responsible disclosure is still widely considered to be a good practice.
Responsible disclosure will inform those vulnerable as soon as possible, so they can take steps to mitigate. There's nothing responsible about keeping a security flaw secret.
there is no basis to assume that intelligence officers are routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violating the law.
The FBI routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violates the law when it comes to NSLs. Notice that the report linked in the article is the THIRD one about the problem, I don't see why I should assume the NSA is any better.
I think you're also misinterpreting his comment: cops don't get fired when they botch an investigation on Constitutional grounds because they aren't willfully violating the Constitution
Cops dont' get fired because the system is too corrupt to fire them. We live in a world where two police officers can anally rape a man with their taser, on tape, absolutely confirmed to have happened, and the police ombudsman recommends nothing more than additional training. There is no honest excuse for that and it betrays a deep deep perversion of the law enforcement culture in this country.
That is the reality of the world in which we live. I know it would be wonderful if we could just trust the authorities to adhere to and uphold the law, but that's a dangerous fantasy. Our public officials aren't all looking to get us, but they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to some terrible abuses of power. Especially when it means bigger budgets and job security.
When any government official steps outside of their legitimate authority they should feel the full force of the law any of us would experience if we did the same act. In fact, there should be an extra penalty for the violation of public trust. Anything else makes a mockery of the rule of law. Every overreach of government power is a crime.
The DOD has an Intelligence Oversight office whose sole purpose is to ensure that intelligence operations do not run afoul of the law with respect to US Persons.
Yes, and I'm sure they're about as interested in prosecuting actual crimes as our friend the Idaho ombudsman is. Internal review boards serve no purpose but whitewashing. Are documents like this really supposed to make me any more comfortable? The document itself is whitewashed!
If you want me to trust that authority is responsibly wielded, start holding people responsible who fail to do so. Is that so unreasonable?
I am 'willing' to not get downsized in the next set of sweeps I am 'willing' to keep my income from stagnating I am 'willing' to not seem less competitive than other workers
of course you could replace 'willing' with 'scared shitless', 'being strong-armed' or 'having a gun held to my head' and it would describe the situation all the same
This is what libertarians mean by "voluntary". They fail to understand that economic power can be just as coercive as the threat of violence.
See above; probably nothing. Just like cops running a bad investigation don't get fired when they botch it on constitutional grounds, intel agents don't go to jail for violating U.S. citizens' rights.
And this is why you are an honest and admirable public servant and Dave Schroeder is a no good spook. He doesn't have the integrity to admit this, or that this is a problem. Thanks for providing such sharp contrast.
The government isn't out to get its citizens, any more than an overbearing mother is out to harm her child. The desire for excessive control is harmful in either case, despite good intentions.
This thing about some factions in the US hating everything the government does is incomprehensible in Europe.
Because it doesn't actually happen. Even the most strident small government people actually like the government when it helps them. Hence you get people with signs like "Keep your government out of my medicaid".
You're not seeing people who truly believe that everything the government is bad. You are seeing idiots with no capacity for analyzing what they actually believe.
> 2. The law also says that they never have to prove that their targets are actually foreigners.
False. Completely, 100%, provably false. The law does not say this at all. Nothing like it.
So what you're saying is that an NSA agent must prove that someone is a foreigner before collecting data on them? To whom do they have to prove it? What are the consequences if they fail to do so?
What the law does say is that an individualized warrant is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe. You can't just ignore the fact that someone is a US Person.
What actual consequences would an NSA agent face if they did ignore that fact? How would it be discovered? How often has this happened?
So far the only actual safeguard you've offered is "trust us". Can you at least try to understand that that's not good enough?
Four YEARS after Binney claimed that the NSA was spying on "everyone", the NSA's "warrantless wiretapping" program was exposed by the New York Times. And guess what? NSA didn't randomly do it on its own; they did it at the direction of the President, and it only involved people who had direct communications with terrorist suspects, and was renewed and briefed to Congress every 45 days.
So the president is complicit in the unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens and that's supposed to make us feel better?
Also, as a technical matter, how does one capture the packets of foreigners without also capturing the packets of citizens? At the very least, doesn't the NSA have to store and analyze the packet to determine whether it belongs to a US citizen or not? At that point, hasn't the law prohibiting collecting, storing, and analyzing the communications of US citizens already been broken?
The Director of National Intelligence just recently admitted that some NSA activities had violated the Constitution at least once.
By whom, and what consequences can we expect this criminal to suffer?
I'm afraid I don't have quotes from USENET in 1992 at hand. I propose the content creators make a living doing what they are experts at. People who are good at things like talking about those things. That's better content than almost anything you'll find on the web today.
Even today, the best content you'll find is buried on niche web fora. That's where you find people who are passionate talking about their passion. Ad supported, but not because the content creators get paid. Ads are just there to pay for the hosting, which we all used to pay for as part of our ISP bill when USENET was around.
All ad supported content could disappear tomorrow and we'd be none the worse for it. We'd have to find a replacement for ad supported hosting, but it's been done before and we could do it again.
