331–340 of 641 posts
Snowden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and the Vatican should consider canonizing him.
To be canonized you have to have performed a miracle, but If he somehow get's pardoned by the DoJ or the Obama administration we could probably consider that requirement met.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be completely correct and still be a crackpot. What we need is strict limitations on what can and should be collected, and how it's used, plus better methods of securing what's being exchanged. For example, sending email as plain-text, leaving it on the server as plain-text, maybe that's a bad idea. The NSA isn't necessarily the only reason you'd do this. Foreign governments are going to take an interest in t…
> You can be completely correct and still be a crackpot. This is very important. What do you mean by "crackpot"?
Suggesting that people abandon social networks, never own cellular phones, avoid using the web almost entirely, these are extreme positions. What makes them crazy is when he's an advocate that everyone should follow these edicts.
Surely it's some kind of "geek social fallacy" that's being applied here. Stallman has come up with what he perceives as the optimal strategy and anyone who diverges from this is doing it incorrectly, just as how free, open-source software is the only kind of software that's acceptable, and everything else is "evil".
A 'fun' bit of weasel-wording by the chairman of the House intelligence committee: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do." They seem to be denying it, but all they're really denying is that Snowden had access to the system personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is overwhelming. Even when you always hear the claims about we knew this was going on, somehow it is still shocking when you see it all laid out infront of you with screenshots and the capabilities described. It has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine recently to see self-aggrandizing comments from users around the net about how "we should have known" and "none of this is new." I'm a practically addicted news j…
I share your pet peeve and I can only assume that the "meh, no big surprise here" response stems from two things: wanting to sound just as knowledgeable as the person who brings up the topic (despite not having any new information); and at the same time justifying their complacency about the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is overwhelming. Even when you always hear the claims about we knew this was going on, somehow it is still shocking when you see it all laid out infront of you with screenshots and the capabilities described. It has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine recently to see self-aggrandizing comments from users around the net about how "we should have known" and "none of this is new." I'm a practically addicted news j…
First of all: keep the staggering to a minimum. Second: realizing that "we should have known" and "none of this is new" isn't so much about reading news articles and being "plugged in", but rather having an understanding of how the Internet works. To oversimplify greatly, you're essentially playing a very precise game of telephone between around 10-20 different people, and usually about 1-3 different publicly-owned c…
These are exactly the kinds of comments I'm talking about. The preponderance of people affected by this program on the globe (a staggering amount if you will) had no knowledge of this because the media failed, and are not, in fact, technically savvy on any level and don't understand, at all how the internet works in relation to the technologies employed by these programs.
>To be surprised at the possibility of storing packets is somewhat naive considering how simple it is to do.
For the vast majority of the potential consumers of this knowledge, this just simply is not the case. At all. They aren't being naive. This is highly technical to them and severely under-reported, and where it was reported it was not explained terribly well, nor was there meaningful conversation surrounding the reporting's aftermath.
But congratulations, rmrfrmrf, on being one of the select few that are not naive. We need to get you some sort of prize.
Most people might speak against it (include people here) but at the end, they have the "I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares, not worth the effort" mentality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can tap large Internet connections then you can siphon off all HTTP and SMTP traffic and from there it's trivial to reconstruct sessions and from there get application level stuff. I was doing similar things in the mid-1990s on shared Ethernet. It's really only a question of speed and scale and then of writing code that recognizes particular traffic (such as "this HTTP connection is a Facebook chat session").
My question is, if they did this, why did each company have it's own join date in the prism timeline? wouldn't it just all happen at once? if they were tapping pipelines then the data would be collected regardless of the system, yet they all had very distinct dates that they were onboarded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide...