearly as much intelligence that they wanted the Germans to believe.

      Similarly, the estimate of Japanese troops at Tarawa was not made by aerial recon determining how many latrines there were on the island, and multiplying by the Japanese official soldier-latrine ratio. On the other hand, it was a truly great cover story.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    67. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only reason they're getting anything now is because our enemies are computer illiterate." And the only reason this bill passed is because our lawmakers are computer illiterate...

    68. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Use the word that makes you happy. I choose arrogance because these people thought they could pass a law and control me. This law and their previous actions won't work. I have enough tools at my disposal to brush aside these chains. It is arrogance on their part to think "this" is enough to control us. Passive encryption of everything renders their policy of permanent retention a policy to record infinite amounts of garbage data.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    69. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No they can't. They've tried. They've failed.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    70. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "Your private key is useless for securing information originating from you, since your public key is, well, public."
      "Your private key is useless" ... " since your public key is, well, public."
      You are arguing the private key is useless because the public key is public. That is utter nonsense. Your private key is not useless. The whole point of public/private key pairs is that one is public and the other is private.

      With assymetric encryption, the sender uses their private key, and the receiving party's public key. The process creates an encrypted payload that only the receiver can decrypt. This is a good place to educate yourself on how public-key cryptography works, aka assyemtric encryption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
      "Public-key encryption, in which a message is encrypted with a recipient's public key."

      "'combining your private key and their public key' statement is nonsense"
      No you idiot, that's exactly what asymmetric encryption is. You need to educate yourself before you start telling people what is nonsense.

      I have implemented several forms of asymmetric encryption leveleraging Bouncy-Castle Crypto libraries, and have done extensive reading of the RFCs related to these processes.

      You also don't understand symmetric encryption but enough time wasted on you.

    71. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "Decrypt, host separately... done."

      Then anyone at the hosting company can access the decrypted files. You're just describing the same process in use today that is vulnerable to all the problems we were addressing above. You missed the whole point of the discussion.

    72. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      What is up with people being completely unable to read?

      If the key and decryption engine are kept CLIENT SIDE and 100 percent of all information uploaded AND downloaded is kept in an encrypted format that the host does not have access to... then what is the issue?

      The only server I suggested that could host the key would be a local server under your control. Serving a decryption key to your client systems should require basically no resources at all. A little file the thin clients grab as part of the login script.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    73. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      " that is all you need."

      No hardware is not all you need, you have to build an architecture and software platform. you said yourself:

      "You have per client access rules and passively encrypt everything. What is more, the encryption keys can be held on office thin clients that transparently download the decryption engine and keys from an onsite server"

      Someone has to do onsite key management. Either you are manually copying keys to each thin client, or your onsite server has ACLs that decide who gets what keys. It also needs to be able to integrate with the cloud storage to pull the upstream encrypted files, which means implementing whatever API is used to access the upstream server. Most small businesses I know, even if they have a couple programmers, aren't skilled enough to grasp these web APIs.

    74. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "First rule of computer security is physical security."

      Indeed. That's exactly why smart cards are superior. The private key is on the card, and the card is always physically with the owner.

      Otherwise you have to lock your office and the cleaners can't do their job. Are they just gonna clean the hallways?

    75. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      PGP is an example of asymmetric encryption. You have to encrypt a copy of the payload for each receiver. This is why it's great for messaging, and exactly what I was talking about why its applicable only when sharing something between two people. Whenever you send a message to multiple parties, you have to encrypt a copy of the message separately for each receiver. When you try to apply this same technique to file sharing, it means potentially large files have to be duplicated to allow them to be encrypted with each receiver's key.

    76. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "If only specific files, then simply decrypt those and host them separately"

      You are the one who proposed hosting them unencrypted. I read and quoted exactly what you said. I don't have a reading problem at all.

      " Decrypt, host separately... done."

      Then again you say the same thing.

      "A little file the thin clients grab as part of the login script."

      You're the one who proposed access controls as part of your architecture. Go back and read your initial statement.

    77. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      The question is not breaking the key but determining the message underneath. The blocks are still only 128 bits in length, deducing these can be trivial, and that is how the HTTPS/SSL/TLS attach are accomplished, via known plain text attacks.

    78. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Ideally, all these systems should be shake and bake.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    79. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      cleaners can and should be screened for security.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    80. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No. I proposed hosting them separately with a unique key I was willing to share with a specific outsider for a specific transaction... OR having no encryption at all in that circumstance.

      The implication being that you can choose anything between those two extremes at your discretion.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    81. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So? Crypto will be allowed, but heavily regulated, with only certified users allowed to maintain servers that can be connected to over encrypted protocols. All keys used in such connections will be shared with NSA etc.

    82. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You can't regulate it without attempting to decrypt people's messages which is evidence of trying to read them which is politically unsustainable.

      They get away with this because few know about it and everyone thinks their information is left alone for one reason or another. The instant mom and pop start getting pushed around by g-men for talking to their grand children on an encrypted voice chat... the game is up.

      The politics are already at the breaking point. There is only so much they can get away with here.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    83. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can't regulate it without attempting to decrypt people's messages which is evidence of trying to read them which is politically unsustainable.

      Why would you need to decrypt the messages? Most encrypted protocols have some unencrypted handshake when connection is initiated; said handshake can serve as evidence of intent to establish an illegal encrypted connection, if the other party is not on the whitelist.

      Or you could even just ban server software capable of providing such connections, again, with only certified users being eligible to possess it.

      Unenforceable? You don't need to enforce it for everyone. You just publicize a few high-profile cases, and most people will steer clear for the fear of being next.

    84. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Encrypting information is not evidence of criminal intent and it is not possible to declare it so without collapsing the whole financial system to say nothing of dozens of other industries.

      They are not outlawing encryption.

      Period.

      You are correct that they might try to outlaw strong encryption. However, enforcement would require that they audit the encryption which would require them actually trying to decrypt things on occasion. That isn't enforceable because it isn't politically sustainable.

      As to controlling everyone with fear, how has that worked out in the P2P piracy struggle? Not at all? Okay... so the fear angle only works if you're actually prepared to nail EVERYONE or just about everyone. If it is just a couple people here and there then people play the odds.

      What is more, the politics on this issue do not favor the NSA unless they can get people to stop talking about the NSA.

      The NSA doesn't like people to know about them, know their capabilities, understand their mission, or generally be aware of them period. This whole thing puts a big spot light on them and keeps it on them. That dramatically undermines their ability to do anything. The current people running the NSA are at best political idiots. They have completely misunderstood public reactions to their activities.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    85. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      and it is not possible to declare it so without collapsing the whole financial system to say nothing of dozens of other industries.

      You have not demonstrated that so far. Outright ban is one thing, and is indeed not viable. A strict permit regime with mandatory backdoor keys is perfectly viable.

      As to controlling everyone with fear, how has that worked out in the P2P piracy struggle? Not at all?

      For one thing, the people who are pirating stuff are getting something immediately beneficial out of it, and its value is readily understandable to everyone. Not so with encryption. If you ban/regulate it, 99% of the population simply won't know where to start, or why they even want to - with no premade stuff like Tor bundle readily available etc.

      For another thing, penalties for piracy aren't all that harsh in practice. It will most likely be a civil suit, not criminal, and even then they'll offer to settle. Realistically, people know that unless they run a tracker, they will get away with a fine of a couple of thousand or so even in the worst case. Now make it a mandatory 10 year stint in a federal prison for even a single downloaded track, and make the first couple of cases front page news, and then it'll be comparable to what I'm talking about.

      What is more, the politics on this issue do not favor the NSA unless they can get people to stop talking about the NSA.

      Only at this particular moment - and even then I think you haven't kept and eye on the polls, where 50% of electorate is perfectly happy with whatever privacy intrusions they may have to live with if that makes them "safe" (because the NSA told them it is necessary). And they always have several jokers which have yet to be beaten here in US - "think of the children", "the terrorists hate our freedoms" etc. Come next 9/11 (and it will happen, it's only a matter of then), they will have all the support they need to push that stuf through.

      Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you seen FBI pushing for backdoors to cellphone encryption? All they need is a few more hawks in Congress, and they will make it a law.

    86. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to regulation saying who can and who cannot use encryption, it isn't politically possible. The backlash would be unsurvivable. The instant they try to micromanage everyone on that basis their ability to sustain that in law will evaporate.

      Here you ask for evidence?... It hasn't happened. The burden is rather on you to show that it will happen in the US. Not my burden to prove any wild ass thing you could come up with is not going to happen.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    87. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, FBI is publicly demanding backdoor to all phone encryption. And the outrage is largely restricted to tech forums and such - your typical user is like, "well, if they need it to catch pedos and terrorists, I suppose it's fine?". So it doesn't seem that they're worried much about the backlash.

    88. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      you don't control that system. That system is pretty much exclusively controlled by your cellphone carrier. As such, the average person would never be told anything and as a result the average user is unaware of it.

      We're talking about private encryption.

      If you want to have that discussion, we have to keep the discussion to issues where YOU encrypt things. Your cellphone calls obviously don't count since your carrier encrypts the calls not you.

      There are several VOIP apps for phones that do client side encryption. Is the FBI shutting any of that down? No they are not.

      So... I'm right.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    89. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Uh, what? We're talking about on-device encryption here. That is very much the issue where YOU encrypt things. The FBI are complaining that Apple and Google have made it too easy to do full encryption (and Google has now made it on by default in Android 5.0), and when people make use of it, they cannot decrypt it even with a warrant.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/fb...
      http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

    90. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      And was that law passed outlawing on device encryption or are you just showing evidence that law enforcement doesn't like it?

      Because I'd like you to show me where I said law enforcement would LIKE unbreakable on device encryption?

      I didn't say that.

      Here is something you can do that will help you stop strawmanning people. Do not tell other people what their argument is on an issue. Rather, make your argument. When you tell other people what their argument is then you have to be very careful that you accurately and honestly describe their argument. You don't have to do that when you make your own argument. When you speak for yourself, you can say anything. When you try to speak for me, you have to be accurate.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    91. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is no bill submitted yet, but it's too early for that (and, well, there's that whole Congress session transition thing). But note that they were willing to go public, first to newspapers, and then in front of the Congress, demanding that either the companies "help out", or that Congress force them to. I'd say that shoots down your claim that they would not want the publicity - on the contrary, they are very much trying to make this public. And given past track record on things like Patriot Act, I can totally see why - there is sufficient support for such measures among the populace when the timing is right (like right now, with all the ISIS panic).

      Re: strawman. I was specifically addressing your point to my post, in which I said that FBI is demanding a backdoor by law, and you responded that this is totally not the same thing because it does not pertain to private encryption, while that's exactly what it was about. There's no strawman there, just correcting your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

    92. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... My point was that if they tried it would fall apart and not be sustainable. Your point is that they want to do it and may try at some point in the future.

      Our points are not in conflict.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    93. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yup. But I still think that you're too much of an optimist. This train wreck can be stretched out for a long, long time.

    94. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It never stops. But then they're fighting something they can't control so it doesn't really matter.

      Only when the information goes through known centrally controlled choke points where the encryption keys are known can they get away with this nonsense.

      Change any of those variables and the system collapses.

      Move the information through decentralized points and they can't monitor them all.

      Move them through unknown centrally controlled choke points and they can't get access.

      Prevent them from getting access to the encryption keys and it becomes too expensive to actually monitor everything.

      Anything changes and they can't control it.

      I personally am a fan of shifting everything to a P2P system. Why do I need the cloud when what I really want is to have people find data I want the to find or find data I want to find. No reason I can't host all that myself. How many people check my data? I have about 20 megabits up on my current connection. more then enough to host personal pictures, calenders, run a personal voip system, etc. I don't need the cloud. My systems are powerful enough to host everything I need for myself.

      All I need is the software. Simple. A raspberry pi running myCloud offers me most of what I need. I don't need cloud email. I can host it myself.

      if everyone does this then they have to grab the information using man in the middle attacks. No databases to search. And that will make it a lot harder for them to search in and of itself. If we use private encryption then they're done.

      I know of several VOIP programs that use excellent encryption which is all handled client side. The server decrypts nothing of significance.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    95. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      if everyone does this

      That is the weak point of the plan. We haven't even managed to get everyone to do email encryption, even though the standards and the easy-to-use tools have been there for almost two decades now. What makes you think you can switch them to a P2P darknet?

      I think that a more realistic scenario will be 1% doing what you describe, and 99% being utterly clueless.

    96. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I don't need to get literally every single person on board. Just enough to make hawking people down unproductive.

      What you're saying is that there will only be a couple people using private encryption. Utter nonsense. We have more then that already. Are they going to call us all terrorists, stack us up against the wall, and shoot us? Hardly.

      Listen, I don't quite understand where you're going with your argument? Are you saying we're all doomed?

      Things change.

      And things remain the same.

      And the more they change... they more they stay the same.

      What are you witnessing is the ancient struggle between order and chaos. The battle between authoritarianism autocracy and wild savage barbarism. It never ends. It never will end. Neither side will ever give up and neither side cares

      Do you think that fascism will take total endless control and the forces of chaos will be crushed to never rise again?

      Come now.

      Neither side ever wins the war. Battles they win... and battles they lose. Back and forth for time out of mind.

      The forces of order want to monitor all communications in the 21st century despite a rapidly decentralizing network and personal processing and encryption power expanding exponentially. I frankly doubt their ability to maintain that position.

      You might be right... maybe the forces of chaos won't do what I think they'll do... but you're wrong if you think the war is over.

      It never ends. Chaos will strike back... and order will strike back at chaos... back and forth forever more.

      Learn to go with the ebb and flow. It will be okay. The forces of chaos are not without resources.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    97. Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Don't forget it is the NSA who approves what type of encryption are legal for citizens to own.

      NSA controls and sabotages industry standards but there is current nothing to stop the use of other encryption algorithms including Blowfish and Twofish.

  2. Over to you, SCOTUS by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you do not declare this unconstitutional, immediately and unambiguously, then you have failed The People.

    Your credibility is already hanging by a hair.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same SCOTUS that just said your employer can order you to do 25 minutes of security checks without compensation? The copyright extension SCOTUS? The fascism rubber-stampers in black robes? Good-luck.

    2. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, I'm sure President Obama won't sign this bill.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Still looking for a political solution? Look for the silver lining... if everyone KNOWS that the government is mining your communications for whatever ends they see fit, then that's all the more reason to apply technical solutions to the problem. We've been trying forever to get people to start encrypting their emails and stuff, this might be the thing that finally gets everyone to accept real technological measures for achieving encryption and anonymization on the internet.

      I, for one, am kinda glad that this type of thing is out in the open so we can deal with it more effectively with technological measures... vs. before where we would say "well, I'll just conduct all of my communications out in the open since the Constitution said the government guarantees our privacy without their fingers crossed behind their backs"

    4. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if those communications are contained in your phone, tablet, laptop or home computer. Sounds like they can seize all that without a warrant as well ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Actually, the SCOTUS isn't the final arbiter, the people are. The DoI clearly sets forth a framework where tyrannical government can be overthrown.

      I define Tyranny as any government serving its own interest (the interest of the Government itself) over that of the people. Yes, we have an elected tyranny, not because of the elected officials (which we change) , but because the bureaucracy that powers the real "government" isn't elected.

      This is the police state that serves itself.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice attempt at misdirection. Where are all those voices that shouted down this very idea when it was Bush in office? Why did they become silent when Barry took the reigns? No different from the war protestors who suddenly found better things to do.

      I guess for some party goosesteppers two wrongs do make a right.

    7. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, the Roberts Court will be fine with this.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    8. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I define Tyranny as any government serving its own interest (the interest of the Government itself) over that of the people" Well, wrong. It's when they don't follow their own circumscribed laws.

      The "will of the people" is fungible, and has never once been measured in our representative republic.

    9. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      To quote TFA:
      "Hidden in the law is âoea troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process,â Amash told other lawmakers. That provision allows âoethe acquisition, retention, and disseminationâ of Americansâ(TM) communications without a court order or subpoena."

      I really hope someone can tell me that isn't as bad or as pervasive as that sounds. I wasn't surprised the USA Freedom Act didn't pass, but I didn't think we were going fully in the other direction.

    10. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to for it to become law anyways, 325-100 is a veto-proof margin.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    11. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why they exist. To serve as a barrier to a congress who no longer cares about rights.

      Too bad there isn't some sort of rule: "you lose your seat if a law your sponsored is later declared unconstitutional"

    12. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mi · · Score: 0

      Given this President's — and the previous Democrat's — record, I would not count on it...

      Illiberals are only opposing the government, while they are themselves in opposition. When they become the establishment, the rules change — heaven forfend, the new opposition will use the same methods to defeat them.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mi · · Score: 1

      Because we know Republicans are the guardians of privacy

      It is a Republican, who is raising awareness of this issue today — you didn't see it on New York Times' front page, did you?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    14. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Well, wrong. They don't follow the prescribed laws because doing so doesn't serve their goals. The not following the prescribed laws are a result of serving their own interests over the people. One can follow prescribed set of laws and still not serve the people (and thus be tyranny).

      AND I didn't say "will of the people" I said self (government's own) interest over the people.

      Lastly, we are in a place of illusion of a representative republic. Illusion, because the reality is, the Bureaucracy rules the people, not those we have elected to do so. This is part of the reason nothing changes when we vote out incumbents, except minor issues around the periphery.

      Of course you're right about the "will of the people" being fungible, which is why I steer clear of any politician that claims "Evil _______(party) wants to do _____ (evil act)". I feel that voting is too fucking emotional for most people, which is why we're in mess we're in.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were still here, dipshit. Just like you were still there whining about how Obama was turning tail like a coward and how this is the first war we ever lost and blah blah blah. Just because you can't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. Obama made his promises and we were fools to believe them, so at first we stopped protesting, but as it became increasingly obvious that our men weren't coming home right away we started making noise again until Obama did finally set withdrawal dates years after his election.

      Don't worry though, you can still complain about how we're all silent on the issue of torture but how dare we say anything about the CIA torture report while we aren't saying anything about torture while we're kicking Bush while he's down while we're ignoring torture. May the cognitive dissonance be strong with you.

    16. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I disagree with the 25-minute screenings, I'm not paid for walking through security, taking the elevator and logging into my workstation either.

      SCOTUS merely maintained what was already in the Portal to Portal act: that things relevant to the job itself (e.g. butchers sharpening their knives) got paid, and that security searches were analog to time spent driving to work or taking the a long flight of stairs to your office.

      Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. are, unquestionably, a bunch of shit-bags who should move the time-clocks to the other side of the sometimes up-to 25 minute screening machines, but it's not exactly like SCOTUS is out to screw people on this one. Someone in risk management there realized that they'd still be more profitable with the tiny bit of bad press and some legal fees than to pay overtime.

      Eat a bag of dicks Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. -- but I don't blame SCOTUS.

    17. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Politicians run scared -- all they need is for someone to whisper in their ear, "Imagine the next terrorist attack, and your opponent points out how you hampered the government investigation..."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by galabar · · Score: 1

      President Obama can veto this bill. It would then go back to Congress for a re-vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... With the issue now out in the open, it is less likely that congress would override the veto. So, the ball is most definitely in Barak Obama's court. It will become law (or not) based on his decision.

    19. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Vote was reasonably even across party lines.
      https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

      71% of (D) voted for it.
      80% or (R) voted for it.

      9 congresscritters didn't vote, split 5(D), 4(R).

    20. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Oh. I will blame SCOTUS.

      This isn't something that's an inherent part of getting to work. This is an extra burden specifically put in place by the employer. It is a REQUIREMENT demanded of employees. It doesn't matter if it is "relevant" to the job or not.

      If your employer says you have to stand on one leg for 25 minutes before and after a shift, that's time that they owe you in compensation. They are stealing your time and the gatekeepers are allowing it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by fnj · · Score: 1

      But he controls NSA. He tells them what to do and what not to do. Hell, a President (Truman) created NSA without any say-so from Congress. That's why they call him the Chief Executive. Congress could arguably ban the NSA completely, but in the absence of something it will never do, its participation in setting up the NSA was never required, and its participation in the NSA's continuing existence is not required now.

      As for the Supreme Court, how many legions of law enforcement and, in the ultimate rubber-meets-the-road, military do they control? I'll tell you. Zero. The Executive Branch holds that control. The difference between the Republic set up by the Constitution and a totalitarian state is not that great. All the Constitution did to mitigate the President's absolute power is to set up the toy rattle of impeachment, knowing goddam well nobody would ever have the guts to use it.

      So he can just tell the NSA they SHALL NOT invade privacy without warrants and they have to comply. But we all know none of the puppets of at least the last hundred years would have ever done that, and most goddam certainly not Bush or Obama or whoever the successor puppet is chosen to be by our masters.

      And before I get lectured, yes, I realize full well nobody in Washington DC has the real power. They are all just puppets. And the public is a bunch of brainwashed zombies. I have merely described the formal legalities.

    22. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Plenty of contemporaries said that the Patriot Act would to lead all the things it has. That you're ignorant of them does not mean they didn't exist. The ACLU was all over trying to fight against it due to all its onerous provisions. Michael Moore, love him or hate him, was all over it at the time in his film Fahrenheit 9/11. But at the time many of these criticisms were shot down as being overreactions.

    23. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't have voteoed it regardless of the margin. He's basically Dubya II.

    24. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I define Tyranny as any government serving its own interest (the interest of the Government itself) over that of the people"

      You're talking about the interest = will of the people.

    25. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by fnj · · Score: 1

      The Declaration of Independence is an apologia in the true and noble sense of the word, but it does not convey any legal framework. The Constitution does that. So yes, the people are the source of power and the recourse when the government has gone rogue, but note well that they then act extra-Constitutionally and absent any legal foundation - just as the agents of the Revolution did. And they are subject to perfectly legal prosecution for treason - just as the agents of the Revolution were. It takes a hell of a lot of guts and determination.

    26. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody other than employees enter the building? I can understand not paying clerks for security checks at a court-house. After all, the public has to stand in line there too. It's understood that security checks are part of getting into the court-house, which is a public building. OTOH, if the building is only for employees and not generally accessed by the public then I'd say you're on the clock the minute you're on the property.

    27. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different from driving to work. The employer has no say over where the employee lives or how they get to work. The employee could live around the corner and walk two minutes or they could live 100 miles away and drive two hours. It's the employee's choice and the employee's problem.

      In this case, the employee is not allowed to leave until they have performed the employer's security procedures. This is the employer's choice and the employee's problem. The employer seems to think their security procedure is necessary for the employee to perform the job, otherwise the employee could just leave at the end of their shift. The court got this one wrong.

    28. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Too bad there isn't a rule that says you lose your citizenship if you sponsor a bill that is declared unconstitutional. Wiping your @$$ with the highest law in the nation should come with a very high price. If it does not, then there's no real incentive to not keep whittling away at it until it becomes a worthless piece of paper... just as our Congress is doing.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Then blame the SCOTUS of 1974, who already decided this case.

    30. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by suutar · · Score: 1

      In the house, yes. Does the senate also have a veto-proof margin? (Has the senate even voted on this yet? All I see is the House figures.)

    31. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a RINO, to use the teabagger vernacular...

    32. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sometimes rubber stamp Congress, and sometimes act as originalist or judicial activists, based on complicated individual preferences and political calculations. And they get beaten up for any of those positions by all sides.

      Personally, I would prefer SCOTUS to be consistently on the side of only allowing Congress to impose rational, justifiable policies. But if they did that, people like you would still call them "the fascism rubber-stampers in black robes", because most of the laws Congress passes would get thrown out.

    33. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mi · · Score: 1
      No, you dimwit, quite the opposite:

      He is Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus and associated with the Tea Party movement. Conor Freidersdorf, writing for The Atlantic, called Amash "one of the most important civil libertarians in the House of Representatives".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More accurately, he's basically George the Elder IV.

    35. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Sadly I think the SCOTUS applied the law correctly, which is not to say it's a good law. The ruling is quite clear that the test is not whether it's required by your employer, it's whether it is integral and indispensable to the performance of your work.

      That view is fully consistent with an Opinion Letter the Department issued in 1951. The letter found noncompensable a preshift security search of employees in a rocket-powder plant " 'for matches, spark producing devices such as cigarette lighters, and other items which have a direct bearing on the safety of the employees,'" as well as a postshift security search of the employees done "'for the purpose of preventing theft.'"

      If you need to wear protective gear for work then putting it on - but not waiting in line to put it on - is compensatable time because wearing it is integral to safe and efficient job performance, undergoing a security screening to make sure you're not carrying anything dangerous is apparently not. That's an odd place to draw the line, it's not a convenience and it's not something you can skip out of. But as it stands the employer can force you to jump through as many compulsory hoops as they want without compensation, as long as it doesn't directly relate to your job performance. Personally I'd call it bullshit, any compulsory checkpoints of whether you're ready to enter or leave work is clearly integral to your job activity but there's 60+ years of precedent that says otherwise.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then blame the SCOTUS of 1974, who already decided this case.

      Unlike other courts in the United States, SCOTUS has the ability to overturn prior case law. A notable example would be "Brown v. Board of Education" which overturned the case law which had been settled in "Plessy v. Ferguson."

      Just saying "SCOTUS of 1974 already decided this case" doesn't mean that the current SCOTUS isn't to credit/blame for their decisions. If it was a lower court they could get away with saying their hands were tied, but the SCOTUS is different.

    37. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same SCOTUS that declared the ACA constitutional? Credibility... hahahahahahaha

    38. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Freedom and liberty are the "best interest" of the people, the will of the people is to have task masters enslaving them, which is why we have what we have. So, no, they aren't the same.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    39. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Give me liberty, or give me death", has been replaced with "Give me a beer and NASCAR"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by jfengel · · Score: 1

      At least one set of judges, the 9th Circuit, disagreed that the previous decision applied here. The current court disagrees (unanimously) with them, and what they say goes, but the fact that it made it to the Supreme Court at all suggests that there is real disagreement about the meaning and applicability of the previous decisions.

      So there's plenty of blame to go around, but it includes all nine of the current justices as well as the past ones. And the current Congress, who could easily remedy this (to popular acclaim), but the leadership won't even try.

    41. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I don't blame SCOTUS.

      According to both their 1974 ruling, and their unanimous ruling now, having to go through security, or up stairs, or into an elevator to get to the 99th floor of your building before you can begin your work shift isn't paid time.

      Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. having "up to" 25 minute screenings doesn't make them unconstitutional - it just makes them giant shitbags.

      Don't be mad a SCOTUS because ISS are fucking cocks. Place your outrage squarely on their shoulders.

    42. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But 60-40 isn't. If he vetoes it, it will stay vetoed because the Senate doesn't have the votes needed to override, even in the most extreme scenario that would have any kind of correspondence to reality.

    43. Re:Over to you, SCOTUS by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Legal" is not always the same as "legitimate".

  3. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    But cloud is great, right? They told me cloud is great!

  4. 325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is your God now?

    No, seriously, "free West", where is your God? The Stasi have nothing on you.

    1. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Still there prioritizing free will and not making people automatons despite what many of them do with it.

      I do find this a strange argument from a practical perspective, though. An existing God with afterlife consequences is the one and only thing that could make these people accountable. You certainly won't be changing anything.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stasi also ended in 1990, so that's not fair to them. I'm sure they'd have everything locked down nice and tight if they were still around. Those guys were actually better than the Gestapo at what they did.

    3. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

      In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

      Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

      Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

      Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

      Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

    4. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what context you are presenting this from. Assuming it's atheism, please include your objection from the perspective of Darwinism. We can take it from there, on whether DNA propagation would be increased or decreased by this, that sort of thing. Everything you've got derived from your stance, whatever little that may be.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The context is plain: Martin Luther was a devout Christian who believed in God and an afterlife yet advocated horrific actions be taken against Jews, contradicting your statement.

    6. Re:325-100 by dryeo · · Score: 1

      How would an existing god with afterlife consequences make these people accountable? If he punishes them after they die, well that makes no difference on Earth or to all the other people that got fucked up by these people.
      Even if they believe in a god who would punish them after the fact, most of these people honestly believe they're doing gods work and that is why god has rewarded them with money and power. Even punishing them forever won't undo the damage they did in life, at the best it is making them regret what they did forever.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand how contradictions work, since I've made none.

      I said people have free will, including to do harmful things, and suggested accountability exists in the afterlife.

      Luther's stance on Jews (which may, in fact, ultimately serve as example of exactly my statement) has no more to do with contradicting this than me saying that because someone of your political party held a view that you do not, your statement is contradicted.

      Ah, no.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    8. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement that " An existing God with afterlife consequences is the one and only thing that could make these people accountable." means what?

    9. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      It means that political systems that simply specify their own rules of evaluation of their actions per their own benefit, and are militarily and economically entrenched in doing so, have as a practical matter no accountability, which the OP seemed to suggest he was going to fix.

      Well, no. He'll futilely rail against it ("the West", but any government can be substituted) on Slashdot, accomplish nothing, then die and become irrelevant. As will you. I suggest a more pragmatic viewpoint.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    10. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear on how you think this is different from the model you currently accept from a secular standpoint. We make people accountable by putting them in prison. That doesn't revert their actions, either. That isn't a part of the definition of "accountable", and you seem to be making up a definition according to whatever you need to say it is to attack theism, contradicting the system you already have and agree with every day.

      What they "honestly think" they are doing is likewise irrelevant, same as people still go to prison even if they "honestly thought" robbing that bank was perfectly fine.

      Your thought process here seems very convoluted, in a self-inflicted and rather hypocritical way.

      As for the afterlife, though again whether or not it undid the damage would be irrelevant, "punishing them forever" is not a model I ascribe to nor IMHO the proper conclusion to draw from scriptural sources. I am a "conditionalist"--you do not have an immortal soul by default, you receive one through God's will and your faith. If you don't accept that, you ultimately get exactly what you demanded--nonexistence in every sense.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    11. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So an "existing God with afterlife consequences" imposes no practical consequences or accountability on the present?

    12. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Working on a segue to the supposed "Problem of Evil"?

      Occasionally, in terms of direct intervention, but primarily this is left to us to implement, as a function of retaining our free will and avoiding making us and our actions morally irrelevant.

      We do so poorly, all in all. We can, however, attempt to align ourselves with a system which can lead to better results, which alone we've shown no propensity or capability in accomplishing, for quite a few millennia now. Leaving religious presumptions aside for a moment, a structure that could reach an objective beats a non-definition of a non-plan that never, empirically, worked anywhere as a matter of history.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    13. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was Martin Luther aligned with a system that lead toward better results?

    14. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      At the time of that writing, later in his life, or now?

      The truth is compulsory. Alignment with it is unpleasant to the degree one has been misaligned.

      As for the specifics, though, I leave that to the one who can address it with a degree of precision and thoroughness I cannot.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    15. Re:325-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martin Luther wrote "On the Jews and their Lies" near the end of his life and his penultimate sermon contained his "final warning" to the Jews. Was he aligned with a system that lead towards better results?

    16. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      So again, at the time of that writing, or later in his life, say on his deathbed, when he came very close to recanting the entire Reformation, or now?

      But we still need to go back to how I can address your question of "better", so again it would clarify your standards by reference to your worldview. Right now you are saying that my religion is incorrect, which we know by reference to its moral axioms, with the religion as the only source of justification of them we've put on the table.

      To summarize, your stance is that my view is untrue, which we know because it is true.

      So, again, what is your derivation of the basis of your implied moral criticism? Since context-dropping would be wholly invalid on your part, and Christians killing all the Jews would be fine according to Darwinian naturalism, Jews killing all the Christians would be equally fine according to it, both of them killing all the atheists would be perfectly fine as well, it's simply a matter that some DNA survived and some did not, case closed, what else do you mean by "better"?

      You'll have to define your term, because right now you're doing an Argument from a Void.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    17. Re:325-100 by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You've obviously got a different idea of accountable then I do. To me the idea is to encourage someone to realize they need to improve and become a better person. Probably hopeless as someone with no empathy will probably not acquire it. Still some people do come out of prison better people as they have become accountable for their actions and learned. This works best in systems that believe in rehabilitation. Of course some people are hopeless and just removed from society, but that's about protecting society, not making them accountable. What is the point of making someone accountable if not in the hope that they learn something from it.
      Now some people just like to punish and call it making them accountable and even come up with weird fantasies where they might be punished forever or at least lose out on some reward. I've never understood that, especially when they claim it is to do with love.
      We have our one life with whatever chance threw us, some are lucky and get a good start and take advantage of it, others not so much. Is there any point to trying to make a badly fetal alcohol victim accountable, or someone who was born with no empathy?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    18. Re:325-100 by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You're wandering pretty far afield from what I actually said. I said that people who sociopathically use the mechanisms of control given them by their government positions, and likewise use these positions to make up rules for themselves that extends their control and manipulation of the public and which exempt themselves from any real penalties for any of their actions, fully knowingly and making extensive effort to systematically do precisely that, should be held accountable.

      And now you tell me I'm talking about mentally handicapped people and making them accountable. Ah, no. Whoever you think you're talking to, it isn't me.

      So, people not being punished forever is a weird fantasy, and really they will, as a matter of what's actually true? You need to review your ideas here for internal coherence.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  5. Ok Justin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have actually met this guy in person, I have nothing against him, but holy shit. Before he actually cared and I would have backed him up 100% opposing this without question. But he seems to have gone for the republican kool aid and somehow wants to blame this on.... the executive branch.

    Look man, the executive branch doesn't make laws and the law enforcement agencies that report to it already had this power. This is congress who isn't part of the executive branch passing the law. Don't go in there a decent guy and come out a soulless husk spewing what you hear on Fox News. Don't try to shift blame on that 'Obama' fictional character everyone seems to want to. You're better than that.

    1. Re: Ok Justin by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      What law has he made? None.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re: Ok Justin by omnichad · · Score: 1
    3. Re: Ok Justin by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's certainly the mainstream media's "narrative", but:

      "I just took an action to change the law," said President Obama to amnesty hecklers, describing his recent executive ruling on amnesty non-enforcement as a change to the law in his own words, constitutional scholar that he is.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Ok Justin by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      and the law enforcement agencies that report to it already had this power.

