Just wanted to thank you for an interesting response. I was getting sick of that other guy making me out to be extremist.
My opinion is that I'm willing to give up some of my rights to ensure my safety. I don't consider the internet to be a private place in the first place. I don't think the government running a program to scan my traffic for patterns is any worse than what is already availble to somebody to wants to see what I'm up to.
To me, the difference is that it's automated. I don't remember anybody bitching because their telephone bill came in with a list of who all they called and for how long.
"You haven't addressed my statement that this is useless. As I've spread throughout this post so you'd be SURE to see it, as well as making it perfectly clear in a reply to anohter of your posts, the TERRORISTS WILL BE USING ENCRYPTION."
For the last fucking time:
Encrypting the mail is a flag that the Gov't will have to investigate. IF everybody does it, then the Gov't gets no help from us, just noise. "Hmm, odd, there's an internet cafe in Miami where somebody keeps sending encrypted messages." Your plan would cause this "Hmmm.. Miami is sending encrypted messages."
Simple as that: You're mucking with the Gov'ts ability to look for signs of an attack. All so that you can hide who you e-mail from the Gov't, even though that information isn't hard to get by somebody intent on looking at you. And no, I'm not arguing for encryption, I'm arguing about expectations. You are a fucking moron if you think "I can email my mother in complete piracy." Encryption can always be broken. Somebody who wants to do that is gonna do it anyway, so you might as well make the Gov'ts job protecting us easier. The internet is PUBLIC. If I were really worried about my messages getting read (again, you are a fucking moron if you think they aren't already by some script kiddie) then I'd be happy to encrypt them and let the Gov't have the key.
The whole Internet is too public to use as a private communications tool! The Gov't isn't interesting in sniffing you for information unless you give them reason to.
Why don't you just use your phone? Why don't you go meet the person face to face if your information is oh so valuable. Don't sacrifice my safety over it.
If you're still saying "So you mean this [OVERSIMPLIFIED EXTREMIST CASE].", then you don't get my point, and I'm not wasting any more time getting you to understand. If you are going to be willfully ignorant of what I'm saying, then there is nothing I can do to help you understand my point. I don't expect you to agree with me. That's fine. All I'm asking for is understanding. "The Gov't may have access to my e-mail. They may protect my interests. They may stop Al Qaeda without my interferance."
If you twist my meaning to say "Everybody's email should be public!" then you don't get it. That's where the word 'ignorance' will start getting used alot. This is not a black and white world. I don't think you personally using encryption will promote terrorism. I think the whole world doing it will secure the internet for terrorists to use.
Think about that before saying "If everybody used encryption..."
"And how do you know that? You don't, because the FBI doesn't tell anyone how their carnivore is doing. -- Here's an alternative question: How would they keep the innocent victim quiet?
There are two problems with that. First, let's say I recorded all your telephone conversations. I probably really wouldn't care what you said, as it doesn't affect me. But would you like that? If your answer is yes, e-mail me your mailing address and I'll come and bug your phones. -- The Gov't already knows my social security #, my date of birth, mother's maiden name, every city I've ever lived, every car I've ever owned, all of my phone #'s, my family history, where I was born, my physical description, and my bank account and CC #'s. They aren't going to gain any more information about me that I find sensitive. If you are an agent for the Gov't and already have access to that info, then you may bug my phone. That right disappears when you attempt to steal my identity.
"Unless, as someone else said, everyone encrpyts it." -- The only benefit to that is you'll thwart the US's abilities to collect info to prevent Sept 11th Part II from happning. As I said, the Gov't has nothing to gain but your personal safety. It's not like MS is calling for this.
"Are you saying I'll be involved in September 11 Part II? If so, please let me know what evidence you have. If not, then why would encrypting my messages help the approach?" -- I never said that. Don't you think it's a little ridiculous that I'd accuse you of aiding a terrorist? I realize I didn't make that point rather clear, but be serious. What I meant: By thwarting the US's ability to keep tabs on everybody's email, you're making it futile for the Gov't to look for hints that we're going to be attacked again.
What's really assine about this (besides the fact that the Gov't has nothing to gain from your personal info...) is that the Internet is the only place where Al-Qaeda can communicate. Any other means, though possible, aren't practical. So what you are saying to the Gov't is 'Fuck you! I want to look at porn in private! I don't care if it means you can't sniff for early warnings of an attack!"
I know you care about privacy. I care about privacy too! But there are certain things I will not do to pay for them. I will not let my privacy be exploited as a weakness. If you were to replace the DOJ with Time Warner, I wouldn't be having this convo now. I'd say "Warner sucks!" and get modded up for it.
"They adapt to our surveillence abilities; hence bin Ladin stopping use of his cell phone when he learned we were recording all his coversations." -- Yep. And when the US Gov't says "We can't sniff the e-mail because too much of it is encyrpted" then Bin Laden will be able to use AOL to communicate with his brainwashed cronies. At least with carnivore, they have to be extremely careful and always on their toes.
It's okay if you disagree with my opinion. But I don't think I could restate my points much clearer than they are now. My safety is far more important to me than anything I have in e-mail or in the sites I go to. TO tell you the truth, I think you're being idiotic if you are posting sensitive information on the net somewhere. If your mail's not encrypted now, I don't know why you think you should start all of the sudden. Some bored tech support guy at your ISP who's only making $10 an hour could get bored and watch what you're doing. You have a lot more to fear from somebody like that than you do the Gov't, by a LONG shot.
Don't you think it'd be all over the news if the Gov't was chasing down false leads?
I mean seriously, who cares if they read our e-mail? What are they going to get from it? They already have my social security #. THey have my date of birth, mother's maiden name, the city I was born in, how much money I've made in my life, where I've lived all my life, who I've worked for, what kind of car I drive, my physical description, and so on. What is going to be revealed in e-mail that they aren't privvy to now? Who cares?
I don't care if some gov't agent is reading my overly-affectionate emails to my GF. I'll never even meet the guy!
Fight corporations when they try to peek into your lives, but don't fight the Gov't. They're out to protect you.
Parent post modded down out of idiocy...
on
Windependence Day
·
· Score: 2
I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I can't believe that you got modded down as troll.
The reason I disagree is that monopolistic companies and organizations can take away our rights the same as any invader. Only we have a harder time fighting them. The MPAA/RIAA and their purchase of Senator Fritz come to mind. If the SSSCA had passed, we'd have lost some rights critical to creative work.
I respectfully disagree with you, but modding you down as Troll was awful. There are moderators on Slashdot that could stand to learn the difference between stating an opinion and trying to rile people up.
" Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Show me one time when that has happened. They're doing a much better job than that.
"Second, it's not really an invasion of priacy to see someone else's encrypted message. "
I never claimed it was. What I said was that the people's privacy is safe. All that's happening is that a computer is recording the messages. So what? A program reads the message, does a pattern match, and moves on. Virtually nobody's message is going to get read by somebody who could care about it.
If you encrypt it, though, what good is that going to do besides make somebody say "Wtf is so important that they are encrypting their message this heavily?"
The only good you are doing by encyrpting your messages is making it easier for September 11th part II to come along.
"I always treat people working those shitty jobs as politely as possible to try to offset all the bastards they have to put up with on a day to day basis. "
That's a good idea. When you treat people nicely, they're going to be more helpful. AT&T Wireless took $100 off my cell bill once as a favor. Their policy forbade it, but they treat their long-term customers well. It's at the agent's discretion, though. If I had been really mean to her, she would have said "sorry, but you made that choice, you're stuck with it."
"So does that mean that a better name for Doom III would be Doom 1.11, or maybe Doom 11.1? "
I was implying that Doom 2 wasn't much more than Doom 1 with extra levels. It's the type of thing that comes to mind when you add more processing cycles to your cognative process.
My parent post here was marked 'Overrated'. I am politely requesting information on what is 'overrated' about it? That kind of implies there's something seriously wrong with my comment, but as of yet I don't see that.
Somebody help? Frankly, I suspect that it was modded down because the person who did it thought I don't value privacy. That's not true at all. I'm just saying I trust a computer to scan my e-mail and retain my privacy, not a human. Once a human reads my email, I get spooked.
The internet is NOT a secure communications medium regardless of what the DOJ wants. So why make yourself stand out to them?
" think Joe Sixpack would be more inclined to use encryption if he thought it was just an envelope to put mail into... "
I don't undertand why he'd need to do this. It's a computer reading the logs searching for patterns, not a human reading the emails looking for hidden meaning. If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be.
