401–410 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't believe everything you watch in hollywood movies.
Hollywood movies? I suppose all the USSR missiles were imaginary? They never really invaded Czechoslovakia?
The fact is reality is much more complex than your simple statement which is further skewed by Hollywood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tapping multi-mode dark fiber unnoticed is now considered trivially easy? I must have missed when the bar was shifted this high.
You don't need to tap dark fiber for this to be poor security. They were passing all internal data around in clear text. It would have been trivial for any data center employee to gain significant amounts of open data this way. Why wouldn't you have services, db connections, etc. encrypted internally? Its certainly possible and done within many companies, it is surprising how lax google was in their assumption that o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leahy is the author of CALEA, a surveillance law that is one big reason we're in this situation to begin with. He introduced portions of the Patriot Act under the name EPPSCA a year before the Sep. 11 attacks ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S58859 ). Leahy has sat on modest surveillance reform (requiring search warrants for email, cell phone location) for over three and a half years without advanc…
There is no technical solution that works when the federal government can seize/inspect/hack into any computer located in the United States or in friendly countries, as well as hack into computers anywhere in the world. They can then access the decryption private keys of anyone, and thus all encryption can be defeated, along with any other means of attempting to hide information from prying eyes. If Google itself is…
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths
Analogy with not using encryption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a dictionary defines chilling effects as the inhibition or discouragement of the exercise of your rights. Let me frame the thought by giving an example: if I am talking with someone, I might not say a few things because, hey, the TLA might care enough to pull the record and listen in. Or we take care to communicate with GPG or something. It inhibits what we do. We can still vote; our vote actually has meaning; our…
>our vote actually has meaning; our votes actually change the elected officials, etc. We still can run a socialist candidate (c.f. Kshama Sawant 2013 in Seattle) and they aren't shut down via police action or other hardcore discrimination. See, my theory, call me a tinfoil hatter if you will, is that we are on the brink of losing our votes. 1) Collect extensive data on any and all citizens. Any especially politically…
EVERYONE has dirt on them that they wouldn't want a hypocritically moralistic press to publish to the world with the worst possible spin on.
Either Presidents get access to some scary ass shit that makes them all immediately move hard to the right when they get in office or someone shows them their phone calls to their dealer in 1986 or the abortion clinic in 1997 or an email to an illicit lover or a gay experience at college or or or.
Occams razor would suggest that with the overwhelming superiority of the USA militarily and economically that there isn't some massive scary vulnerability that requires the maintenance and expansion of the security state therefore the second posit is more likely. Dirt. Lots of it. J Edgar Hoover with access to all of your inner most thoughts. That's what a google search is after all.
How many times have you heard something or read something and done a quick google, something that out of context would be dreadful? I for example ended up following some links from Reddit and ended up on a white nationalist site (the post was taking the piss out of their idiocy), I immediately clicked away from it thinking 'fuck, if the govt were to see that' (I am on a work visa here and have essentially no 4th amendment rights when seeking entry), pretty chilling already.
Now imagine being a politician. 'Candidate goes on storefront!' But I was just curious, following an internet thread...yeah right. Racist.
/end ramble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollywood movies? I suppose all the USSR missiles were imaginary? They never really invaded Czechoslovakia?
And I suppose you believe the US has single handed saved Europe from WWII, the Enigma machine was captured by the US crew of U-571 and Inglorious Bastards was fact. The fact is reality is much more complex than your simple statement which is further skewed by Hollywood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a dictionary defines chilling effects as the inhibition or discouragement of the exercise of your rights. Let me frame the thought by giving an example: if I am talking with someone, I might not say a few things because, hey, the TLA might care enough to pull the record and listen in. Or we take care to communicate with GPG or something. It inhibits what we do. We can still vote; our vote actually has meaning; our…
>our vote actually has meaning; our votes actually change the elected officials, etc. We still can run a socialist candidate (c.f. Kshama Sawant 2013 in Seattle) and they aren't shut down via police action or other hardcore discrimination. See, my theory, call me a tinfoil hatter if you will, is that we are on the brink of losing our votes. 1) Collect extensive data on any and all citizens. Any especially politically…
Remember, a great number of people have to be on board with restricting the TLAs in order for effective change to happen at the national level. While YOU might not want monitoring of influential activists, others might (and probably do). So your possible future might be a wanted one for segments of the population. Confine yourselves to facts and positives and you have a stronger base to work with rather than pushing fear (no one wants fear, everyone wants hope).
Understand that I'm not denying your hypothetical future. I'm simply convinced that a narrative not focused on "what-ifs" and fear will be more successful at winning support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no technical solution that works when the federal government can seize/inspect/hack into any computer located in the United States or in friendly countries, as well as hack into computers anywhere in the world. They can then access the decryption private keys of anyone, and thus all encryption can be defeated, along with any other means of attempting to hide information from prying eyes. If Google itself is…
I agree with your general premise and thesis, but the gun deaths from guns statistic, while pedantically accurate, ignores the context shown here: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths Analogy with not using encryption?
Now using encryption or not using encryption does not matter in the context of being monitored by the NSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>our vote actually has meaning; our votes actually change the elected officials, etc. We still can run a socialist candidate (c.f. Kshama Sawant 2013 in Seattle) and they aren't shut down via police action or other hardcore discrimination. See, my theory, call me a tinfoil hatter if you will, is that we are on the brink of losing our votes. 1) Collect extensive data on any and all citizens. Any especially politically…
I understand the implications of having surveillance and using that information to ... regulate... dissent to be acceptable dissent. I completely agree that we have wound up with certain things in place that are foundational to a police & authoritarian state. However , I don't see any direct evidence of police state action; no smoking gun if you will. So I believe it's better to confine ourselves to openly known fact…
I would argue that imagining what-if scenarios and disseminating that fear are the only way to prevent us from crossing the threshold where there's no turning back. Waiting for direct evidence of a police state is a losing battle. Just take a look at what a decade of the All-Seeing-NSA-deniers have brought us? Relying on the next Snowden to bring us hard evidence about intelligence activities is a losing proposition.