      The summary is wrong. The unlimited, open-ended collection powers enacted by EO12333 only apply to government employees and employees of contractors subject to background investigation for national security reasons.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re: Ok Justin by fnj · · Score: 0

      Slam dunk.

    6. Re:Ok Justin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But he seems to have gone for the republican kool aid and somehow wants to blame this on.... the executive branch.

      Where does he say that? The linked story says that he tried to kill this bill --

      "The bill was originally set to be considered with just a simple voice vote, but Amash rushed to the House floor on Wednesday to demand a recorded vote. He also fired off a letter to his fellow lawmakers warning them not to back the bill."

      The only part I can find mentioning the administration doesn't say that they caused the bill (though with those numbers, lots of Democrats appear to have voted for it) --

      "“It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American,” explained Amash, who has a record of skepticism toward the National Security Agency and other agencies. Last year, he nearly succeeded in an attempt to end the NSA’s controversial phone records program."

      Which part are you complaining about here?

    7. Re:Ok Justin by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      But he seems to have gone for the republican kool aid and somehow wants to blame this on.... the executive branch.

      Yes, it is the executive branch's fault. Of course, it is also the legislative and judicial branch's fault, but even if Obama tried unsuccessfully to kill the bill, and even if SCOTUS won't hear it for procedural reasons, Obama could still prevent it. It does authorize but does not require the executive branch to conduct warrantless forfeiture of private communications. Obama could simply say, "that's unconstitutional, we're not gong to do that," and order federal agencies to only seize or intercept private communications if they have a warrant.

    8. Re:Ok Justin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he seems to have gone for the republican kool aid and somehow wants to blame this on.... the executive branch.

      Laws only authorize spying, they don't mandate it. Obama could stop all spying on US citizens tomorrow by simply directing that it stop.

    9. Re:Ok Justin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Executive doesn't make laws?

      Selectively enforcing obamacare and immigration laws under the guise of 'prosecutorial discretion' IS making the law. Even if they choose not to pursue certain classes of illegal immigrants there is NO LAW that provides ANY way for illegal immigrants to becime legal. In fact if you overstay your visa, you get a 10 year ban ob reentering. So why then has the administration requested 5 million ID cards?

    10. Re:Ok Justin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of criticizing him, consider taking what he says seriously for a few seconds. He's been in congress long enough to understand how it really works.

      Sure the actual person who introduced this abomination was a congress critter, but why did he introduce it?
      They must have known it was tone deaf to do such a thing now, yet they didn't care.
      Why did they do it then? The Patriot Act is being threatened to be let to expire and the NSA needs thus new legal authority to continue doing what it's doing.
      The NSA (executive branch) is almost certainly the driving force behind this bill. They tell their "boss" to get it done, and he makes it happen.

      Yeah yeah - Obama (D) has no control over the house (R)'s. What a load of crock. The majority of both parties are no different on this issue (and many many others too), and backroom quid pro quos are taking place here. I would be very surprised therefore if strong pressure was not being applied from the white house.

  6. WTF is going on in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Torture is legal and presidential approved, local police looking like military platoons, mass spying, seizure of assets without trial, constitution in the bin, what's next ?, what exactly is the endgame ?

    1. Re:WTF is going on in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no endgame because there is no end. It will only get worse until the breaking point is reached, at which point the American empire will fall in a horrific way. Have we not learned this from history? It has happened many, many times before.

    2. Re:WTF is going on in USA by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      U+1F4A9

    3. Re:WTF is going on in USA by istartedi · · Score: 1

      When I looked that up, it said undefined. Is that what you wanted to say? I was kind of thinking it'd be a symbol for a bomb or a mushroom cloud or something.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:WTF is going on in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unicode 6.0 is 4 years old, get with the times.

    5. Re:WTF is going on in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's an Emoji of "Pile of poo"

      http://codepoints.net/U+1F4A9

    6. Re:WTF is going on in USA by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I think he was trying to say "Oh Shit!"

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  7. #TotallyWhatWeWantStopBeingParanoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the trending hashtag will be when they start arresting protesters before they even get the chance to flip a cop car and burn down a wallgreens.

    Yes, people getting murdered by cops is indeed a very bad thing, but the mere fact that the local police can take away your ability to communicate doesn't phase anyone. There won't be any protests if you can lock up the people organizing and texting routes and other information.

    SIGINT needs to train its sights on someone other than fucking civilians.

  8. Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Colleague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dear Colleague:

    The intelligence reauthorization bill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process.

    Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorization bill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations.

    To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications, or cloud data.

    Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications. It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines.

    In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications. The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—especially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers.

    I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today. /s/

    Justin Amash
    Member of Congress

  9. At least there's no pretense here... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No pretense they have any respect for the Constitution, due process or the privacy of citizens. There's no doubt everyone will have to take matters into their own hands now. No doubt they'll make that illegal too, at which point only criminals will have any privacy.

    1. Re: At least there's no pretense here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminded of a couple of quotes I learned about in school. ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... ...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

      People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.

  10. That's not how it works by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    The court can't just jump up and say "We don't like that, it goes out." They have to follow procedure which means a challenge has to appear in front of them. That challenge can also only be brought by someone with standing, meaning that this law had a negative impact on you somehow.

    That's one of the reasons the government loves the secret gathering so much, makes it harder for it to get challenged. If you can't show this harmed you, then you can't fight it in court.

    So someone has to be impacted by this, challenge it, and it has to be appealed up to the SC. Then and only then do they rule on it.

    1. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since they don't need a warrant, there is no paper trail, so there is nothing they can do to bring this to court.

    2. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same problem people have already had suing the gov't for NSA surveillance: you can't prove you were spied on so it's damn near impossible to show you have standing.

    3. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sua sponte

    4. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unless people by the hundreds of thousands care about an issue and are persistent.

      Unfortunately, the truth is, THE MASSES do not care. They really don't. NSA, go on, please, collect data without warrants. If we really cared we'd stop you. I mean it. We would. But we don't care.

      You can't ignore hundreds of thousands of people pushing against a single subject until they get what they want. And if that isn't enough, make it millions. Even if they don't feel affected or know how it affects them.

    5. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1) Get charged with a crime

      Step 2) Police enter into evidence against you private communications they obtained without a warrant

      Step 3) Said evidence turns out to be key in convicting you

      Step 4) Boom, you have "standing" to challenge it

    6. Re:That's not how it works by galabar · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can't see any reason why the source of the evidence wouldn't be available.

      Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, can you please tell me where you obtained this evidence?

      Mr. Prosecutor: .... well ... uh ... no.

      Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, you will be cooling your heels in a cell until you can provide me with that information.

    7. Re:That's not how it works by suutar · · Score: 1

      "Sure, Joe the Cop smelled something funny, traced it to this car, arrested the driver, and found incriminating papers under the seat."

    8. Re:That's not how it works by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, can you please tell me where you obtained this evidence?
      Mr. Prosecutor: National Security.
      Judge: Oh, Okay.

      FTFY

    9. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you have to do is create a honeypot that is so irresistable, that the government willingly prosecutes you using the unconstitutionally stolen communications data. I'd say a fake Facebook account, some free email accounts, provocative emails between the accounts, and... [redacted] ...and a reporter friend who'll document this all in case you get disappeared to a black site. Good luck, Jim!

    10. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is that police now create fake evidence trails to disguise the unconstitutional ways in which they obtained the data in the first place. So you never find out that they obtained the information without a warrant.

    11. Re:That's not how it works by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You forgot step 1.5) Engage in "parallel construction" to conceal the warrantless communications monitoring.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    12. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court can't just jump up and say "We don't like that, it goes out." They have to follow procedure which means a challenge has to appear in front of them. That challenge can also only be brought by someone with standing, meaning that this law had a negative impact on you somehow.

      Is all this true or just tradition?

      Wiki tells me:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

      "Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time."

      Furthermore:

      Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party."

      Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, I can see how the court can have more jurisdiction and initiative than it excercises now, but simply chooses not to.

    13. Re:That's not how it works by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

      Actually... lawmakers and NSA staff could be arrested for deprivation of rights under color of law.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
    14. Re:That's not how it works by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that Snowden released enough evidence to start the process.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
    15. Re:That's not how it works by strikethree · · Score: 1

      That's one of the reasons the government loves the secret gathering so much, makes it harder for it to get challenged. If you can't show this harmed you, then you can't fight it in court.

      I will be harmed by this when it becomes law. I feel intimidated by it. It will alter my personal and private behavior because I know someone will always be able to review what I do privately.

      I am a terrible dancer. I go hide in my house and record myself dancing so I can improve my dancing... but I am utterly ashamed for anyone to see it. This law will allow them to see me dancing; therefore, I can no longer do it.

      I am courageous enough to bring a lawsuit over it though. Let's see them show that I do not have standing.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    16. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will be harmed by this when it becomes law. I feel intimidated by it. It will alter my personal and private behavior because I know someone will always be able to review what I do privately. I am a terrible dancer. I go hide in my house and record myself dancing so I can improve my dancing... but I am utterly ashamed for anyone to see it. This law will allow them to see me dancing; therefore, I can no longer do it. I am courageous enough to bring a lawsuit over it though. Let's see them show that I do not have standing.

      "You do have standing to bring this case, but according to the evidence provided, your stance is still horrible."

    17. Re:That's not how it works by strikethree · · Score: 1

      LOL

      I normally ignore AC comments but this one is good. Thank you. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  11. Sid Meier is a time traveler by C.+Mattix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get to break this out again:

            As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
                    Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
                    Accompanies the Secret Project "The Planetary Datalinks"

    1. Re:Sid Meier is a time traveler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a fine game. But the self-aware city is a reality already. Good luck with dissent.

    2. Re:Sid Meier is a time traveler by Bovius · · Score: 1

      One of my favorite quotes from Alpha Centauri. Glad there are other people out there who like to use it.

    3. Re:Sid Meier is a time traveler by Lobachevsky · · Score: 1

      I thought the answer to dissent was nerve stapling?

  12. Republicans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Amash, the bill "grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American.

    Uh, Republicans, where were you guys?! You try to sidetrack everything but this you pass?!

    It's gonna be abused.

    And the electorate. Are they going to make noise about this? Nope. Because it doesn't raise taxes, limit guns and has nothing to do with abortion.

    Fox News watchers - are they at least bitching about this? I mean if there is anything to pick on Democrats for it is THIS. No, they are going to bitch about Festivus poles or some such nonsense, aren't they. For profit propaganda is what we have for a media in this country.

    1. Re:Republicans! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Fox News watchers - are they at least bitching about this? I mean if there is anything to pick on Democrats for it is THIS. No, they are going to bitch about Festivus poles or some such nonsense, aren't they. For profit propaganda is what we have for a media in this country.

      There's a lot of bitching right now on the blogging dextrosphere about the shit the lame duck congress is pulling, especially about departing Republicans being dicks (the Dems at least are gaming the system in a predictable and understandable way, but the GOP has no excuse here, as you point out).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Republicans! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's gonna be abused.

      The Republicans are absolutely certain they're going to win it in 2016 so it will be them who get to abuse it.

      Big Government is only bad when Republicans aren't in control.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  13. Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama is just as bad... that doesn't excuse Bush from his errors, and he had many...

