Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#61

Post by kps »

krapp wrote: post #47
kps wrote: post #38

Another repeat of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7983124 And to repeat: the config file available from http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt says: /* These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums. */ Linux Journal is listed there, as a ‘website relating to TAILS’…

specifically: // START_DEFINITION /* These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums. */ $TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux' or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor '); $TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or…

Really that should be

  TAILS_terms=(word('tails')
               and word('linux' or ' USB ' or ' CD'
                        or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC '
                        or 'truecrypt' or ' tor '))
           or word('Amnesiac Incognito Live System');
because (1) you need to disambiguate the common word 'tails' but surely not the specific name 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System', and (2) you don't want to miss [tails CDROM].

See how important code review is?

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#62

Post by EthanHeilman »

GHFigs wrote: post #58
EthanHeilman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if they view the technologists as "incidentally" aiding the group with "nefarious intent". Remember a US president in our lifetime said: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[1] The treatment of Jacob Appelbaum[2] and David Miranda[3] suggests that members of US/UK Government may believe that if one provides "incidental help" to the current ideological enemies of the US you are a terroris…

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 does not require a person to be a "terrorist" or imply that anybody detained under its authority is thought to be one. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

Notice that I said, "Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act", this statement does not contradict your statement.

I am not a lawyer and I am in no way familiar with UK law, but my reading of the law is given below:

tdlr; Section 7 applies people that the officer wishes to determine are terrorists defined in Section 40(1)(b)[1]. It does not require evidence, but the purpose is to determine if the person is, in fact, a terrorist.

[1]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40

Section 7 states: "For the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are any persons whom he may wish to question under paragraph 2 an examining officer may—"

Paragraph 2 states: "An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)."

Section 40(1) (b) states: "In this Part “terrorist” means a person who— (a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or (b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#63

Post by _wp3r »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #62
GHFigs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 does not require a person to be a "terrorist" or imply that anybody detained under its authority is thought to be one. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

Notice that I said, "Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act", this statement does not contradict your statement. I am not a lawyer and I am in no way familiar with UK law, but my reading of the law is given below: tdlr; Section 7 applies people that the officer wishes to determine are terrorists defined in Section 40(1)(b)[1]. It does not require evidence, but the purpose is to determine if the pe…

This policy is significantly similar to the subpoena policy in most US states. With the exception of the questioning being court ordered. In most states police can detain and question numerous people in the course of an investigation without a subpoena.

If you were to have concern about the JA incident your primary argument should be with the seizure of assets not with the detention and questioning.

The presumed search of material on JA and his partner are the only issue that is not within the norm in the US, but is actively being deliberated about in the courts. The act of searching a cell phone specifically while you are detaining someone for questioning is being actively challenged in the court system.

In reference to schedule 7, the questioning of a concerned party within a specific context that is being used in the commision of crime is commonplace in most if not all policed states. For example a comparison would be the detention and questioning of Target IT department following the breach of their system last year. They are not a suspect but are directly concerned with the commision of that crime.

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#64

Post by GHFigs »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #62
GHFigs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 does not require a person to be a "terrorist" or imply that anybody detained under its authority is thought to be one. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

Notice that I said, "Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act", this statement does not contradict your statement. I am not a lawyer and I am in no way familiar with UK law, but my reading of the law is given below: tdlr; Section 7 applies people that the officer wishes to determine are terrorists defined in Section 40(1)(b)[1]. It does not require evidence, but the purpose is to determine if the pe…

You also said that "members of US/UK Government may believe that if one provides "incidental help" to the current ideological enemies of the US you are a terrorist/extremist", which you haven't shown at all, and that "at the very least targetable under terrorism laws", which is meaningless, because anybody crossing the border can be detained and questioned by that statute.

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#65

Post by rdtsc »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #22
rdtsc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one way that thought control works. Religion uses this, "don't think naughty thoughts, God will record it and you'll pay for it later". NSA is God except that NSA exists and is real. Here your search is a bit like your thoughts. Any of those things you listed, possibly could have landed you on the "naughty list". So now you start to really worry about what you search for. If you can't research or find info ab…

The flaw in the "thought control" premise is that the NSA never intended their monitoring to be revealed, so you'd never restrict your thoughts. Unless... Snowden is an NSA operation to subtly begin exerting thought control! Brilliant! Now that I think about it, "Snowden" even sounds like a codename for an NSA operation.

I didn't say it is conspiratorial and intentional. Of course they don't want those they monitor to know they are being monitored. The thought control element is a byproduct of constraints, rewards, and bureaucratic setup. So nobody probably sat down or met on some secret island to set this, but nevertheless that effect is there.

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#66

Post by gaius »

polymatter wrote: post #49
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you delve into that history even more, you'll note that it was accompanied by a pervasive sense of dread and fear even amongst those who were not being persecuted. In Nazi Germany, for instance, it was not just the Jews who lived in terror of the Stasi (edit: mixed up my history, not Stasi, but the "death squads" -- the Stasi came after the war, but even more feared), but all German citizens in general. The re…

The time to stop a totalitarian police state is _before_ it becomes a totalitarian police state. It gets a lot harder to stop afterwards.

As Bruce Schneieir says, it is poor civic hygiene to even let the systems be built in the first place. Unfortunately we are well past that point.

Re: NSA classifies Linux Journal readers as extremists

#67

Post by [deleted] »

GHFigs wrote: post #51
busterarm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the NSA is nuts then? Because that's what this leak seems to be implying. I have some pretty strange internet searches as well, but the cat is already out of the bag on that one I guess.

Because that's what this leak seems to be implying. Are you looking at the evidence or the articles written about it? Because the evidence is simply that there exists a method to select Tor-related traffic out of a stream. That alone is nothing. You know very little about what the input is or where the output goes, or what conclusions are drawn by the people analyzing it. To reach the paranoid conclusions that are ge…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN