So you're saying that because the internet is inherently insecure and anyone with enough knowledge can read unencrypted traffic that the NSA should be allowed to read the traffic of everyone?
Problem #1 with your post is that the internet is neither secure nor insecure, it's not supposed to be one or the other so that it can be either one. I'm saying if you're too lazy to encrypt your traffic, you can't really bitch when people listen in.
Please, think of the periods. It's to the left of the question mark.
I assume when I walk outside everyday it would be possible for someone to mug me and take my wallet. It would be possible for the local police to mug me and take my wallet. But you can sure as heck bet I would be upset if they were to do it. And frankly I would be more upset because they are suppose to be the people out there watching my back.
How is this even a comparison? OK, the internet is like a blue giraffe. A big blue giraffe made of lead. And candy, you like candies don't you?
The NSA thinks they are helping us but they aren't. And I certainly hope more and more people are able to wake up to this fact. Its creepy, unethical, and I think easily outsmarted by the very dangerous people it is intended to catch.
Yes, Mr Bond, I'm sure you have firsthand knowledge of all the programs and their effectiveness. Clearly the NSA sucks, because they're not doing their job and we've had 1 billion terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 11th. But it's a big coverup. right?
OTOH, this government program is reviewing practically all internet traffic. Do you see the difference there?
Which is not a crime. The point of the original post was that if the traffic is unencrypted, the person hasn't gone to any length to make it private. There's many anonymous peering applications out there the very least is browsing with HTTPS instead of HTTP.
You don't seem to understand the idea that packets on the internet arn't a phone conversation between two people, it's a bunch of people all hollering in a common room all at once. Unless you come up with some kind of code to talk to your peer, why would you expect it to be private?
I argue that a phone call or email, sent to a specific, single person, was done with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I will call Judge Judy and get the paperwork going?
What you expect to be private has no bearing on reality, unfortunately. I don't quite understand your point. If you want it to be private, encrypt it. If you're a lazy bastard and can't figure it out, don't call for legislation. The last thing we need are more laws trying to protect us from ourselves. That's how the whole "net neutrality" thing got going, people are making laws while not knowing squat about what's involved.
That's a very valid point and the problem with FISA is that it's a secret court. I'm going to put on my speculation tin hat here and say that it's very likely the NSA is looking for specific patterns of data going to and coming from organizations abroad. They're not interested in American citizens beyond "Person X talked to Person Y who talked to Person Z who talked to Terrorist Organization" or whatever.
But of course, we'll never know. Secret courts don't make for fantastic transparency to those being governed, although it is re-assuring that discretion was the better part of valor when you were working in the industry.
You've pretty much cut the legs out from under your own case.
They have the tools necessary to try to decrypt it, so why shouldn't they?
Because there's these pesky things called "laws" and "courts". Gathing evidence illegally makes it inadmissible. The problem with going after American citizens is the fact that there has to be a trial. It may take awhile, but prosecuting on this would require a trial which would require legal evidence gathering. Unlike the grey area of arresting terrorists abroad, American citizens are protected by miles of case-law. Thank Nixon for that.
True, there's no evidence that's been made public. Yet. But if you think they're going to sit on encrypted data that they intercept and not do anything with it then you are in real need of a reality check.
You need the reality check, they're not looking at it for the same reason I'm not looking at every packet in a log when trying to diagnose a problem: They only have so many people and so much time. All the legal stuff aside, the volume of traffic is staggering. How many records does the government keep around unexamined? Well, we still don't know who shot Kennnedy...
Do you really that the NSA is just archiving all this data to tape, hoping that if they need to decrypt it at some unknown future date that they would first go get a court order? If you do then I have a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you.
I'd really that bridge...
Well the problem is you don't have any evidence to assert your idea. There is wiretapping, so it absolutely must be illegal, right? That's a bad way of thinking, I don't want to be arrested next time my server is acting strange and I fireup ettercap. I MIGHT be listening in on your voip call, or I might be fixing my server, but I still should be arrested for wiretapping, right? There is no reason to assume wrongdoing. I think a lot of this hubub is because Joe Sixpack doesn't realize I can download his porn collection updates without accessing his computer. You're really paranoid. There's no evidence I'm not over your house, as a japanese woman, stomping your cat to death... BUT IT'S ME, SO IT MUST BE TRUE. Do all black people steal TVs too?
HOLY HELL DO YOU MEAN THAT ALL MY INTERNET TRAFFIC IS UNENCRYPTED AND CAN BE SEEN BY ANYONE ON THE INTERNET?
Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything.
Chances of this turning into some giant impeachment proceeding? Nil. Why? Because similar to the pen registers (which are also warrantless), there is no assumption of privacy on the internet. Everything sent in plaintext is plain to see. Now, should the NSA be required to get a warrant to break the encryption on encrypted data? Yes, there is an assumption of privacy. Can they log it without breaking it? Absolutely. Having your encrypted data in still encrypted format does not violate your privacy.
Dear lord, stop bitching and actually start thinking it through. You're telling me none of you have ever fired up ettercap or whatever at the office?
It was chosen as the obvious contrast to dKos since they constantly are comparing penis, oops, scandal sizes.
But thank you for illustrating my point that you didn't read the link for the compare-and-contrast piece mirrored on footballs. Hopefully people who do check sources will click around a bit rather then buying party-line blogs either way.
I'd like to point out...
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
1) I found the historical elements of the book the very compelling - again, while I didn't check facts, I didn't feel I needed to.
And that's exactly the problem. You look at things like the Rather reporting on George Bush and the blatent falsehoods and the Republicans do it so much better then the Democrats. How many people pledged to defeat the Patriot Act only to sell you out and vote for it? But that might not be important to you, that might count as fact-checking. You look at the careful review done about the CBS memo and it becomes startlingly clear that fact checking is not only encouraged in politics, it's required. If dKos is urging you not to trust the people making up the government, then the least you can do is fact check the book. If you don't trust one, why would you even consider trusting the other?
The problem with politics is that people turn their brains off and don't do fact checking. Everyone has their own dollars at stake, they're going to say whatever it takes to get more of those dollars. How many Democrats said they would defeat Bush and the Patriot Act simply to turn around and vote to renew it?
You should also check out http://mclub.te.net.ua and see their selection. As far as I know, these guys are newer then the Russian site, but offer the same services.
I can't speak for the community in general, but RPMs are the number 1 reason I started to avoid redhat. The idea that the build script et al is inside the package and kept away from the user is pretty absurd in my opinion. This was what drove me into the arms of BSD. Linux called me back for it's hardware support, but after a decision like this, I'll be hard pressed to stick with gentoo. Or, another perspective, how is this not debian, once and again?
Well if you've used a SUN recently (I have one on my desk at work), you'd probably know they have a full 8-something extra buttons. These include cut, copy, paste, stop, volume, and other such nonsense like that. To be honest, I don't use them, except for STOP. The new ones have USB connections on the back, so they're actually somewhat nice because they plug into anything. Having extra buttons can be fun if you like to play with your keyboard mapping.
If you want to go the other direction, the whole wearables scene has come up with some good ones, especially the twiddler.
And finally, if you're interested in other keyboards that might be questionably functional but still look cool, you can find virtual keyboards, a lit keyboard, and a rollable keyboard. But I think in your situation, you might find the twiddler the best bet for "cool and useful item".
About a month ago, someone posted this story over on K5 regarding the google dance. Good to see it's run by a marketing site, I couldn't think of anyone who might have more of an interest in rankings then those bastards.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Problem #1 with your post is that the internet is neither secure nor insecure, it's not supposed to be one or the other so that it can be either one. I'm saying if you're too lazy to encrypt your traffic, you can't really bitch when people listen in.
Please, think of the periods. It's to the left of the question mark.
I assume when I walk outside everyday it would be possible for someone to mug me and take my wallet. It would be possible for the local police to mug me and take my wallet. But you can sure as heck bet I would be upset if they were to do it. And frankly I would be more upset because they are suppose to be the people out there watching my back.
How is this even a comparison? OK, the internet is like a blue giraffe. A big blue giraffe made of lead. And candy, you like candies don't you?
The NSA thinks they are helping us but they aren't. And I certainly hope more and more people are able to wake up to this fact. Its creepy, unethical, and I think easily outsmarted by the very dangerous people it is intended to catch.
Yes, Mr Bond, I'm sure you have firsthand knowledge of all the programs and their effectiveness. Clearly the NSA sucks, because they're not doing their job and we've had 1 billion terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 11th. But it's a big coverup. right?
Which is not a crime. The point of the original post was that if the traffic is unencrypted, the person hasn't gone to any length to make it private. There's many anonymous peering applications out there the very least is browsing with HTTPS instead of HTTP.
You don't seem to understand the idea that packets on the internet arn't a phone conversation between two people, it's a bunch of people all hollering in a common room all at once. Unless you come up with some kind of code to talk to your peer, why would you expect it to be private?
Done.
(Unless you're some type of paranoid loon making assumptions about things...)
I will call Judge Judy and get the paperwork going?
What you expect to be private has no bearing on reality, unfortunately. I don't quite understand your point. If you want it to be private, encrypt it. If you're a lazy bastard and can't figure it out, don't call for legislation. The last thing we need are more laws trying to protect us from ourselves. That's how the whole "net neutrality" thing got going, people are making laws while not knowing squat about what's involved.
That's a very valid point and the problem with FISA is that it's a secret court. I'm going to put on my speculation tin hat here and say that it's very likely the NSA is looking for specific patterns of data going to and coming from organizations abroad. They're not interested in American citizens beyond "Person X talked to Person Y who talked to Person Z who talked to Terrorist Organization" or whatever.
But of course, we'll never know. Secret courts don't make for fantastic transparency to those being governed, although it is re-assuring that discretion was the better part of valor when you were working in the industry.
You've pretty much cut the legs out from under your own case.
They have the tools necessary to try to decrypt it, so why shouldn't they?
Because there's these pesky things called "laws" and "courts". Gathing evidence illegally makes it inadmissible. The problem with going after American citizens is the fact that there has to be a trial. It may take awhile, but prosecuting on this would require a trial which would require legal evidence gathering. Unlike the grey area of arresting terrorists abroad, American citizens are protected by miles of case-law. Thank Nixon for that.
True, there's no evidence that's been made public. Yet. But if you think they're going to sit on encrypted data that they intercept and not do anything with it then you are in real need of a reality check.
You need the reality check, they're not looking at it for the same reason I'm not looking at every packet in a log when trying to diagnose a problem: They only have so many people and so much time. All the legal stuff aside, the volume of traffic is staggering. How many records does the government keep around unexamined? Well, we still don't know who shot Kennnedy...
Do you really that the NSA is just archiving all this data to tape, hoping that if they need to decrypt it at some unknown future date that they would first go get a court order? If you do then I have a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you.
I'd really that bridge...
Well the problem is you don't have any evidence to assert your idea. There is wiretapping, so it absolutely must be illegal, right? That's a bad way of thinking, I don't want to be arrested next time my server is acting strange and I fireup ettercap. I MIGHT be listening in on your voip call, or I might be fixing my server, but I still should be arrested for wiretapping, right? There is no reason to assume wrongdoing. I think a lot of this hubub is because Joe Sixpack doesn't realize I can download his porn collection updates without accessing his computer. You're really paranoid. There's no evidence I'm not over your house, as a japanese woman, stomping your cat to death... BUT IT'S ME, SO IT MUST BE TRUE. Do all black people steal TVs too?
HOLY HELL DO YOU MEAN THAT ALL MY INTERNET TRAFFIC IS UNENCRYPTED AND CAN BE SEEN BY ANYONE ON THE INTERNET?
Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything.
Chances of this turning into some giant impeachment proceeding? Nil. Why? Because similar to the pen registers (which are also warrantless), there is no assumption of privacy on the internet. Everything sent in plaintext is plain to see. Now, should the NSA be required to get a warrant to break the encryption on encrypted data? Yes, there is an assumption of privacy. Can they log it without breaking it? Absolutely. Having your encrypted data in still encrypted format does not violate your privacy.
Dear lord, stop bitching and actually start thinking it through. You're telling me none of you have ever fired up ettercap or whatever at the office?
It was chosen as the obvious contrast to dKos since they constantly are comparing penis, oops, scandal sizes.
But thank you for illustrating my point that you didn't read the link for the compare-and-contrast piece mirrored on footballs. Hopefully people who do check sources will click around a bit rather then buying party-line blogs either way.
1) I found the historical elements of the book the very compelling - again, while I didn't check facts, I didn't feel I needed to.
And that's exactly the problem. You look at things like the Rather reporting on George Bush and the blatent falsehoods and the Republicans do it so much better then the Democrats. How many people pledged to defeat the Patriot Act only to sell you out and vote for it? But that might not be important to you, that might count as fact-checking. You look at the careful review done about the CBS memo and it becomes startlingly clear that fact checking is not only encouraged in politics, it's required. If dKos is urging you not to trust the people making up the government, then the least you can do is fact check the book. If you don't trust one, why would you even consider trusting the other?
The problem with politics is that people turn their brains off and don't do fact checking. Everyone has their own dollars at stake, they're going to say whatever it takes to get more of those dollars. How many Democrats said they would defeat Bush and the Patriot Act simply to turn around and vote to renew it?
Will I be able to flash between 1.5 and 2.0 as much as I want?
Does Norton see this as Brick.Trojan?
Oops, that was the OTHER MegaCorp's product... Sorry, carry on.
Slashdot has just joined K5 on the topic of politics.
/. honored their mantra of "news for nerds". Stick to tech; I get cable TV. It comes with the modem.
Linking to just one news source is just promoting a particular spin on the issue and makes no strides for a comprehensive presentation.
For this shit, I could turn on my TV.
I would really prefer if
You should also check out http://mclub.te.net.ua and see their selection. As far as I know, these guys are newer then the Russian site, but offer the same services.
I can't speak for the community in general, but RPMs are the number 1 reason I started to avoid redhat. The idea that the build script et al is inside the package and kept away from the user is pretty absurd in my opinion. This was what drove me into the arms of BSD. Linux called me back for it's hardware support, but after a decision like this, I'll be hard pressed to stick with gentoo. Or, another perspective, how is this not debian, once and again?
Well if you've used a SUN recently (I have one on my desk at work), you'd probably know they have a full 8-something extra buttons. These include cut, copy, paste, stop, volume, and other such nonsense like that. To be honest, I don't use them, except for STOP. The new ones have USB connections on the back, so they're actually somewhat nice because they plug into anything. Having extra buttons can be fun if you like to play with your keyboard mapping.
If you want to go the other direction, the whole wearables scene has come up with some good ones, especially the twiddler.
And finally, if you're interested in other keyboards that might be questionably functional but still look cool, you can find virtual keyboards, a lit keyboard, and a rollable keyboard. But I think in your situation, you might find the twiddler the best bet for "cool and useful item".
About a month ago, someone posted this story over on K5 regarding the google dance. Good to see it's run by a marketing site, I couldn't think of anyone who might have more of an interest in rankings then those bastards. :P