For all their flaws, US security apparatus is quite competent at what it does, including capturing or killing those it's tasked with capturing or killing.
You think the NSA surveillance state has an impact on free speech and the press? The loudest of regular people (reporters) are 'chilled'? There have been countless analysis-style articles and discussions regarding the impact of the NSA surveillance state on free speech and the press, but no one out there is talking about the impact of the NSA surveillance state on politicians...
It is out there if you look -- But the Sunday news shows won't touch it with a 49.5' pole. Foil hat optional:
I think it's a matter of whom would you like to have at your backdoor. If they build out with a US or a Chinese based infrastructure stack, we now know these are compromised from the beginning. However feasible, they would need to use home-grown telecom equipment ( which would undoubtably then have a Brazilian back door) . Any trans-Atlantic or Pacific fiber would still have to be suspect. NSA or GCHQ can still tap these at the other end (or even under the sea).
Even consumer-grade speach-to-text is quite good these days. Certainly, to a government lawyer, the text transcript of your phone call would "only" be meta-data. It is not the call itself. That it is smaller and much more easily indexed and searched is quite convenient. And this way "No one is listening to your conversations." Until they do.
In response to the detention of Miranda, he said something along those lines:
the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further.
The modified constants supplied by the NSA did improve the design from a then unknown (outside the NSA) type of attack. It was not until years later that the reasons became clear. OTOH NSA also significantly shortened the key length....
You may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector:
The poster listed exaggerations or outright fabrications used to justify US military intervention in the past. The Kuwaiti incubator story was given in congressional testimony in the run-up to the first gulf war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
In the tortured logic and vocabulary of lawyer-spy-bureaucrats, I wonder if a keyword indexed machine generated transcript of a phone conversation is "just metadata."
At some point during the 1980s, in the US, it was on PBS late Sunday night (or early Monday morning) following Doctor Who. I don't recall much of it, but I do remember being really impressed that when a character looked through binoculars, the image shown was one circular region -- not two circles squished together. I don't know if it's only American TV that always gets this wrong, or if it's the whole world. It bugs me.
I also remember that when they went through their version of Star Trek's transporter, they went back-to-back with their weapons drawn. It seems very prudent. Kirk and Picard never thought that far ahead, I guess.
What makes you think that Eisenhower was honest and sane?
The military-industrial complex speech. That alone tells me the man worked for his country, not for money or power, that he had the insight to pinpoint the danger to the country, and the balls to denounce it publicly.
...But not the balls to do anything about it while he still could -- while he was still the president. Perhaps he was smart enough to see a Dallas motorcade in his future had he done so.
Slashdot Mirror
Q: Have you ever been convicted of a felony? ...No.
A: Convicted?
Q: Are either of you homosexuals? ...no...but we are willing to learn.
A:
For all their flaws, US security apparatus is quite competent at what it does, including capturing or killing those it's tasked with capturing or killing.
Not so sure that's true...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html?_r=0
The ragged clothing and dirty faces really bring me down.
I still have the copies I bought in the 80s. I learned more from these books than from the EE course (the intro EE course all engineers have to take).
Now the fields are dead and bare
No joie de vivre anywhere
Et maintenant we drink a bitter wine...
That's not the scariest part. If you are a hacker and you have a penis, you MIGHT BE a rapist or child molester!
Personally, my problems with thorns have mostly been in my foot.
Don't let Carmen Ortiz or her friends get wind of that plan! You could be indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.
...
How long before The Clapper or one of the other tools comes out to praise the NSA and blanket surveillance for locating these two?
You think the NSA surveillance state has an impact on free speech and the press? The loudest of regular people (reporters) are 'chilled'? There have been countless analysis-style articles and discussions regarding the impact of the NSA surveillance state on free speech and the press, but no one out there is talking about the impact of the NSA surveillance state on politicians...
It is out there if you look -- But the Sunday news shows won't touch it with a 49.5' pole. Foil hat optional:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/07/16/nsa-whistleblower-russ-tice-offers-more-details-on-the-wiretapping-of-senator-feinstein/
the bad guys won.
That's who was playing!
I think it's a matter of whom would you like to have at your backdoor. If they build out with a US or a Chinese based infrastructure stack, we now know these are compromised from the beginning. However feasible, they would need to use home-grown telecom equipment ( which would undoubtably then have a Brazilian back door) . Any trans-Atlantic or Pacific fiber would still have to be suspect. NSA or GCHQ can still tap these at the other end (or even under the sea).
Even consumer-grade speach-to-text is quite good these days. Certainly, to a government lawyer, the text transcript of your phone call would "only" be meta-data. It is not the call itself. That it is smaller and much more easily indexed and searched is quite convenient. And this way "No one is listening to your conversations." Until they do.
I had to click through both links just to be sure.
In response to the detention of Miranda, he said something along those lines:
the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa
Saint Augustine gives you +1 insightful.
The modified constants supplied by the NSA did improve the design from a then unknown (outside the NSA) type of attack. It was not until years later that the reasons became clear. OTOH NSA also significantly shortened the key length....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard
Did Jimmy Carter succumb to Reaganism? Poor bastard! Carter was the president in 1980.
You may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector: The poster listed exaggerations or outright fabrications used to justify US military intervention in the past. The Kuwaiti incubator story was given in congressional testimony in the run-up to the first gulf war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
You don't understand. It's easier to make up a new definition to fit the conditions than it is to have the conditions fit the current definition.
The chocolate ration is increasing to 30 grams!
Henry Kissenger's is also available for a small fee.
In the tortured logic and vocabulary of lawyer-spy-bureaucrats, I wonder if a keyword indexed machine generated transcript of a phone conversation is "just metadata."
At some point during the 1980s, in the US, it was on PBS late Sunday night (or early Monday morning) following Doctor Who. I don't recall much of it, but I do remember being really impressed that when a character looked through binoculars, the image shown was one circular region -- not two circles squished together. I don't know if it's only American TV that always gets this wrong, or if it's the whole world. It bugs me. I also remember that when they went through their version of Star Trek's transporter, they went back-to-back with their weapons drawn. It seems very prudent. Kirk and Picard never thought that far ahead, I guess.
What makes you think that Eisenhower was honest and sane?
The military-industrial complex speech. That alone tells me the man worked for his country, not for money or power, that he had the insight to pinpoint the danger to the country, and the balls to denounce it publicly.
...But not the balls to do anything about it while he still could -- while he was still the president. Perhaps he was smart enough to see a Dallas motorcade in his future had he done so.