    But frankly, if Obama doesn't Veto this, then he is the same scum of the Earth and frankly both sides need to be tossed out on their bums...

    Voting third party may not bring in "better", but it will at least do SOMETHING different than the Repubs and Dems who are different sides of the same coin...

    1. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never happen, dude.

      For one, too many people think voting third party is throwing your vote away.

      Also, the Democrats have been so successfully demonized, Republicans who dislike their guy will refuse to vote Democrat - even if it means sending back one of the guys who has caused so much of he BS in Congress over the last few years: Cruz, McConnell and other liars and assholes.

      And here in GA, we had a moderate Democrat that would be a Republican in the Northeast or CA (Nunn) run with a pretty decent platform She lost to a Teabagger (Perdue) and ex-CEO puke whose platform was just "vote for a Democrat is voting for Obama's policies". The Republicans were out in force a few weeks ago and got another retard in Congress. God, people are fucking stupid and easily manipulated.

      So, nothing will change because the electorate is uninformed and have no desire to fact check the lying incompetent assholes that are piped to their idiot box via their over priced rip-off cable.

    2. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by jmyers · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the vast majority people do not think (or vote) rationally when it comes to politics. The same people that hated Bush and ridiculed him will continue to love Obama and rationalize a reason to support policies they previously despised. People who loved Bush will rationalize ways to hate Obama for the exact same policies that they loved under Bush. I have given in to the fact this will not change. Allegiance to political party is similar to sports teams i.e. Caroline fans hate Duke no matter what and vice versa.

      We are essentially a one party system with two marketing arms targeting their assigned demographics.

    3. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      But frankly, if Obama doesn't Veto this, then he is the same scum of the Earth and frankly both sides need to be tossed out on their bums...

      It doesn't matter, he can't veto it. 325-100 is a veto-proof passage.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    4. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... (Score:3)
      > Obama is just as bad

      TIL that the sitting president is a member of congress.

      PROTIP: He's not!

    5. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but this is wholly not a presidential matter. Or Executive, for that matter. People who think this falls to actually 1 man, are beyond naive. There is an information system in place, of people and networks, that want this power. If I were a betting man, I'd say these people, and this network, had just the right leverage to get this passed.

      Hate to break it to you, but it's not paranoia when it's happening right in front of our eyes. The needle just moved a slight bit more, towards violent dissonance. These wholesale encroachments, WILL reach a head. And it will not be pretty!

    6. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter, he can't veto it. 325-100 is a veto-proof passage.

      My understanding is that he can. Congress could then override the veto with a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate, but at least the President would be on record that he refused to approve the bill.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    7. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, you don't understand! Remember that Obama is the tech savvy president, so he knows the implications. He's intentionally forcing the issue by supporting this kind of legislation KNOWING FULL WELL that this will result in the near-term adoption of Universal Encryption.

      Why are you laughing?

      captcha: sharable

    8. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can veto it and then they will revote. The bill is no longer quiet, so I'm sure some of them will switch votes. Will it be enough? Only doing it would tell.

      Not that I believe he'll veto it, but there's always a chance...

    9. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, Obama veto a bill that gives the executive branch more power?
      I don't think so.

      One would hope that from a supposed constitutional law scholar, but recent actions indicate he is all in favor of this kind of stuff.

    10. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by silfen · · Score: 1

      Voting third party may not bring in "better", but it will at least do SOMETHING different than the Repubs and Dems

      Although voting third party may be a last resort, you should really pay more attention to primaries in either party. The differences between primary candidates within a party are often as big if not bigger than between parties.

    11. Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

      Why would either party stop it? Imagine the political power of a party that can eavesdrop on their opposition.

      This is a corrupt game of musical chairs.

      I'm surprised the music hasn't stopped for the last time.


      If only we had real journalists and uncorrupted law enforcement to hold them accountable.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
  14. What? A Democrat Senate passes this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and a REPUBLICAN tries to stop it?

    I thought democrats were the good guys and Republicans are bad... I'm confused.

    Let the down votes begin you Kool-aid drinkers.

    1. Re: What? A Democrat Senate passes this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read it idiot. The GOP House voted this in with most of the 100 being dems.
      Quit chocking on kock bros.

    2. Re: What? A Democrat Senate passes this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that the Democrat controlled SENATE (i.e. what was in the parent's subject line) didn't pass this bill earlier this week?

      (HINT: THEY DID IDIOT)

  15. *Sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So for those of us who are coming late to this game; would some helpful /.'ers be willing to point out some resources where we could start learning about how to live life encrypted; network, storage volume, WAN interactions?

    1. Re:*Sigh* by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Start here.

  16. FUCK. by Ahnahmoley · · Score: 1

    I may not wear a tinfoil hat but I'm becoming more paranoid as time goes on. A bit farfetch'd but between the private entities and the government I wonder if our internet, cellular, or GPS data is already available but only used for parallel construction. Does privacy matter to the people? Is it too late?

    1. Re:FUCK. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Most lead such "dull" lives, they foolishly assume this will have no effect on them.

      Too bad the government once again makes the nutjob "militias" and similar groups look like oracles...

  17. Obama should veto this bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama can -- and should -- veto this bill, if he wants to put his money where his mouth is.

  18. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today.

    Thank you for posting the bill number, since neither slashdot nor the hill thought we should be able to look it up and see who voted for this bullshit.

    It appears in the Senate it was passed by voice vote by a bunch of cowards that did not want their name attached to the bill.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  19. Sony shouldn't be that concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, the NSA probably knew all the leaked information already.

  20. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    No one with a clue believes that anymore.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  21. Citizen Private Interconnected Mesh Networks by burni2 · · Score: 1

    That's the solution create an interconnected web of wlan and lan routes - also long ranges - freenet has some nice routing algorithms, and tons of encryption, now it just must be ported away from java.

    It won't be that fast, but I think fast enough.

    1. Re:Citizen Private Interconnected Mesh Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live on top of a hill with an unobstructed view of a metropolitan area of over 3 million people. I have line of site to mountain tops up to 50 miles distant in three directions. I have repeatedly expressed interest in hosting a relay for such a service from my location and yet the only response is either, "Great! Figure it out on your own," or crickets.

      Any service that has a means for censoring servers is never going to make it big. I keep seeing various projects get mired down in trying to figure out how they're going to stop people from using the network to traffic in kiddie porn and the like. How long do you think engineers spend figuring out how they can make Interstate highways capable of blocking the transportation of child porn. A mesh network should spend exactly an equal amount of time doing the same.

    2. Re:Citizen Private Interconnected Mesh Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is, almost no sites that people want and regularly use are hosted in close geographical proximity to themselves.

  22. ABSCAM 'EM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You first, Congress!
    I hope the Fuckin' Bee Eye opens corruption investigations on every single one of you and throws your asses all in Federal pound you in the ass prison.

    meh, what am I thinking? Hoover IV already has dossiers on all your asses so they can blackmail you into voting the way your supposed to.

    1. Re:ABSCAM 'EM! by fnj · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting fantasy, and it would make a superb story. But note that the Chief Executive controls the FBI and the prisons.

      OTOH, while a President who is a participant in an evil government gone rogue, as all for at least the last 100 years have been, makes a fearsome tyrant, at the same time a truly patriotic and true President who has a powerful enough strength of character and persuasive/organizational powers to keep just 1/3 of the Senate from impeaching him, could be the only credible source of salvation.

  23. Cutting through the alarmist deceptive stuff. by Verdatum · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here's the important part: "That type of collection is currently allowed under an executive order that dates back to former President Reagan, but the new stamp of approval from Congress was troubling, Amash said."

    In other words, the only issue he has with this bill is that it acknowledges an Executive Order is in place. It doesn't even particularly bless it. Nothing is changing other than a slightly-less tacet approval of an order that has been around for decades. It's not a terribly long bill, check it out yourself

  24. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately, I suspect that anyone who is not a geek or privacy advocate still believes it.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  25. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who is a geek and/or privacy advocate never believed it.

  26. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

    The NSA: "Made in China"... Full communist cultural adoption... Next: Human sterilization lotteries...

  27. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

    Good thing geeks are responsible for building the entire information backbone.

    Look, decoding things client side isn't expensive. It isn't a big deal. All you have to do is retrain a copy of the decryption engine and key client side. Which means if you're running a large company network that hosts all company files on data centers in the "cloud" then all the IT guy has to do is maintain ONE tiny server client side that serves those two things to the clients. Which they download as part of their login script... etc etc etc.

    It isn't hard. And when that is in place... assuming the NSA has total control over the data center that is the cloud... what exactly do they have? Jack and shit.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  28. When everything you say or do by azav · · Score: 2

    When everything you say or do is recorded by the authorities, do you really want to be part of that world?

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:When everything you say or do by a4r6 · · Score: 1

      It's really depressing. If anyone else out there is like me, learning how deep the deception runs --that our nation is not primary a defender of truth but a bastion of 1984-esque doublespeak, has not been good for their productivity or personal development... which is in turn bad for our country. It's sad to think that people in charge just see leakers and critics as the problem, to think that what I feel I'm losing in terms of freedoms was never there to begin with.

  29. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just share one at a time. Of course I thought about this about 3 years ago for a more secure social networking site, but I can't get around the fact that authorities would demand I change client side JavaScript to get around the problem. A plugin would have the same problem. So would any software that you require downloading; it's almost impossible to be sure there isn't some maninthemiddle.

  30. Resistance is futile by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

    All your papers are belong to us.

  31. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because they ask for the keys, doesn't mean they can't crack the encryption. Ever hear of Ultra?

  32. Read the bill's text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bill doesn't approve warrantless seizures. All it discusses is how long (5 years, generally speaking) communications seized by warrantless means can be retained.

    Oh, and if the communication is "enciphered" or believed to have a "secret meaning", it can be kept indefinitely, according to the bill.

    At least, however, the bill isn't explicitly violating the Constitution, it's just supporting the other aspects of federal law that do (such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).

  33. Re:Brian Reynolds is a time traveler by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for us, it's not just denying access to information, but mandating access to our own information. What has yet to be tested is what legally happens when you generate a random file and send it to someone. If asked, how can you prove it's not an encrypted file? There is no key that can be used to unlock it!

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

  34. So the torture report was just a distraction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distract the people with how evil the government is, quietly pass bill that makes those abuses easier.

  35. Executive orders aren't "bigger on the inside." by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

    No, it's not "currently allowed under an Exec Order".

    Neither the constitution, nor the laws bound by it, nor the orders bound by the law are "bigger on the inside"... They're not TARDISes. They may not exceed their legal limits.
    Laws must not exceed the authority routed to them by the constitution. Orders must not exceed the authority routed to them by law. That's how the system is designed.

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
  36. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, the cloud is secure too. Have you ever flown through a cloud? It's all misty and you can't see anything. When you store your data in the cloud, no one can find it in all that fog. Except of course you because you know where you put it.

  37. a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is coming.

  38. PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. Everything needs to be encrypted. Even if the NSA wasn't snooping.

  39. Wow by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Congress just declared war on America,,,,

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war is over. We lost.

  40. Glad to see this pushed through by hackshack · · Score: 5, Informative

    So they can't settle on a decent healthcare system for us, but when it comes to spying on us... push it right through!

    1. Re:Glad to see this pushed through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decent healthcare in the US is easy, you earn enough money, fly to Spain or Portugal, spend a few days enjoying the country, pay for your health care issues then return to the US.

  41. Reminds me of the Cold War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I grew up as an American in Europe. We all used to take the piss out of the Soviets and the Iron Curtain countries for their inability to travel without papers, home raids, and general lack of privacy and freedom. Now, 30 years later, it's become a reality in the USA. What goes around comes around...

  42. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    My Tea Party representative voted against the bill, although I cannot be sure why. In the past he has supported civil forfeiture. I made a point of writing him a thank you note to balance my previous rap on the knuckles. My thank you noted my assumption that his vote was in support of Amash.

    OTOH, my state's only Democrat voted yea.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  43. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope that most of the congress voted in favor of this out of ignorance. It appears to have passed through both the house and senate under the guise of a routine reauthorization of existing process.

    My hope is that the statutory authorization of warrantless wiretapping was surreptitiously added in the hope that no one would notice. Much like the banking giveaway, the massive increase in individual campaign donations, and the de-legalization of marijuana in DC have been added to the big spending bill. I swear, it's like the election passed and these guys think it's time to celebrate the voters' exhaustion by sneaking in every possible trick while they can still blame it on "the other guys."

    My hope is that there are a lot of incompetent congresspeople and only a few bad ones in there trolling, and it saddens me that this is the best I can hope of my government. I hope they're incompetent, because the alternative is sickening.

  44. The powers really paranoid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the powers that be are afraid of political awakening.

    This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

    Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    Brezinski at a press conference

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

    The real news:

    http://therealnews.com/t2/

    http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

    http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

    http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

    Look at the following graphs:

    IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    And then...

    WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

    http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

    Free markets?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

    http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

    "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

    In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

  45. Link to text (sec 309) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  46. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Verdatum · · Score: 2

    Thanks for providing this, AC. I don't know what Mr. Amash is talking about. Section 309 doesn't grant any blessing of Executive Order 12333, or any other mechanism of collection. It just states that if any collection takes place without a court order, then it must be disposed of within 5 years with a few very-specific exceptions. The sky is not falling people. Do your research before you freak out based on alarmist stuff like this.

  47. Throwing herrings? by MinamataHG · · Score: 1

    https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    REP. YEA -> 184
    DEM. YEA -> 141

    REP. NAY -> 45
    DEM NAY -> 55

    Well, not a big difference but still...

  48. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

    Not if you're standing under it and it rains down in torrents.

  49. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Verdatum · · Score: 2

    Arg, link fail. I intended to link to the text of H.R. 4681 so you can read section 309 yourself.

  50. Re:Brian Reynolds is a time traveler by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    In the UK that could get you an infinite prison sentence.

    You can be locked up for 2 years for not revealing an encrption key.

    Then another 2 years if you don't reveal it after that.

    Ad infinitum.

  51. Who voted "YEA" to this crap? by MinamataHG · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    If your congressman voted YEA and you don't agree, write to him/her.
    They are representing you.

  52. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Informative

    A law giving the NSA authority to intercept all communications means that your corporate crypto server will be copied, giving them all your keys so they can decrypt everything. If you want security it must be done entirely at the client side, with only the client having the keys. Any central crypto means they get everything. Also you should assume Microsoft and Google are working for the NSA, so they can patch your OS to copy your client side keys to the NSA if required.

  53. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good thing geeks are responsible for building the entire information backbone.

    Look, decoding things client side isn't expensive. It isn't a big deal. All you have to do is retrain a copy of the decryption engine and key client side. Which means if you're running a large company network that hosts all company files on data centers in the "cloud" then all the IT guy has to do is maintain ONE tiny server client side that serves those two things to the clients. Which they download as part of their login script... etc etc etc.

    It isn't hard. And when that is in place... assuming the NSA has total control over the data center that is the cloud... what exactly do they have? Jack and shit.

    That's a pretty strong assumption that Jack and/or Shit don't have the ability to crack said decryption engine like a fucking egg.

    Don't worry. I'm sure we can still trust any part of the CA infrastructure.

    And the next Snowden-like leak that reveals al...oh what the hell am I talking about. Americans don't give a shit about this crap anymore. The NSA is standing in front of Congress stating blatantly what they're about to do. Basically make everything that has been reported on in recent times as being either highly illegal and/or unconstitutional completely legal.

    There will be no more "tell-all" books about our shadows. There will be no more shadows to talk about when it's all out in the open.

  54. SCOTUS does not work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCOTUS rarely take law in its hand and declare it outright consitutional. only if somebody require them to. ThatÃ's why I prefer the french constitutional court which looks at law when they are made to see if they are consitutional, in addition to be actionable by persons asking a law to be rechecked.

  55. It's all smoke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only purpose of this shit is being blocked so you feel more secure... Do you people really think if the empire want you're data it's going to hesitate to or how to get them because some shitty bil?

  56. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed.

    Sec. 309. Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired
                                                            communications. ...
                                            (A) Application.--The procedures required by
                                    paragraph (1) shall apply to any intelligence
                                    collection activity not otherwise authorized by court
                                    order (including an order or certification issued by a
                                    court established under subsection (a) or (b) of
                                    section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
                                    Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar
                                    legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result
                                    in the acquisition of a covered communication to or
                                    from a United States person and shall permit the
                                    acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered
                                    communications subject to the limitation in
                                    subparagraph (B).

    With lots of verbiage elided, paragraph 3:

    The procedures required by paragraph (1) shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order, subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B).

    It's perhaps possible to read it as "The procedures required by paragraph 1 (apply, etc) and shall permit the acquisition... of covered communications subject to the limitation in paragraph (B)." And (B) doesn't limit acquisition at all, so the procedures required by paragraph 1 shall permit acquisition of covered communications without limitation, as long as they're not stored for more than 5 years (with exceptions).

  57. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Informative

    You missed everything I said about keeping the keys and decryption engine private... didn't you? Read that again and then comment please... you'll sound less stupid.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  58. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by fnj · · Score: 2

    Ban the fucking voice vote, goddammit. It's only a rule of the Senate that allows it. The term does not occur in the Constitution.

  59. Fuck the government by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Fuck the government

  60. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who is a geek and/or privacy advocate never believed it.

    Good point.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  61. NSA "Made in China" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA: "Made in China"...

    Come again?

    Mao Zedong was "made in China"

    The movie Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was "made in China"

    NSA sure ain't made in China, man. You do not see Chinese running that thing, do you?

    1. Re:NSA "Made in China" ?? by zlives · · Score: 1

      wow an AC that has a valid point.

  62. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

    Torrents... I see what you did there.

  63. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    How are they going to copy information that isn't flowing over the lines?

    As to copying everything. While they might be able to keep meta data there is no way they're ever going to have enough data capacity to copy everything.

    The 4k horse porn streams are not getting copied into the NSA data server... unless they really want it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  64. Offensively arrogant by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    We really do have to throw them all out...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Offensively arrogant by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Does anyone remember a country called the United States of America? I seem to remember something about freedom and liberty and certain inalienable rights.

      I wonder what happened to that country.

      --
      ~X~
  65. Soviet style feminist CUNTry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet style feminist CUNTry
    That's the american direction.

  66. Where are you going to keep your files?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You missed everything I said about keeping the keys and decryption engine private

    With NSA and all the spooks being given the blank check in snooping into every nook and cranny everywhere where do you think you gonna keep your files private ?

    How long you think your files can be safely kept private?

    The problem with the American government - no, not just the POTUS, not just the NSA, not just the Congress, not just the Court System, it's everything - is that it is turning into a totally uncontrollable monster, and it is getting uglier by the day

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Where are you going to keep your files?? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Absent literally hacking every machine they want to monitor communications from... they can't do that. If the keys are kept private then they're not going to get access to them unless you start transmitting them in the clear in obvious ways. In which case... stupid is as stupid does.

      Ideally, the keys should not be transmitted over the internet at all. "how do you decrypt the files then!" I said you do it client side.

      You upload and download encrypted files... and encrypt and decrypt locally. Neither the keys nor the engine are transmitted at all. It is kept local.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Where are you going to keep your files?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the solution is to keep hiring people who want to ever increase the scope of government - and decry everyone who wants limited government as a bozo.

    3. Re: Where are you going to keep your files?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well how's that plan working out for you. It was limited government Republicans who started all this, it was limited government Republicans who gave us DHS, the TSA and the like, and now they give us this.

      They only want to limit the parts of government that work to protect people. The rest they're just fine with.

    4. Re:Where are you going to keep your files?? by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

      I think you're getting it - in the end they want a daily log from every system in the U.S., all citizens (otherwise known as suspects) and eventually the world - they only need time to get there. Given the language here, it seems an okay for the govt to plant malware in all citizen systems for use "when needed".

      It's rather hard to see how we get out of this spiral towards a surveillance state.

    5. Re:Where are you going to keep your files?? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It implies they're better at putting bullshit on my machine then literally the entire planet's security infrastructure is at keeping it off my machine.

      The NSA are not gods. They have gotten this far by relying on our belief that they weren't going to do it.

      We know better now. It is like the way terrorists hijacked an airplane on 9/11. They were only able to do that because the passengers didn't think they were going to kill them much less crash the plane into a skyscrapper.

      The tactic became obsolete literally in the middle of the attack. Within a couple hours, it became totally impossible to hijack a US plane without killing all the passengers first. Try it today and indifferent to the TSA, air marshals, or any other bullshit the passangers will claw through their piled dead to rip you apart limb from literal limb... biting your eyes out if required. Imagine a worst case zombie movie on an airplane. Pretty much that. They were only able to take over those planes with box cutters because no one thought they'd do what they did. Now that we know they can't do that anymore. End of story.

      NSA is in the same position. No one trusts them anymore. They used to be trusted to audit security code for businesses amongst other things. Companies would literally hand them their source code and say "help me find security holes, please"... Today very few companies are going to trust the NSA to do that.

      The NSA has been classified as an enemy by most of society especially in computer security throughout the entire world... including the US.

      They'll probably never get the trust back. So the laws they pass don't really matter because what is really going to hurt them is that people are going to make a point of keeping them out when before they were invited in on purpose. Their whole plan of passively monitoring everyone will at best monitor people that have no value to them. Anyone with any interest in shaking their eyes will do so easily absent intense investment in observing specific people. The whole plan is profoundly self defeating.

      The NSA lost the moment they made it clear they had no respect for the innocent people that had previously passively tolerated them.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  67. Re:Congressman Amash's letter sent to Collea by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

    Agreed. I read it and I don't see where it authorizes any collection, but rather states limits on retention of information collected under other authorization. Writer Julian Hattem and Rep. Justin Amash need to get their facts strait. If you want to attack the that bill the better argument would be, why the fuck do they get to keep the unauthorized stuff for 5 years? 120 days ought to be enough time to decide if the content is or isn't legally justified to retain, even at the pace of government. Instead of filtering and retaining current data of interest, they want a crystal ball that can see five years into the past even for data belonging to U.S. persons not suspected of any wrong doing. Oh, and if you encrypt it, then they have no retention limit. Then again we don't have it that bad today. Henry Ford used to send men to his factory workers homes and if they had too many liquor bottles around, they would be warned and reinspected shortly there after. I'd call that more invasive than reading my email.

  68. You vote- You vote FOR THE SYSTEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do the scummy 'heroes' of Betas make such an effort around voting time to flood mainstream media instructing betas that it is their DUTY to vote? Bit of a clue here.

    When you vote, no matter HOW you vote, you give approval to the system. Only by REFUSING to participate can you vote against the system. That is simple STATISTICS. Something that is NEVER pointed out to Betas. (Oh, BTW- it is also true mathematically- that not voting is actually the same as voting for the ultimate winner- see if you can use simple logic to explain why).

