If there was a group or organization that opposed the ACLU in every case, that took the opposite positions, I would probably be willing to contribute a modest amount.
Here you go:
Gifts to the United States
US Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway Room 622D
Hyattsville MD 20782
Also, don't forget theseassholes. Really excellent work from all of them in combating the reckless and dangerous excesses of the Founding Fathers. No organizations have worked so tirelessly as these have to free us from the tyranny of freedom — to liberate us from the chains of liberty — as these wise and righteous men and women of authority.
As it is, the only civil liberties organization I belong to is the NRA.
Best of luck retaining the one amendment in the Bill of Rights you seem to think is worth keeping — enjoy your ridiculous fantasy, pretending that you'll be entrusted with one amendment after having cheered on the demise of the others. The Bill of Rights isn't a fucking à la carte menu; if one amendment is in danger, so are the others.
Once the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly subverted, suspended, repealed, and forgotten... much of the blame will lie with the self-absorbed, naïve, short-sighted partisans who thought they could pick and choose which parts were essential liberties.
You missed the point, all those guys do is beg for money and produce no results, so go spend your 10$, maybe they will send a cardboard brick in your name to some clueless guy who is wondering where these damned cardboard bricks are coming from!
I'm not a member of the EFF, and I don't keep very close an eye on what they are (or aren't) doing, though I do make use of the quality tools and informational resources on their website.
I've been a member of the ACLU though since I turned eighteen though, and it is quite obvious to me that they produce results; they always in court — fighting for rights of everyone under US jurisdiction. It was ACLU's frequent appearance in mainstream news stories that led me to join in the first place, as it was obvious that they were doing something.
EFF is much smaller though, so of course they're not going to show up in the press or courts as frequently. Below are figures comparing ACLU and EFF for fiscal year ending 2011 — by the way, note where the dollar signs are positioned (i.e., to the left of the numeric values):
ACLU
Total Revenue: $80,607,745
Program Expenses: $60,521,983
Working Capital: $232,519,493
EFF
Total Revenue: $5,536,559
Program Expenses: $2,805,604
Working Capital: $7,693,463
[T]he stated situation is that the people, (phone companies collect data for traffic shaping too), are collecting metadata which is just phone numbers and IP addresses, it's not content, no-one cares about your porn or gambling habits, so don't flatter yourself by thinking that anyone gives a shit about you political views, until you visit the wrong sites.
Oh... Well, okay everybody, this AC says there's nothing to worry about — so, show's over, everyone back to work.
I see, we're supposed to trust this bunch who offer no http services but only https via a certificate which is not valid for their domain, are we? They take security really, really seriously, do they? How, exactly? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit feeble? Some of the commenters here are praising this site but what I can see of it is not at all reassuring...
What the hell are you talking about? That's a valid cert issued by a reputable CA for *.boum.org, and is therefore valid for tails.boum.org:
Certification path for "*.boum.org" Subject: OU=Domain Control Validated,OU=Gandi Standard Wildcard SSL,CN=*.boum.org Issuer: C=FR,O=GANDI SAS,CN=Gandi Standard SSL CA Validity: from 2013.01.03 00:00:00 UTC to 2015.01.03 23:59:59 UTC
Further, why the hell would you prefer HTTP for any reason? What security advantages does HTTP have over HTTPS via wrong and/or expired cert? No matter how illegitimate certificate may appear, I'll take it over transferring plaintext.
People who vote for either of the two main parties are incredibly idiotic, so this isn't much of a surprise.
I agree, and I want to add that among those voters, the worst (in my opinion) are those who're able to abandon their own principles on a critical non-partisan issue based upon whether there's a Demoblican or a Republocrat in office. I can't wrap my head around it, but I find it appalling — they've got zero fucking integrity* and have no business in a voting booth.
One basic example: iTunes (Updater) in Windows has a Label element with text such as "...blah blah blah, for more information, click this URL: ". To the right of the "URL" text is a Hyperlink control that is independent of that Label control containing the hyperlink. It is positioned explicitly so it fits the flow of text (at normal DPI). When you change the DPI in Windows, the text in the label changes position relative to the Hyperlink control, and the text overlaps.
Malware authors tend not to be overly concerned with the client's UI.
There is video of Saddam Hussein doing the same thing with a big shit eating grin smoking a cigar to wild applause by visibly terrified military people sitting in theater seating. The ones he's picking out of the crowd are escorted out of the room and executed. Not sure where I saw it, I think it was History Channel, years ago.
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.
Whereas I gave you the benefit of the doubt, (and provided a source to support my position,) you've somehow definitively assessed the reliability of fingerprinting, and conclusively determined that I've been misled. As such, I provide the following sources discussing the poor reliability of fingerprinting (in chronological order, 2001-2013) so that others can steer clear and avoid being misled like I was:
Its just that the numbering system was only intended to allow a computer sort of likely candidates for manual inspection, but because manual inspection takes some time and training, some jurisdictions will go just by the numeric analysis, and further they will accept fewer and fewer actual features to match, especially when partial prints are all they have.
It's "just that," hm? Sounds legit — though I fail to see how this demonstrates that fingerprinting is "far more reliable than [I've]have been led to believe."
Defense lawyers delight in bringing in their own fingerprint expert and showing up the state, especially when its as easy as showing the jury two full sets of prints. Things become very obvious very quickly.
What has this got to do with the reliability of fingerprinting? You wanna know what I'd delight in, is you providing some evidence that supports your claim that fingerprinting is far more reliable I've been led to believe.
Now this is what I have to consider if I want to apply for a driver's license? Choosing between the privilege of travelling and being a false positive in some FBI chase?
Travel is a right not a "privilege," governments' opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. Those propaganda posters in your local DMV are just that — propaganda. Free travel included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but considering how much weight even the Constitution has in this country, I don't expect the situation to change for the better.
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Please see PBS's Frontline: The Real CSI for an overview of some of the terrible shit that happened (and is still happening) thanks for forensic "science" — to quote from Twelve Monkeys, "Science ain't an exact science with these clowns." I've provided links to the aforementioned documentary below:
I've been using Safe-Mail (on account of Hushmail's three-week inactive account deletion); so far I haven't been disappointed. Yes, it's run from USA's best pal Israel, but as far as I'm aware, Israel isn't shy about asserting sovereignty (though by no means would I count on that to keep a web-mail account private). I've been unable to find a private/secure web-mail provider located in a place with chilly US relations — Safe-Mail is the best I've come up with so far.
I agree with you; I support immediate public disclosure as well.
The reasons I wrote what I did last night were that a) I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion into one about immediate versus "responsible disclosure" in general, and b) I wanted to make a point that might persuade those in support of "responsible disclosure" that Microsoft has shown that it doesn't deserve whatever benefits it may receive from the practice, since they've been colluding with a known hacker organization that's been violating our constitutional rights for years.
Further, in my view the software industry (as a whole) has shown that it doesn't genuinely support "responsible disclosure," what with all the cases we've heard about in which white-hats have been thanked with prosecution, intimidation, academic expulsion, etcetera, for trying to "do the right thing." Thus, I support immediate disclosure not as a form of (unjust) collective punishment against software vendors, but as an act of self-preservation, while acting to inform the greatest number of potential victims so that they may take defensive action (as you pointed out).
For anyone who just want the encryption https provides, you can enter https manually and accept the "wrong domain" warning; I've done so, and confirmed that the kay.ph certificate is compatible.
KAT has been pretty diligent about their certs, so they should have one for.to soon.
I read in one article that they've turned down exactly one request in their history. Which is a scary thought- what on earth did that request contain that even they couldn't bring themselves to rubber-stamp it?
It seems to me that when Microsoft's involved, "responsible disclosure" guidelines should be adjusted to immediate public release, as long as MS is feeding exploits to hackers before fixing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Here you go:
Gifts to the United States
US Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway Room 622D
Hyattsville MD 20782
Also, don't forget these assholes. Really excellent work from all of them in combating the reckless and dangerous excesses of the Founding Fathers. No organizations have worked so tirelessly as these have to free us from the tyranny of freedom — to liberate us from the chains of liberty — as these wise and righteous men and women of authority.
Best of luck retaining the one amendment in the Bill of Rights you seem to think is worth keeping — enjoy your ridiculous fantasy, pretending that you'll be entrusted with one amendment after having cheered on the demise of the others. The Bill of Rights isn't a fucking à la carte menu; if one amendment is in danger, so are the others.
Once the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly subverted, suspended, repealed, and forgotten... much of the blame will lie with the self-absorbed, naïve, short-sighted partisans who thought they could pick and choose which parts were essential liberties.
You missed the point, all those guys do is beg for money and produce no results, so go spend your 10$, maybe they will send a cardboard brick in your name to some clueless guy who is wondering where these damned cardboard bricks are coming from!
I'm not a member of the EFF, and I don't keep very close an eye on what they are (or aren't) doing, though I do make use of the quality tools and informational resources on their website.
I've been a member of the ACLU though since I turned eighteen though, and it is quite obvious to me that they produce results; they always in court — fighting for rights of everyone under US jurisdiction. It was ACLU's frequent appearance in mainstream news stories that led me to join in the first place, as it was obvious that they were doing something.
EFF is much smaller though, so of course they're not going to show up in the press or courts as frequently. Below are figures comparing ACLU and EFF for fiscal year ending 2011 — by the way, note where the dollar signs are positioned (i.e., to the left of the numeric values):
ACLU
Total Revenue: $80,607,745
Program Expenses: $60,521,983
Working Capital: $232,519,493
EFF
Total Revenue: $5,536,559
Program Expenses: $2,805,604
Working Capital: $7,693,463
[T]he stated situation is that the people, (phone companies collect data for traffic shaping too), are collecting metadata which is just phone numbers and IP addresses, it's not content, no-one cares about your porn or gambling habits, so don't flatter yourself by thinking that anyone gives a shit about you political views, until you visit the wrong sites.
Oh... Well, okay everybody, this AC says there's nothing to worry about — so, show's over, everyone back to work.
EFF is a joke, I fully expected that to ask for a 10$ donation to keep you the user, secure
Whoa, $10 (optional) for EFF to help keep me secure from NSA & friends' ~$10 billion (taken by force) to make me insecure? What a rip...
I see, we're supposed to trust this bunch who offer no http services but only https via a certificate which is not valid for their domain, are we? They take security really, really seriously, do they? How, exactly? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit feeble? Some of the commenters here are praising this site but what I can see of it is not at all reassuring...
What the hell are you talking about? That's a valid cert issued by a reputable CA for *.boum.org, and is therefore valid for tails.boum.org:
Certification path for "*.boum.org"
Subject: OU=Domain Control Validated,OU=Gandi Standard Wildcard SSL,CN=*.boum.org
Issuer: C=FR,O=GANDI SAS,CN=Gandi Standard SSL CA
Validity: from 2013.01.03 00:00:00 UTC to 2015.01.03 23:59:59 UTC
Further, why the hell would you prefer HTTP for any reason? What security advantages does HTTP have over HTTPS via wrong and/or expired cert? No matter how illegitimate certificate may appear, I'll take it over transferring plaintext.
People who vote for either of the two main parties are incredibly idiotic, so this isn't much of a surprise.
I agree, and I want to add that among those voters, the worst (in my opinion) are those who're able to abandon their own principles on a critical non-partisan issue based upon whether there's a Demoblican or a Republocrat in office. I can't wrap my head around it, but I find it appalling — they've got zero fucking integrity* and have no business in a voting booth.
* Just like the D/R candidates.
For those interested, here are the full results from Pew Research's domestic surveillance poll, showing additional demographic breakdowns.
One basic example: iTunes (Updater) in Windows has a Label element with text such as "...blah blah blah, for more information, click this URL: ". To the right of the "URL" text is a Hyperlink control that is independent of that Label control containing the hyperlink. It is positioned explicitly so it fits the flow of text (at normal DPI). When you change the DPI in Windows, the text in the label changes position relative to the Hyperlink control, and the text overlaps.
Malware authors tend not to be overly concerned with the client's UI.
There is video of Saddam Hussein doing the same thing with a big shit eating grin smoking a cigar to wild applause by visibly terrified military people sitting in theater seating. The ones he's picking out of the crowd are escorted out of the room and executed. Not sure where I saw it, I think it was History Channel, years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm64E5R12s8
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.
Whereas I gave you the benefit of the doubt, (and provided a source to support my position,) you've somehow definitively assessed the reliability of fingerprinting, and conclusively determined that I've been misled. As such, I provide the following sources discussing the poor reliability of fingerprinting (in chronological order, 2001-2013) so that others can steer clear and avoid being misled like I was:
Fingerprinting's Reliability Draws Growing Court Challenges
Will Fingerprinting Stand Up in Court?
Investigation: Forensic evidence in the dock
The Real Crime: 1,000 Errors in Fingerprint Matching Every Year
Study questions reliability of fingerprint evidence
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific
Deeper into forensic bias
Fingerprint [Validity]
Its just that the numbering system was only intended to allow a computer sort of likely
candidates for manual inspection, but because manual inspection takes some time
and training, some jurisdictions will go just by the numeric analysis, and further
they will accept fewer and fewer actual features to match, especially when partial
prints are all they have.
It's "just that," hm? Sounds legit — though I fail to see how this demonstrates that fingerprinting is "far more reliable than [I've]have been led to believe."
Defense lawyers delight in bringing in their own fingerprint expert and showing up
the state, especially when its as easy as showing the jury two full sets of
prints. Things become very obvious very quickly.
What has this got to do with the reliability of fingerprinting? You wanna know what I'd delight in, is you providing some evidence that supports your claim that fingerprinting is far more reliable I've been led to believe.
Hey.. would ya pass me the constitution.. I need some more ass wipes.
"What [DHS] thinks about the Fifth Amendment"
Your username nicely captures my response to this ruling.
Now this is what I have to consider if I want to apply for a driver's license? Choosing between the privilege of travelling and being a false positive in some FBI chase?
Travel is a right not a "privilege," governments' opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. Those propaganda posters in your local DMV are just that — propaganda. Free travel included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but considering how much weight even the Constitution has in this country, I don't expect the situation to change for the better.
Well, guys. You voted your politicians into office yourselves ;)
I didn't; I always vote Green or Libertarian, but not enough others value their civil liberties enough to join me.
[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.
Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.
Please see PBS's Frontline: The Real CSI for an overview of some of the terrible shit that happened (and is still happening) thanks for forensic "science" — to quote from Twelve Monkeys, "Science ain't an exact science with these clowns." I've provided links to the aforementioned documentary below:
https://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258
http://kickass.to/pbs-frontline-the-real-csi-2012-480p-hdtv-x264-karma-t6324747.html
This illustrates the differences between ideologies: You libertarians don't want any monitoring. We liberals want limited monitoring.
Speak for yourself.
Just a note on hushmail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_privacy
Thanks for that important tip.
I've been using Safe-Mail (on account of Hushmail's three-week inactive account deletion); so far I haven't been disappointed. Yes, it's run from USA's best pal Israel, but as far as I'm aware, Israel isn't shy about asserting sovereignty (though by no means would I count on that to keep a web-mail account private). I've been unable to find a private/secure web-mail provider located in a place with chilly US relations — Safe-Mail is the best I've come up with so far.
EFF Action: Demand Answers Now! [Direct e-mail form to contact POTUS and your senators+House rep]:
https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9260
https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9297 [Form for non-US citizens; directed at implicated corporations]
The links below are to resources of the personal-privacy type, as opposed to the those intended to help bring about change:
EFF Surveillance Self-Defense Project [Guide to surveillance-avoidance tools and techniques for individuals]:
https://ssd.eff.org/
EFF's HTTPS Everywhere [Chrome/FF plug-in enforces HTTPS on compatible sites using rule-list (hundreds included)]:
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
https-finder: Plug-in for HTTPS Everywhere users; auto-detects sites' HTTPS support and adds them to rule-list:
https://code.google.com/p/https-finder/
Privacy-oriented search engines:
https://duckduckgo.com/ [Only search engine on EFF's Organizational Member list]
https://ixquick.com/ [Provides HTTPS proxy through which search results may be accessed]
Privacy/security-oriented free web-mail providers:
https://www.safe-mail.net/
https://www.hushmail.com/
ACLU anti-surveillance petition:
https://www.aclu.org/secure/repeal-the-surveillance-state2
I agree with you; I support immediate public disclosure as well.
The reasons I wrote what I did last night were that a) I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion into one about immediate versus "responsible disclosure" in general, and b) I wanted to make a point that might persuade those in support of "responsible disclosure" that Microsoft has shown that it doesn't deserve whatever benefits it may receive from the practice, since they've been colluding with a known hacker organization that's been violating our constitutional rights for years.
Further, in my view the software industry (as a whole) has shown that it doesn't genuinely support "responsible disclosure," what with all the cases we've heard about in which white-hats have been thanked with prosecution, intimidation, academic expulsion, etcetera, for trying to "do the right thing." Thus, I support immediate disclosure not as a form of (unjust) collective punishment against software vendors, but as an act of self-preservation, while acting to inform the greatest number of potential victims so that they may take defensive action (as you pointed out).
Please don't give me the excuse that, if you look long and hard enough you may find a handful of legal torrents on the site.
I'm not sure what an "illegal" torrent is, but you might be interested in this: Law and Order SVU S14E24 720p HDTV X264-DIMENSION
For anyone who just want the encryption https provides, you can enter https manually and accept the "wrong domain" warning; I've done so, and confirmed that the kay.ph certificate is compatible.
KAT has been pretty diligent about their certs, so they should have one for .to soon.
http://kickass.to/
No https yet.
We all know riding a bike isn't dangerous enough.
Ugh... You sound like one of those "helicopter parents." I can imagine you following your poor kid around with one of these.
I read in one article that they've turned down exactly one request in their history. Which is a scary thought- what on earth did that request contain that even they couldn't bring themselves to rubber-stamp it?
The name of a fellow country club member?
It's all over the internet. Here for one:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/
It seems to me that when Microsoft's involved, "responsible disclosure" guidelines should be adjusted to immediate public release, as long as MS is feeding exploits to hackers before fixing them.