The internet had plenty of good content before it was ad supported, and it will have plenty of good content afterwards. Come to think of it, the content was actually better before it was add supported.
The oversight of the Intelligence Community is, and always has been, accomplished via:
â" The Executive branch (the President, who is the ultimate consumer of US intelligence) â" The Judicial branch (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) â" The Legislative branch (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Intelligence Committees of both houses of Congress)
In other words, there is institutional oversight, and no direct oversight of surveillance activities.
Tell me, who was the last person criminally tried for illegally surveilling US citizens? We already know that the FBI wantonly abuses their NSL authority. We can expect that the NSA abuses their authority too. Can you name one person? I can name several who have been tried for exposing crimes committed by the government, I can't name one who has been tried for committing those crimes.
You yourself admitted that "Does all of this mean the government has never done anything wrong, that there has never been any abuse, that citizens shouldn't be watchful? No." We both know there have been abuses. Where are the prosecutions of the criminals who broke the law?
What is interesting to me is the reaction that if there ever has been any abuse, or if there are any current examples of abuse, that everything must be abuse, alongside the bizarre belief that the number one priority of the Intelligence Community is to illegally spy on Americans
Once trust is broken, it's hard to repair it. Start prosecuting agents who break the law, and we might believe you have our best interests at heart.
What reason is there to believe any government agency ever obeys the law? Could it be that most people in government are public servants who take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and the people of the United States seriously?
If that's the case, why was Thomas Drake prosecuted and not one spook prosecuted for the illegal survillance of Americans? Do you not see how this looks bad? Why would I trust people who do this?
There is actual tyranny and oppression in the world.
Yes, and this is why we have to be eternally vigilant at home. There, but for openness and accountablity go we.
It is prohibited to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the contents of communications of US Persons anywhere on the globe without an individual, properly adjudicated warrant. This is as clear as it can possibly be spelled out.
What's not clear is what sort of oversight there is to ensure that these people are held accountable when they overreach. If whistleblowers at the NSA can expect to be tried under the Espionage act, I rather doubt that there's any oversight at all. What reason is there to believe that the NSA obeys the law?
What I didn't know until now is that she was a lesbian. Which is fair enough, if she was out back then she probably wouldn't have been considered a good role model. Good for her, she broke ground in more ways than one.
The video is quite good, but what it shows is that which religion you are doesn't affect birth rates. It doesn't show any data about secular people, so it can't disprove a link between religion and birth rates.
That wasn't said-- but comparatively, Android users are MORE UNETHICAL and SPEND LESS MONEY*.
You can't make that conclusion without knowing to what extent they're actually using the apps. This data is also consistent with a situation in which Apple users are unhappy with 90% of the apps they buy causing them to buy another app to replace the one they don't like. How common is shareware on iOS?
Allowing the majority of the world's population to languish in poverty is morally reprehensible. Whether it's hard to eliminate poverty or not, we should at least strive to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
responsible disclosure is still widely considered to be a good practice.
Responsible disclosure will inform those vulnerable as soon as possible, so they can take steps to mitigate. There's nothing responsible about keeping a security flaw secret.
there is no basis to assume that intelligence officers are routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violating the law.
The FBI routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violates the law when it comes to NSLs. Notice that the report linked in the article is the THIRD one about the problem, I don't see why I should assume the NSA is any better.
I think you're also misinterpreting his comment: cops don't get fired when they botch an investigation on Constitutional grounds because they aren't willfully violating the Constitution
Cops dont' get fired because the system is too corrupt to fire them. We live in a world where two police officers can anally rape a man with their taser, on tape, absolutely confirmed to have happened, and the police ombudsman recommends nothing more than additional training. There is no honest excuse for that and it betrays a deep deep perversion of the law enforcement culture in this country.
That is the reality of the world in which we live. I know it would be wonderful if we could just trust the authorities to adhere to and uphold the law, but that's a dangerous fantasy. Our public officials aren't all looking to get us, but they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to some terrible abuses of power. Especially when it means bigger budgets and job security.
When any government official steps outside of their legitimate authority they should feel the full force of the law any of us would experience if we did the same act. In fact, there should be an extra penalty for the violation of public trust. Anything else makes a mockery of the rule of law. Every overreach of government power is a crime.
The DOD has an Intelligence Oversight office whose sole purpose is to ensure that intelligence operations do not run afoul of the law with respect to US Persons.
Yes, and I'm sure they're about as interested in prosecuting actual crimes as our friend the Idaho ombudsman is. Internal review boards serve no purpose but whitewashing. Are documents like this really supposed to make me any more comfortable? The document itself is whitewashed!
If you want me to trust that authority is responsibly wielded, start holding people responsible who fail to do so. Is that so unreasonable?
This is what libertarians mean by "voluntary". They fail to understand that economic power can be just as coercive as the threat of violence.
See above; probably nothing. Just like cops running a bad investigation don't get fired when they botch it on constitutional grounds, intel agents don't go to jail for violating U.S. citizens' rights.