    In a modern democracy, the system HAS TO CHANGE if participation falls too low. So if enough people refuse to vote, the system has to be altered. In most nations, true proportional representation is BANNED under various excuses- the main Beta confusing one being "true proportional representation will lead to paedophiles and Nazis officially winning seats for their causes- and you don't want that".

    Actually, that is EXACTLY what any thinking person wants. At any given time to have, IN PUBLIC VIEW, a complete awareness of the real power base of all types of causes and opinions, so if public education is essential to protect society from the worst aspects of Humanity, ordinary people will see the need for it. What should NEVER happen is that minority politicians gain a disproportionate say in the form of governance that follows an election.

    If you live in a nation with a 'two-party' system (almost all of them), you should not vote, unless you consider yourself part of the criminal class that created the system in the first place. It is the American two-party system that ensures Rand Paul will by the next president (how few of you Beats here yet know this). It was Britain's two-party system that likewise guaranteed the rise to power of one of History's worst war criminals- Tony Blair.

    Turn your back on the system. Stop giving the monsters your passive support (all they need in reality). Withdraw from their propaganda outlets (all mainstream media sources). You can still live an ordinary. productive life without voting, supporting 'our troops', belonging to any 'organised' religion, or gaining any information from 'PUSH' media outlets. But by doing so, you remove your passive support from the most evil individuals and institutions.

  69. Holy fuck.... by sconeu · · Score: 2

    What part of

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    does Congress not understand?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Holy fuck.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part about the repercussions or punishments in case of violating the Bill of Rights, which was left out.

    2. Re:Holy fuck.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      does Congress not understand?

      It's not Congress's duty to understand the law; they make the laws. When an entity with standing can bring the issue to the courts, even a mal-formed law will usually stand.

    3. Re:Holy fuck.... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Congress does understand. And if you keep a copy of the Fourth Amendment on your computer or cell phone, that's one of the many things that will flag you as a trouble maker.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re:Holy fuck.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      If you control the definition of "unreasonable," probable cause never enters into the equation.
      The only recourse is to get a lawsuit through to the Supreme Court and have them decide how reasonable the law is.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Holy fuck.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could have simple, straightforward laws that everybody understands and does their best to follow, or we could have complex, confusing, even contradictory laws.

      One of those will create lots of long term business for legal professionals, as scared people who don't understand the legal system are forced to go to the legal profession for "protection".

      The other will not.

      Most members of Congress are legal professionals. Most lobbyists are legal professionals. The President is a legal professional. The Bar Associations, and other groups of lawers, are the most powerful lobby in the country.

      Do the math.

      As long as the US legal profession treats ethics as something that happens to other people, we will continue to have a screwed up disaster of a legal system, which in turn will allow government agencies to run amok against anyone not protected by a lawyer. A fix for this problem will not come from within the legal profession. It must come from outside. The public has to wake up, and decide ethics in law and government is important to them.

  70. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But cloud is great, right? They told me cloud is great!

    Yes, cloud is great as a convenience for you.

    It is also great as a convenience for NSA and other agencies. The text of the bill allows that anything that was encrypted can be kept indefinitely. If your web site says HTTPS then it is fair game for permanent governmental storage.

    Also, they can retain it forever for a number of reasons:

    From the bill now on its way to the President's desk: "(3)(B) A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years unless ... (ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime ... (iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning; (iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably believed to be non-United States persons;"

    #2 should be troubling. Does your communication (which is not limited to just email, but also includes web pages and any other data) have any evidence of a crime? Evidence that you downloaded a movie or software from a warez site, or looked at porn as a minor, or violated any of the policy-made-crimes that even the federal government has declared they are not countable? With an estimate of over 300,000 'regulations-turned-crime', plus laws that incorporate foreign laws (the Lacey Act's criminalization of anything done "in violation of State or foreign law"), pretty much anything you do probably violates some law somewhere in the world. Better preserve it just in case somebody eventually wants to prosecute you for that crime someday.

    #3 refers back to a vague definition of "enciphered" that does not just mean encryption. The "secret meaning" could be as simple as data inside a protocol, Who is to say that the seemingly random bytes "d6 0d 9a 5f 26 71 dd a7 04 31..." used as part of a data stream are really not an encrypted message? Better record it just in case.

    And of course #4, the law has a careful wording about communications between "non-United States persons". Considering the "internet of things", all those devices talking to other devices are not communications between United States persons. It was your camera (a non-United States person) communicating with a data warehouse (a non-United States person), so better exempt that from the 5-year retention policy as well.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  71. Unless your server is truly offline by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Unless there is an air gap in between your server and the Net, rest assure, they will find ways to access it

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Unless your server is truly offline by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not without targeting me specifically which they are very unlikely to do. THe issue is that they're spying on everyone passively because it is easy. They could hire people to look through our bed room windows every night. But they don't because it is expensive.

      If you force them to dedicate resources to hack every individual machine they simply won't unless they really want YOUR information specifically. And they'll have to be convinced I'm a terrorist or something to bother. Since that isn't terribly likely... I'm willing to play the odds they're not going to do that or pay someone to look through my windows.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  72. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Garridan · · Score: 2

    How are they going to copy information that isn't flowing over the lines?

    Simple. They patch your OS with a rootkit. They can make information flow over the lines, so long as it isn't airgapped. And an airgap is only so useful, as stuxnet shows.

  73. More troubling by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    but the new stamp of approval from Congress was troubling

    What's troubling is that nobody knows, nobody cares, and nobody realizes legislation like this can be changed if enough somebodies cared.

  74. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by flacco · · Score: 1

    Or ever did.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  75. WTF is going on in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Power for the sake of power.

  76. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    So... The NSA has a double-ROT13 filter on all data they intercept?

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  77. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    Yes, it does, in that part where the House can set the procedural rules. IIRC, the current procedure only requires one Congresscritter to request the vote be recorded and they have to comply. With this knowledge it is particularly concerning that the DMCA and some other horrid bills were passed by voice vote.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  78. So much for curbing NSA surveillance, motherfucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congress never gave a shit, this proves it. What they really don't want us to know, is they knew about this the whole time, and never gave a fuck about our rights or privacy.

    And they got space capability that's monitoring us 24/7 too. Building and ground penetrating tomography, watching us fuck, listening to us talk, recording and analyzing our brainwaves from space, all patented stuff.

    When does the public backlash and defend themselves?

    http://www.myronmays.com/
    http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    Look at link #1. Did you know the police and US military are able to under the table torture, execute, and mentally main people using space based weapons, and that whistleblowers and patents exist exposing the technology? Time to arrest our Congressman, Our President, and Our Police, and get them the fuck out of the game because they kill us all.

  79. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... cares for the nation ... works for the people

    As long as we still rely on the Republicans and the Democrats to steer this country, USA is going nowhere fast

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, when privacy is made illegal, only criminals will have privacy.

    2. Re:Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ... by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

      ... cares for the nation ... works for the people

      As long as we still rely on the Republicans and the Democrats to steer this country, USA is going nowhere fast

      If we were truly going nowhere, it would be less worrisome. Make no mistake, we're moving and the ultimate destination is frightening.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
  80. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    My read of #3:

    "Hi Mom, I baked a couple of really good pans of cornbread with the cornmeal you sent me" just might be code for "Hi Muhammad, received the PCX and both bombs are now ready". You can never be sure, right?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  81. I wish I had a deeper, more meaningful response... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But fuck these assholes. Fuck all of them; every one of them who voted for this shit. Fuck them regardless of their party or their stances on other issues, or their charity work, or their stupid kids, or their veteran status. Fuck 'em. Burn in Hell you pieces of shit.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  82. Forfeiture of Private Communications .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    You never had Private Communications, get over it, the only people who engage in really private communication are the real terrorists, the real purpose of this bill is to keep an eye on you, the people who presumably voted them into office.

  83. Good to know that Slashdot follows the rules by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    The rules of good journalism clearly state that when the story is positive, no party affiliation mentioned means Republican. If the story is negative, no party affiliation means Democrat.

    So, you may have guessed that "Justin Amash" is "Justin Amash (R-MI)"

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  84. Re:So much for curbing NSA surveillance, motherfuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

  85. Laff... we're screwed by koan · · Score: 2

    Just shows what a POS Obama is as well, coming out and speaking as though he was concerned by surveillance, only to have this try to slip by.

    Panderer in Chief.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  86. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll have to excuse him, he isn't currently_awake.

  87. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad "the cloud" isn't actually a foggy cloud made of water. Idiot.

  88. Rude Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are one rude motherfucker. Any time any person in this thread says anything against your "idea" you just fly off the handle! There is a reason we are all arguing with you: Your idea is stupid and you're stupid for suggesting it. If it were that easy, it would already be in place.

    1. Re:Rude Bastard! by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      So you too have reading comprehension issues? Listen, idiots... I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Disagree all day and I'll be just fine with it. But fail to read my post and then respond to your illiterate interpretation of my posts and I'm going to call you on your illiteracy.

      Take you for example. You are apparently under the impression that I "flew off the handle" because someone disagreed with me. Which is clearly idiotic since it is quite clear that I flew off the handle because the moron commenting on me didn't actually read my post at even a grade school level.

      If you are literally at the level of "run spot run" then please do the internet a favor and do not comment.

      Welcome to the internet.

      http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
      Good day, sir.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Rude Bastard! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      He was right, though. You really are a pompous pile of shit when it comes to social interactions. Just enough intelligence to turn a serious case of tiny-cock syndrome terminal.

    3. Re:Rude Bastard! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Subtle, I love it :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    4. Re:Rude Bastard! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually, he was wrong because my point, if you had read it, made his point irrelevant.

      Neither he nor you either read or understood my point as evidenced by your continued inability to grasp a very simple issue.

      As to tiny cocks, so let me get this straight... some idiot on the internet displays manifest illiteracy and someone else pointing that out is evidence that they have a tiny penis?

      Is the ability to read something you associate with having small genitals?

      You are an idiot. That isn't an insult. That is a conclusion of the above observation that concludes with you having to be an idiot. Only an idiot could make such a fucking retarded argument.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Rude Bastard! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Is the ability to read something you associate with having small genitals?

      Not at all... Is that really what you think I was criticizing you for? I think I've found your problem, if so.
      I'm beginning to wonder if you have in fact been reading your own posts or not. I'm starting to think you misjudge your own literacy.

    6. Re:Rude Bastard! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Substantiate your position with quotes immediately or it must be assumed your statement is baseless.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Rude Bastard! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Read that again and then comment please... you'll sound less stupid.

      What is up with people being completely unable to read?

      So you too have reading comprehension issues? Listen, idiots...

      The instant you fuck with that... that is gone. You doubtless crypto communistic environmental policy will at best serve a communist agenda. But the environment will actually get trashed by your ideas. Look at the soviets. Communists don't give a shit about the environment... because it is a stupid economic model and they're always poor. And poor people don't care about the environment.

      Twit.

      You completely missed the point. Good work.

      You fuck up the economy = no one gives a shit about the environment.

      Do you logic?

      Do you see, dude? You're a completely incorrigible shitbag. And just to top it off, you're not even that damn smart. You keep conflating people seeing you as stupid as an indictment against their literacy. I remember some of the less bright children in school playing that same card.

      I mean, really? Communistic environmental policy? Are you truly so dense as to ascribe it to a socio-economic model? Can you truly not fire up the logic centers in that lump of decaying mass you call a brain to try to deduce a more accurate model for the effect you have noted? If you think you're the only one who can read, perhaps that says something about you.

