81–90 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it to be the direct consequence of institutionalization.
We will continue to differ about this. I consider public institutions to be more responsive than you do, so I suppose we are looking at it from quite different perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reckon you could use link honeypots to prove emails are being read. Send out enough emails from many accounts with links that aren't meant to be followed and see how many are followed and what IP addresses the links are followed from. If you do that across enough accounts, you should be able to figure out whose accounts are being wiretapped. I'm sure there are other types of honeypots that could be set up.
Ah, hmn, that's a more-clever plan than any of mine. BUT I'm still a little skeptical, though maybe the details could be worked-out. I mean, if you send the emails to fake users, then the NSA isn't likely to follow the links. And if you send emails to real users, then you have trouble proving it wasn't the real user (owner of the mailbox) who followed the link. I mean, the IP addresses do help... unless the snoopers…
Generating messages could be done using Markov chains that learn from the content across many of their own mailboxes. Before that Markov generator is used, it could be scrubbed of any words that are particularly sensitive because they refer to classified or secret material.
That's just one idea. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I hope security researchers are already working on such honeypots. Personally, I think every major newspaper should be among the first to implement honeypots. Alternatively, people who thinks they are at risk for surveillance or suspect that they are already being surveilled should be able to submit their email to some watchdog group that can set up the honeypot on their behalf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish this plan of yours made any sense. Btw, IANAL. First of all, I strongly disagree with "enough evidence now". Next, to sue successfully, you need to prove that the thing happened (and that it happened in a way or in a place where the relevant law claims jurisdiction). How will your imagined plaintiffs get actual evidence? Subpoena the companies? Seriously, imagine you're a successful, law-abiding, US company. A…
I reckon you could use link honeypots to prove emails are being read. Send out enough emails from many accounts with links that aren't meant to be followed and see how many are followed and what IP addresses the links are followed from. If you do that across enough accounts, you should be able to figure out whose accounts are being wiretapped. I'm sure there are other types of honeypots that could be set up.
The implications are more serious than immunity for NSA actions. This law could circumvent the breaking of ALL and ANY laws by these companies. After such a law is passed, companies may not have to be accountable to anyone. When questioned, they can lie about it and say the NSA said so. They don't need to release transparency reports cuz the NSA said so. Any tech company can lie to the Privacy Commissioner cuz the NS…
The only thing the NSA is accomplishing right now are encouraging innovations in privacy to help people avoid detection. And, gosh, I wonder who will be the first to seize onto that? Mmm, criminals perhaps?
Innovations like Tor, BitCoin, PGP, and TLS?
plaintext: "Don't you wished everybody used Ivory(tm) soap?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We will continue to differ about this. I consider public institutions to be more responsive than you do, so I suppose we are looking at it from quite different perspectives.
It's not about responsiveness as much as it is about self-interest and bureaucratic thinking that is inherent in all institutions.
Argh. Important subject material, crappy article, lots of confusion, argh argh argh. TL;DR: everything about the WAY this story was reported is an obvious deception. First, methodology. This is blogspam that adds nothing to the original article at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF9BC1BF-34EB-41... (at least they link it). That article, in turn, cites no sources. So I'm basing the following only on those…
I've had that reaction so many times now that I eventually stopped clicking on any story from there. All they ever do is pander to their readers' preconceptions. With friends like these, we don't need enemies.
An interesting tidbit from this article is the quote of the quote of the quote of Gen. Alexander asking for an intentionally "ill-defined" law. I've never heard of such a strategy before. Is this a new thing, or are there documented examples of laws that were made intentionally vague in order to give their beneficiaries more power or latitude than anyone would rationally agree to explicitly? Off the top of my head, F…
Section 215 of the Patriot Act has a secret interpretation