261–270 of 273 posts
arpwatch running on an edge router of mine tells me that there's a host with a DoD-registered IP address connected to my (major US) ISP network segment, which I know for a fact contains both business and residential subscribers. I port scanned it when I first discovered it just to say 'hello', and I have little doubt that a dragnet surveillance apparatus lives on the other side of that firewall. Governments have util…
This post makes no sense whatsoever, for a whole lot of reasons. 1. If this were some covertly installed device, would it have a government attributable IP address? 2. If it were being used for surveillance, why would it be visible at all, instead of being on the other side of a passive optical tap? 3. If it’s really on the same broadcast domain as you, and on some other IP subnet, how can you talk to it? 4. You can…
2. Not something we can answer. Why would it need to be invisible to function as network surveillance?
3. It is on the same broadcast domain, which is how my edge router is able to 'talk' to it.
4. See response to #1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on. It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Think what you like, just don’t misinform the reader.
> He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on. What else would you call a disgruntled SharePoint admin who shows up unannounced on your figurative doorstep with an enormous volume of classified material belonging to an adversary? > It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore…
Your comments make it clear you are not aware of the realities of the story: https://www.dw.com/en/snowden-sought-refuge-among-hong-kongs...
or you believe some of them have been broadly misrepresented by multiple sources
and you’re failing to say that, which is a waste of the reader’s time - and mine.
Say what you’re trying to say - or bugger off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I think the Left's attitude of making civil institutions socially radioactive has contributed more to the decay than people burning out from within. You speak as if "the man" is by definition "on the wrong side" (i.e. lacking conscience), but there is no "man", just a body of civil servants trying to do what they think is right, for varying definitions of right. After all, isn't that what folks were out…
You're assuming that I subscribe to the left-right paradigm and that I am an American but that is not the case. The way I see it the modern American left-right paradigm that you identify with is the problem. The little gotchas that you describe with people who complained about DOGE or ACAB are the problem. Modern America itself is the problem. Modern Americans lack the mental capacity to reason about this. I don't me…
Not really. And you can choose to not subscribe to a "left-right paradigm", but it remains a functional reality in the US. Not believing in something doesn't always make it less real!
> Modern America itself is the problem. Modern Americans lack the mental capacity to reason about this.
This is a wildly arrogant take. I don't necessarily disagree that there are (a lot of!) real problems with "Modern America", but writing an entire country off, as an outsider, is incredibly self-centered.
> You can put as many friendly people as you can find in the police force, and the same with the NSA and CIA, but it would be just as futile as doing the same with the Stasi, the KGB or the GRU.
This is completely incorrect. If the government behind any of the examples you cited were actually full of "friendly people", those organizations would never have reached the points the did, or done the things they did.
You have a weirdly immutable view of the world, as if completely changing the moral and ethical makeup of entire governments would somehow have no effect on the actions that government takes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes that frees the people with a conscience to work on endeavours that challenge these corrupt institutions. That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. What happens when people with conscience leave legitimate institutions is that they lose legitimacy. Now you have a legitimate institution with power and no conscience, and a myriad of non-legitimate institutions with little power and some consci…
> That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. It has in the past. What changed?
Organizations are always reflections of the individuals of which they exist, in aggregate. I think that has always been true, and always will be true. It's sort of true by definition?
I mean, unless you're talking about revolutions, I suppose, but that's usually the end result of the ruling class distilling their support structure too much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even an office PBX has listen, whisper and barge. Why wouldn't a telco-grade switch have it?
Sure. Nothing surprising in and of itself. But allowing law enforcement to access that system without a warrant is a clear 4th amendment violation.
"With all due respect, Cindy, you don’t know if they are classified since they don’t have to have markings and can still be classified. Only we can tell. And if they are classified, you are likely in trouble." That's awfully convenient. Impossible to check if something's classified, but you can still go to jail over it.
Was it enforceable, or was it more like those emails where it is mentioned something on the lines of: > "if you were not the intended recipient and you received it anyway and read it but you were not meant to, you can be prosecuted"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Encrypt everything, all the time, everywhere, use quantum hardened encryption wherever possible.
This does not work if your communication enpoint is the same as your encryption endpoint. Or you don't control your key material. Or your tech supply chain. Or leave your device unattended. Or aren't susceptible to the same "five dollar wrench" attacks used by certain in-person Bitcoin wallet thievestgat are also available to state actors. I could go on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you have reality and "laws".
In this case we have law, which gives effect to treaties and binds the employees of the intelligence agencies, and then we have the unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you have reality and "laws".
In this case we have law, which gives effect to treaties and binds the employees of the intelligence agencies, and then we have the unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here.
Imagine my nonsurprise, stumbling upon more evidence for your (bigfatkitten) having a lack of essential information from the Snowden disclosures, and colloquial explanations of operations during interviews and talks.
Contested. Very supported theories.