    8. Re:Rude Bastard! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are illiterate.

      Here is what I said when I responded negatively:

      ""My god... read my fucking posts please. I am talking about keeping the keys client side. Which means if you do a man in the middle attack they get nothing but encrypted garbage.""

      See that? I am not conflating your insults with your illiteracy. Rather, I am conflating your inability to read my post as evidence of illiteracy.

      By all means, disagree with something I said. However, if you say I said something I didn't say or make a point that makes no sense in the context of the discussion because you didn't read my post... I am going to fucking call you on it.

      You complete waste of skin. Turn off the computer and get off the internet. The moron quotient was met decades ago on the internet.

      That you presume to judge my intelligence is frankly the most offensive thing you've said. You're garbage.

      Log off and vanish.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Rude Bastard! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You complete waste of skin. Turn off the computer and get off the internet. The moron quotient was met decades ago on the internet.

      That you presume to judge my intelligence is frankly the most offensive thing you've said. You're garbage.

      Log off and vanish.

      The prosecution rests ;)

      Maybe you're right though, the smartest people I know often resort to ad hominem attacks when they've got a good argument... cough.

    10. Re:Rude Bastard! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Riiiight, because ignoring someone's whole argument and then focusing entirely on the last part where they called you a fucktwit proves you're not a fuckwit.

      What a fuckwit.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  89. Just an Obama hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know, for a fact, that you, in particular, have defended GWB's EO's as "not a law" but when the blackey does it, god dammit fire up the pitchforks and sharpen the torches! Typical Republitard hypocrite.

    1. Re:Just an Obama hater by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ooooh, "thas raysis", I never saw that one coming! Can't even tell if trolling.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  90. Misleading title is misleading by Lose · · Score: 1

    This still needs to pass the senate, and if enough commotion can be stewed up among the masses it'll make that whole process a bigger pain in the ass for them. And it should, because this is blatantly unconstitutional and they know it. Now would be the time to make it a point to your representatives that this is not what you want, and certainly doesn't represent the intents and demands of their constituents.

    1. Re:Misleading title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Senate passed it already. It's now on it's way to Obama.

      "The bill passed the Senate earlier this week and is now on its way to President Obama."

  91. One more step towards a police state by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    And the US takes one more step down the slippery slope. At the bottom lies a police state.

    Aside from a few nerds and right-wing blogs, no one noticed. Interestingly, this information is nowhere to be found on mainstream media sites. Why is that, I wonder? Maybe all those conspiracy theorists have a point.

    On Swiss TV last night they showed an interview with some of the USAF people flying drones. Surreal: sit down at your joystick, , drop a hellfire missile on a vehicle, go home to the kids. The fact that some debatable-but-large portion of the drone targets are misidentified? The Captain playing the video game really, really didn't want to discuss that. He just shoots what he's told to shoot.

    Sad to see - the once great bastion of freedom now tortures prisoners, kills civilians by remote control, and now freely spies on its own citizen's communications. It may be time for y'all to abandon the sinking ship.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  92. Really, Obama, Soros, and Rothschilds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you and warned you not to piss me off and my family.

  93. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Which means you're assuming they're going to passively hack every computer in the US and keep it a secret from all the people fiendishly looking for it. Good luck with that plan. The discrepancy between what the computer should be doing and what it is doing will be noticed. When it contacts IP addresses that it shouldn't, it will be noticed... etc. There is no way they'd get away with that for any extended period of time. Which means it would be all over the media and the only people that would allow the hack to stay in place would be people so clueless they don't even read newspapers.

    Utterly impossible to sustain... just no.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  94. Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Brother is watching you.

  95. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by zeigerpuppy · · Score: 1

    Actually your logic is floored. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. It's one thing to state that cops are unlikely to be aliens but it's another thing altogether to prove that no cops are aliens.

  96. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Full stop. Period. End of line.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  97. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    We still have one technomoron here who keeps pushing to move everything to the cloud. We are in a country with dodgy overseas internet connections as it is and this artard want's to move everything offshore!

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  98. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by stiggle · · Score: 1

    If you're throwing a large amount of encrypted data around then that will show up and make you a target, after all anyone who encrypts must have something to hide from the NSA and so they'll want to see what it is.

    As the malware Regin shows - they route your data through other hosts known to you to disguise it phoning home - it phones your friends and asks them to pass the message on.

  99. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    lots of people throw encrypted data around now and the government doesnt even try to break most of it or consider those people targets just because they encrypt.

    As time goes on that will become more common and the government if anything will view the issue as being less hostile even if it does make their job harder. If everyone does it then they're not going to call everyone an enemy.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  100. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cloud storage is great, but you have to encrypt your data before storing it there.

  101. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Every single one of those bastards should be facing a public trial for breaking their oath of office. They have successfully passed a bill that is directly in violation of the Constitution.

    Just wow.

    How do I get them into a courtroom? Do I have to write the Justice Department? Can I make a citizens arrest? How does this work exactly because this is clearly the time it needs to happen.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  102. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoosh

  103. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah its a foggy cloud made of computers, idiot! Duh. This guy doesn't even know how the cloud works.

  104. This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I laugh out loud every time someone says "America" and "Freedom" in the same sentence or when some jackoff states that the military is fighting for my freedom.

    To anyone paying attention, America is quickly becoming the least free country in the civilized world!

  105. READ SEC 309 by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    (B) Limitation on Retention - A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless:
      (iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have secret meaning

  106. ...looked at porn as a minor? by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    ftfy: looked at porn_of_a minor

  107. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by fnj · · Score: 1

    First, we're talking about the Senate, not the House. Second, after a voice vote, one member can "request" what is called a "division of the assembly", in which members rise in turn by aye or nay to be counted - but NOT named. It takes 20% of the members to demand a true recorded vote. Good luck with the first, and particularly the last, before the consideration is gaveled closed.

    And you didn't pay very close attention to what I said. The Constitution does not specify what the procedural rules are. It doesn't talk about a voice vote. At most it spells out that rules can be made by the houses of Congress to govern themselves, without any specificity or bounds. The President of the Senate is not normally such a fine figure as Harry Carey was in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. What if these boobs get together and change the rules in such a way that nobody can challenge a voice vote? What recourse is there then? What if Rule 22 (Cloture) is changed to require 80 votes (or 51 votes) instead of 60? What if the rule permitting the interruption of the floor to call for a cloture vote were removed? Keep in mind that the Constitution set up the Senators to be elected by their respective state legislatures, not by popular vote. The House of Representatives was already the body which represented the people directly. Why have two such bodies? Morons made the change via the 17th Amendment. That opened the door to making the Senate a body of lowly politically-motivated self-serving assholes.

  108. portal to portal? by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    no, they're wrong: the portal is on the far side of the screening

  109. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by suutar · · Score: 1

    True, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it's weak evidence. It reduces the probability somewhat, but not a whole lot, and certainly not to zero. Stronger evidence of absence could exist, but we don't get to see it.

  110. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Yes. It's viewed by the less astute as something magical, apparently because the salespeople told them so.

    I'm in a country with fairly solid overseas internet connections, and it pretty much sucks for us. I keep getting reports of users losing connection with important resources. I tell them I can't really help you. Ask the cloud.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  111. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no you misunderstand. It will send it to an IP you know and accept

  112. And in other news... by doccus · · Score: 1

    Congress quietly also passed a bill allowing searches up everyones crack while asleep in their bedrooms..

  113. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became. by athenaprime · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you saw, "Clue required," on an executive level job description?

  114. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

  115. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Again, if I only send encrypted information and both the key and encryption engine stay local then simply intercepting my communications gets them nothing but an encrypted stream of data.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  116. From the bill... by porksauce · · Score: 1
    I was reading the text of the actual bill, and stumbled upon this section:

    Sec 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities

    The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

    ...which I think means the bill cannot have the effect of making any intelligence activities legal. It can only restrict, if I'm reading it right.

  117. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Lotharus · · Score: 1

    Where's my "-1 Naive" mod?...

  118. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Do you think they are spying on me personally because I frequently push encrypted files around?

    I rather doubt it. I'm sure that they passively grab things from me just like they do from everyone... but as to specifically focusing on me?... unlikely.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  119. There breaking the constitution! by Xman73x · · Score: 0

    America is now a communist one because of Olama nice job you traders!

  120. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED
                COMMUNICATIONS.
            (a) Definitions.--In this section:
                    (1) Covered communication.--The term ``covered communication''
            means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired
            without the consent of a person who is a party to the
            communication, including communications in electronic storage
    .
    [...]
    (b) Procedures for Covered Communications.--
                    (1) Requirement to adopt.--Not later than 2 years after the
            date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the
            intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the
            Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the
            requirements of paragraph (3).

    (3) Procedures.--
                            (A) Application.--The procedures required by paragraph (1)
                    shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not
                    otherwise authorized by court order
    (including an order or
                    certification issued by a court established under subsection
                    (a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence
                    Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or
                    similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result
                    in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a
                    United States person and shall permit the acquisition,
                    retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject
                    to the limitation in subparagraph
    (B).
                            (B) Limitation on retention.--A covered communication shall
                    not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless
    --

    The key words here are "shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order"

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  121. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    Again, this wording adds restrictions to any such collections that may occur. It does not grant permission to do them.

  122. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Do you think they are spying on me personally because I frequently push encrypted files around?

    I rather doubt it. I'm sure that they passively grab things from me just like they do from everyone... but as to specifically focusing on me?... unlikely.

    No, they are spying on everyone because they are so self conscious and are insanely jealous of penis sizes they observed while watching illegal PR0N.

    No really, it is about power, it is about awareness to maintain it. What bugs me about it is the I.T. community has played into an act on their part of taking up the sword against their own people, the ones they have been charged with acting in the defense of as well as the constitution, all for the purpose of justifying the insane size of the black budget.

  123. Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What recourse is there then?

    Bicameralism and the presidential veto.

    [The 17th amendment] opened the door to making the Senate a body of lowly politically-motivated self-serving assholes

    You should really look into the history of the U.S. Senate and especially the campaign to elect Senators directly. Among the many interesting things you will find is that the amount of corruption the indirectly elected and appointed Senators got up to makes the politically-motivated self-serving assholes of today seem like upright defenders of democracy and transparency. William A. Clark is quite a treat.

  124. Roman empire by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them with circuses whilst the rulers do whatever they want.

  125. Re:So much for curbing NSA surveillance, motherfuc by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

    OK...so I should believe everything I read on the Internet?

    ominous Star Trek music begins to play

  126. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Don't be naive. The IT man's loyalties lie with the man that pays him. Just like everyone else.

    How many other professions fuck over their coworkers on command? The only exception I can think of is doctors... and only under special circumstances... typically they'll fuck you over on command just like everyone else.

    The IT man is nothing special in this context. He's another employee executing a command.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  127. Thr Dour Truth of the Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that We the People need a voting bloc that will go on record as willing and able to employ JURY NULLIFICATION to those tried for offenses involving recovered data as evidence. Any juror incarcerated for contempt will be automatically regarded as a POLITICAL PRISONER.

    Use of civil forfeiture is grounds for insurrection, period. Aaron Swartz was a constructive summary execution.

  128. Re: PRIVATE encryption of everything just became.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    It requires nothing. It is itself. If you want to present a counter argument you need to present evidence of SOMETHING. Without that you have an argument based on nothing which is an argument based on nothing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.