" If they think for ONE f*cking second that this would actually work, they're wrong. Ill just start encrypting my email more often. Lets see them get through to my mail headers under 128bit RSA."
Yeah, that's a good plan: Give them a reason to think you're up to no good. That'll keep'em from investigating ya.
"You have no way of knowing what prices might be were this not a monopoly (if it is ruled a monoopoly)."
I think what he's saying is that prices are continually dropping. It's not quite the same as the RIAA who sells CD's for $15 no matter what the demand is.
"I can't help but wonder: where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies?"
You sound like Television broadcasters when you say something like that. "We'll broadcast content over the airwaves, but you better not capture it!"
Well, let me make it simple for you: When you make something public you cannot expect to bottle it up later. That's the whole reason that the internet is in existance: Extreme redundancy so that data is never lost. The original idea was to build a data network that could survive a nuclear attack.
I don't think anybody should ever post stuff on the web without expecting it to last forever in some form or another, regardless of whether permission is granted.
"They seem to have dealt with this problem just fine for many years now."
Hmmm, well there are two places here in Portland (that I know of....) that I can buy a reasonable amount of Mac stuff: CompUSA (with a dedicated Mac secton...), and the Apple Store.
This is a hint to me (again, I'm not claiming to know everything here...) that Apple had to make special arrangements to sell their stuff anywhere but in the Apple store.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wanted to thank you for an interesting response. I was getting sick of that other guy making me out to be extremist.
My opinion is that I'm willing to give up some of my rights to ensure my safety. I don't consider the internet to be a private place in the first place. I don't think the government running a program to scan my traffic for patterns is any worse than what is already availble to somebody to wants to see what I'm up to.
To me, the difference is that it's automated. I don't remember anybody bitching because their telephone bill came in with a list of who all they called and for how long.
Hey dudes! The parent post got modded down as flamebait!
Isn't it amusing that some dumbfuck moderator thought that explaining what the slang term 'burn' means is hateful?
"Oh no!! People will get heated up over the turm 'burn'!! That's as bad as saying Microsoft 0WnZ!
Heh that cost me a karma point or two, but it was funny!
"I can email my mother in complete piracy."
;)
I meant 'privacy' not 'piracy'. Been posting too much about the RIAA lately.
"You haven't addressed my statement that this is useless. As I've spread throughout this post so you'd be SURE to see it, as well as making it perfectly clear in a reply to anohter of your posts, the TERRORISTS WILL BE USING ENCRYPTION."
For the last fucking time:
Encrypting the mail is a flag that the Gov't will have to investigate. IF everybody does it, then the Gov't gets no help from us, just noise. "Hmm, odd, there's an internet cafe in Miami where somebody keeps sending encrypted messages." Your plan would cause this "Hmmm.. Miami is sending encrypted messages."
Simple as that: You're mucking with the Gov'ts ability to look for signs of an attack. All so that you can hide who you e-mail from the Gov't, even though that information isn't hard to get by somebody intent on looking at you. And no, I'm not arguing for encryption, I'm arguing about expectations. You are a fucking moron if you think "I can email my mother in complete piracy." Encryption can always be broken. Somebody who wants to do that is gonna do it anyway, so you might as well make the Gov'ts job protecting us easier. The internet is PUBLIC. If I were really worried about my messages getting read (again, you are a fucking moron if you think they aren't already by some script kiddie) then I'd be happy to encrypt them and let the Gov't have the key.
The whole Internet is too public to use as a private communications tool! The Gov't isn't interesting in sniffing you for information unless you give them reason to.
Why don't you just use your phone? Why don't you go meet the person face to face if your information is oh so valuable. Don't sacrifice my safety over it.
If you're still saying "So you mean this [OVERSIMPLIFIED EXTREMIST CASE].", then you don't get my point, and I'm not wasting any more time getting you to understand. If you are going to be willfully ignorant of what I'm saying, then there is nothing I can do to help you understand my point. I don't expect you to agree with me. That's fine. All I'm asking for is understanding. "The Gov't may have access to my e-mail. They may protect my interests. They may stop Al Qaeda without my interferance."
If you twist my meaning to say "Everybody's email should be public!" then you don't get it. That's where the word 'ignorance' will start getting used alot. This is not a black and white world. I don't think you personally using encryption will promote terrorism. I think the whole world doing it will secure the internet for terrorists to use.
Think about that before saying "If everybody used encryption..."
"And how do you know that? You don't, because the FBI doesn't tell anyone how their carnivore is doing. -- Here's an alternative question: How would they keep the innocent victim quiet?
There are two problems with that. First, let's say I recorded all your telephone conversations. I probably really wouldn't care what you said, as it doesn't affect me. But would you like that? If your answer is yes, e-mail me your mailing address and I'll come and bug your phones. -- The Gov't already knows my social security #, my date of birth, mother's maiden name, every city I've ever lived, every car I've ever owned, all of my phone #'s, my family history, where I was born, my physical description, and my bank account and CC #'s. They aren't going to gain any more information about me that I find sensitive. If you are an agent for the Gov't and already have access to that info, then you may bug my phone. That right disappears when you attempt to steal my identity.
"Unless, as someone else said, everyone encrpyts it." -- The only benefit to that is you'll thwart the US's abilities to collect info to prevent Sept 11th Part II from happning. As I said, the Gov't has nothing to gain but your personal safety. It's not like MS is calling for this.
"Are you saying I'll be involved in September 11 Part II? If so, please let me know what evidence you have. If not, then why would encrypting my messages help the approach?" -- I never said that. Don't you think it's a little ridiculous that I'd accuse you of aiding a terrorist? I realize I didn't make that point rather clear, but be serious. What I meant: By thwarting the US's ability to keep tabs on everybody's email, you're making it futile for the Gov't to look for hints that we're going to be attacked again.
What's really assine about this (besides the fact that the Gov't has nothing to gain from your personal info...) is that the Internet is the only place where Al-Qaeda can communicate. Any other means, though possible, aren't practical. So what you are saying to the Gov't is 'Fuck you! I want to look at porn in private! I don't care if it means you can't sniff for early warnings of an attack!"
I know you care about privacy. I care about privacy too! But there are certain things I will not do to pay for them. I will not let my privacy be exploited as a weakness. If you were to replace the DOJ with Time Warner, I wouldn't be having this convo now. I'd say "Warner sucks!" and get modded up for it.
"They adapt to our surveillence abilities; hence bin Ladin stopping use of his cell phone when he learned we were recording all his coversations." -- Yep. And when the US Gov't says "We can't sniff the e-mail because too much of it is encyrpted" then Bin Laden will be able to use AOL to communicate with his brainwashed cronies. At least with carnivore, they have to be extremely careful and always on their toes.
It's okay if you disagree with my opinion. But I don't think I could restate my points much clearer than they are now. My safety is far more important to me than anything I have in e-mail or in the sites I go to. TO tell you the truth, I think you're being idiotic if you are posting sensitive information on the net somewhere. If your mail's not encrypted now, I don't know why you think you should start all of the sudden. Some bored tech support guy at your ISP who's only making $10 an hour could get bored and watch what you're doing. You have a lot more to fear from somebody like that than you do the Gov't, by a LONG shot.
Don't you think it'd be all over the news if the Gov't was chasing down false leads?
I mean seriously, who cares if they read our e-mail? What are they going to get from it? They already have my social security #. THey have my date of birth, mother's maiden name, the city I was born in, how much money I've made in my life, where I've lived all my life, who I've worked for, what kind of car I drive, my physical description, and so on. What is going to be revealed in e-mail that they aren't privvy to now? Who cares?
I don't care if some gov't agent is reading my overly-affectionate emails to my GF. I'll never even meet the guy!
Fight corporations when they try to peek into your lives, but don't fight the Gov't. They're out to protect you.
I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I can't believe that you got modded down as troll.
The reason I disagree is that monopolistic companies and organizations can take away our rights the same as any invader. Only we have a harder time fighting them. The MPAA/RIAA and their purchase of Senator Fritz come to mind. If the SSSCA had passed, we'd have lost some rights critical to creative work.
I respectfully disagree with you, but modding you down as Troll was awful. There are moderators on Slashdot that could stand to learn the difference between stating an opinion and trying to rile people up.
Good idea: Give the Gov't a reason to ban encyrption all together. All it takes is one more terrorist attack, and they will pass it.
" Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Show me one time when that has happened. They're doing a much better job than that.
"Second, it's not really an invasion of priacy to see someone else's encrypted message. "
I never claimed it was. What I said was that the people's privacy is safe. All that's happening is that a computer is recording the messages. So what? A program reads the message, does a pattern match, and moves on. Virtually nobody's message is going to get read by somebody who could care about it.
If you encrypt it, though, what good is that going to do besides make somebody say "Wtf is so important that they are encrypting their message this heavily?"
The only good you are doing by encyrpting your messages is making it easier for September 11th part II to come along.
Heh. Dontcha watch That 70'S Show? It's slang. If somebody insults you, you're burned.
"What did you have for breakfast this moring? Carnation instant Bitch?"
"BURN!!!"
My general response is: "If you understand me, why are you correcting me?"
At least be polite about it.
"I always treat people working those shitty jobs as politely as possible to try to offset all the bastards they have to put up with on a day to day basis. "
That's a good idea. When you treat people nicely, they're going to be more helpful. AT&T Wireless took $100 off my cell bill once as a favor. Their policy forbade it, but they treat their long-term customers well. It's at the agent's discretion, though. If I had been really mean to her, she would have said "sorry, but you made that choice, you're stuck with it."
You must not watch That 70's Show. So here is the dictionary definition:
n.
The fire settled down to a steady burn.
"I'd mod this as (+1, Burn) if I could :] "
Lol!!
Moderations would be more entertaining if they used more adjectives.
"So does that mean that a better name for Doom III would be Doom 1.11, or maybe Doom 11.1? "
I was implying that Doom 2 wasn't much more than Doom 1 with extra levels. It's the type of thing that comes to mind when you add more processing cycles to your cognative process.
"Not if everyone encrypts their mail."
They don't need to, they don't have anyting to worry about. As I said, it's a computer reading the messages, not a human.
You're not preventing the Government the ability to read your email, instead you're opening a wider door for potential terrorists to communicate.
"Doom III? You mean there was a Doom II?!"
Yep! And it was called "Doom II". Doom 1.1 would have been a better name for it....
My parent post here was marked 'Overrated'. I am politely requesting information on what is 'overrated' about it? That kind of implies there's something seriously wrong with my comment, but as of yet I don't see that.
Somebody help? Frankly, I suspect that it was modded down because the person who did it thought I don't value privacy. That's not true at all. I'm just saying I trust a computer to scan my e-mail and retain my privacy, not a human. Once a human reads my email, I get spooked.
The internet is NOT a secure communications medium regardless of what the DOJ wants. So why make yourself stand out to them?
" think Joe Sixpack would be more inclined to use encryption if he thought it was just an envelope to put mail into... "
I don't undertand why he'd need to do this. It's a computer reading the logs searching for patterns, not a human reading the emails looking for hidden meaning. If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be.
" If they think for ONE f*cking second that this would actually work, they're wrong. Ill just start encrypting my email more often. Lets see them get through to my mail headers under 128bit RSA."
Yeah, that's a good plan: Give them a reason to think you're up to no good. That'll keep'em from investigating ya.
"You have no way of knowing what prices might be were this not a monopoly (if it is ruled a monoopoly)."
I think what he's saying is that prices are continually dropping. It's not quite the same as the RIAA who sells CD's for $15 no matter what the demand is.
"I can't help but wonder: where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies?"
You sound like Television broadcasters when you say something like that. "We'll broadcast content over the airwaves, but you better not capture it!"
Well, let me make it simple for you: When you make something public you cannot expect to bottle it up later. That's the whole reason that the internet is in existance: Extreme redundancy so that data is never lost. The original idea was to build a data network that could survive a nuclear attack.
I don't think anybody should ever post stuff on the web without expecting it to last forever in some form or another, regardless of whether permission is granted.
"Seriously, I've already begun to have problems identifying insane people here..."
Ever see one of them talking to a guy named Al?
That doesn't affect my point. (And no, I wasn't claiming those were Disney movies.)
"They seem to have dealt with this problem just fine for many years now."
Hmmm, well there are two places here in Portland (that I know of....) that I can buy a reasonable amount of Mac stuff: CompUSA (with a dedicated Mac secton...), and the Apple Store.
This is a hint to me (again, I'm not claiming to know everything here...) that Apple had to make special arrangements to sell their stuff anywhere but in the Apple store.