And this is why you are an honest and admirable public servant and Dave Schroeder is a no good spook. He doesn't have the integrity to admit this, or that this is a problem. Thanks for providing such sharp contrast.
Good cop/bad cop. One may be slightly more tolerable than the other, but both have the same goal.
The government isn't out to get its citizens, any more than an overbearing mother is out to harm her child. The desire for excessive control is harmful in either case, despite good intentions.
This thing about some factions in the US hating everything the government does is incomprehensible in Europe.
Because it doesn't actually happen. Even the most strident small government people actually like the government when it helps them. Hence you get people with signs like "Keep your government out of my medicaid".
You're not seeing people who truly believe that everything the government is bad. You are seeing idiots with no capacity for analyzing what they actually believe.
So what you're saying is that an NSA agent must prove that someone is a foreigner before collecting data on them? To whom do they have to prove it? What are the consequences if they fail to do so?
What actual consequences would an NSA agent face if they did ignore that fact? How would it be discovered? How often has this happened?
So far the only actual safeguard you've offered is "trust us". Can you at least try to understand that that's not good enough?
So the president is complicit in the unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens and that's supposed to make us feel better?
Also, as a technical matter, how does one capture the packets of foreigners without also capturing the packets of citizens? At the very least, doesn't the NSA have to store and analyze the packet to determine whether it belongs to a US citizen or not? At that point, hasn't the law prohibiting collecting, storing, and analyzing the communications of US citizens already been broken?
By whom, and what consequences can we expect this criminal to suffer?
I'm afraid I don't have quotes from USENET in 1992 at hand. I propose the content creators make a living doing what they are experts at. People who are good at things like talking about those things. That's better content than almost anything you'll find on the web today.
Even today, the best content you'll find is buried on niche web fora. That's where you find people who are passionate talking about their passion. Ad supported, but not because the content creators get paid. Ads are just there to pay for the hosting, which we all used to pay for as part of our ISP bill when USENET was around.
All ad supported content could disappear tomorrow and we'd be none the worse for it. We'd have to find a replacement for ad supported hosting, but it's been done before and we could do it again.
The internet had plenty of good content before it was ad supported, and it will have plenty of good content afterwards. Come to think of it, the content was actually better before it was add supported.
In other words, there is institutional oversight, and no direct oversight of surveillance activities.
Tell me, who was the last person criminally tried for illegally surveilling US citizens? We already know that the FBI wantonly abuses their NSL authority. We can expect that the NSA abuses their authority too. Can you name one person? I can name several who have been tried for exposing crimes committed by the government, I can't name one who has been tried for committing those crimes.
You yourself admitted that "Does all of this mean the government has never done anything wrong, that there has never been any abuse, that citizens shouldn't be watchful? No." We both know there have been abuses. Where are the prosecutions of the criminals who broke the law?
Once trust is broken, it's hard to repair it. Start prosecuting agents who break the law, and we might believe you have our best interests at heart.
If that's the case, why was Thomas Drake prosecuted and not one spook prosecuted for the illegal survillance of Americans? Do you not see how this looks bad? Why would I trust people who do this?
Yes, and this is why we have to be eternally vigilant at home. There, but for openness and accountablity go we.
Windows 7 is superior to XP, but not superior enough to give a shit about.
I wish Nader had won.
It is prohibited to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the contents of communications of US Persons anywhere on the globe without an individual, properly adjudicated warrant. This is as clear as it can possibly be spelled out.
What's not clear is what sort of oversight there is to ensure that these people are held accountable when they overreach. If whistleblowers at the NSA can expect to be tried under the Espionage act, I rather doubt that there's any oversight at all. What reason is there to believe that the NSA obeys the law?
Sounds like a great way to inform potential eavesdroppers which people you communicate sensitive information with.
Good luck with that. Those of us who value our privacy will do something that works. Use Jitsi.
What, you think Civilization is a non-violent game?
Eat the rich.
What I didn't know until now is that she was a lesbian. Which is fair enough, if she was out back then she probably wouldn't have been considered a good role model. Good for her, she broke ground in more ways than one.
The video is quite good, but what it shows is that which religion you are doesn't affect birth rates. It doesn't show any data about secular people, so it can't disprove a link between religion and birth rates.
Thanks for providing additional supporting data for your conclusion.
That wasn't said-- but comparatively, Android users are MORE UNETHICAL and SPEND LESS MONEY*.
You can't make that conclusion without knowing to what extent they're actually using the apps. This data is also consistent with a situation in which Apple users are unhappy with 90% of the apps they buy causing them to buy another app to replace the one they don't like. How common is shareware on iOS?
It's easy, if we choose to do it. We won't, but we could.
Exactly this. One should keep in mind that the Wall Street Journal is now nothing but a Murdoch rag.
Allowing the majority of the world's population to languish in poverty is morally reprehensible. Whether it's hard to eliminate poverty or not, we should at least strive to do so.