17
   

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 10:04 pm
@firefly,
You know I kind of missed you when you was keeping a low profile for some reason and not posting on the debate areas but come on you should not tell lies that are so self evidence such as that I have ever supported child porn or do not think it deserve punishments at roughly the level the UK now see fit to imposed.

Footnote for complete discloser as far as drawings of "underage" persons having sex or whatever such as cartoon characters the very idea that should be a crime no matter how distasteful a drawing might be is something I do not support as we have far better use for our courts and our prison cells.

Why are you in here in the big house oh they found me with a drawing of Lisa Simpson having hot sex with Krusty the Clown and Lisa is "underage". Give me a break.

Next the very idea that I think that all whites, all blacks, all Mexicans all Muslims, all Christians all atheists and on and on can be define by a label of one aspect of themselves is even more of a silly lie of your.

Too bad you feel you need to turn to personal attacks base on lies to hold your own.


0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 02:42 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

ha ha..my wife calls A2K my "imaginary friends"site...but she has never liked all the arguing my family does over facts and ideas so she was prejudiced from the get-go.


We agree so infrequently, Hawk...I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that we are in the same boat in this department. Nancy uses her favorite expression when I mention that a particularly heated exchange is occurring: You all should be sent to your rooms on a time-out, until you are able to play well with each other.

Hey...letting out the fire on-line is not all that bad. It give us all a chance to let it out where it is not going to damage personal relationships in the non-cyber world. And, honestly, at times it gets so extreme, you can actually see the silliness for what it is...and laugh at it.

No matter how often or seriously I argue and fight with anyone here...if I ever heard of that person facing a real crisis in life, I would feel horrible. I suspect many of us (probably most of us) feel that way. So none of us are really enemies.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 02:43 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
but she has never liked all the arguing my family does over facts and ideas so she was prejudiced from the get-go.



My wife does not like heated debates either.


The above remark to Hawk goes out to you also, Bill.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 06:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
No matter how often or seriously I argue and fight with anyone here...if I ever heard of that person facing a real crisis in life, I would feel horrible. I suspect many of us (probably most of us) feel that way. So none of us are really enemies.


I can remember becoming concern over Firefly when she stop postings for a time.

An I had turned for and gotten emotional support here for example when I had beloved pets on their last days on earth

You are right and thanks for pointing it out that as annoy as I can become at some of the posters here from time to time I bear no hate or ill will to anyone.
here.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 10:29 am
@BillRM,
americans have the annoying habit of taking everything literally and personally, we have become humorless incompetent technocrats.

A2K does not avoid this trend as well as it used to. a lot
of the smart fun people have departed.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 11:35 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
No matter how often or seriously I argue and fight with anyone here...if I ever heard of that person facing a real crisis in life, I would feel horrible. I suspect many of us (probably most of us) feel that way. So none of us are really enemies.


I can remember becoming concern over Firefly when she stop postings for a time.

An I had turned for and gotten emotional support here for example when I had beloved pets on their last days on earth

You are right and thanks for pointing it out that as annoy as I can become at some of the posters here from time to time I bear no hate or ill will to anyone.
here.




Thank you, Bill. I'd like to think we all feel camaraderie and concern, despite severe differences.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 12:03 pm
Back to the topic of this thread see below a story about Snowden recent chat and I am wondering what kind of precautions he took in entering into a chat and the chat program he used

Hopeful he used the tor network at least.

Perhaps torchat.


Quote:
TorChat is a peer to peer instant messenger with a completely decentralized design, built on top of Tor's location hidden services, giving you extremely strong anonymity while being very easy to use without the need to install or configure anything.

TorChat just runs from an USB drive on any Windows PC. (It can run on Linux and Mac too, in fact it was developed on Linux with cross platform usability in mind from the very first moment on, but the installation on other platforms than Windows is a bit more complicated at the moment)

Tor location hidden services basically means:

Nobody will be able to find out where you are.
If they are already observing you and sniff your internet connection they will not be able to find out
what you send or receive (everything is end-to-end encrypted)
to whom you are sending or receiving from
where your contacts are located
General information about Tor

Quote:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Guardian+Leaker+Snowden+defends+actions+live+chats+from/8536548/story.html

Guardian: NSA Leaker Snowden defends actions in live chats from hiding, via newspaper

BY KIMBERLY DOZIER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS JUNE 17, 2013 1:07 PM



WASHINGTON - Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker, is defending his disclosure of top-secret U.S. spying programs in an online chat Monday with The Guardian and attacking U.S. officials for calling him a traitor.

"The U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me," he said. He added the government "immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home," by labeling him a traitor, and indicated he would not return to the U.S. voluntarily.

Congressional leaders have called Snowden a traitor for revealing once-secret surveillance programs two weeks ago in the Guardian and The Washington Post. The National Security Agency programs collect records of millions of Americans' telephone calls and Internet usage as a counterterror tool. The disclosures revealed the scope of the collections, which surprised many Americans and have sparked debate about how much privacy the government can take away in the name of national security.

"It would be foolish to volunteer yourself to" possible arrest and criminal charges "if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said.

The Guardian announced its website was hosting an online chat with Snowden, in hiding in Hong Kong, with reporter Glenn Greenwald receiving and posting his questions. The Associated Press couldn't independently verify that the man answering the questions was indeed Snowden.

Snowden was working as a contractor for NSA at the time he had access to the then-secret programs. He defended his actions and said he considered what to reveal and what not to, saying he did not reveal any U.S. operations against what he called legitimate military targets, but instead showed the NSA is hacking civilian infrastructure like universities and private businesses.

"These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash," he said, though he gave no examples of what systems have crashed or in which countries.

"Congress hasn't declared war on the countries — the majority of them are our allies — but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people," he said. "And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting?"

Snowden was referring to PRISM, one of the programs he disclosed. The program sweeps up Internet usage data from all over the world that goes through nine major U.S.-based Internet providers. The NSA can look at foreign usage without any warrants, and says the program doesn't target Americans.

U.S. officials say the data-gathering programs are legal and operated under secret court supervision.

Snowden explained his claim that from his desk, he could "wiretap" any phone call or email — a claim top intelligence officials have denied. "If an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT (signals intelligence) databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want," he wrote in the answer posted on the Guardian site. "Phone number, email, user id, cellphone handset id (IMEI), and so on — it's all the same."

The NSA did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. But Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said that the kind of data that can be accessed and who can access it is severely limited.

Snowden said the restrictions on what could be seen by an individual analyst vary according to policy changes, which can happen "at any time," and said that a technical "filter" on NSA data gathering meant to filter out U.S. communications is "weak," such that U.S. communications often get ingested.

Snowden defended U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning for his disclosures of documents to WikiLeaks, which he called a "legitimate journalistic outlet," which "carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest." He said the WikiLeaks release of unedited material was "due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase," which led to the charge against Manning that he dumped the documents, which Snowden called an attempt to smear Manning.

Manning is currently on trial at Fort Meade — the same Army base where the NSA is headquartered — on charges of aiding the enemy for releasing documents to WikiLeaks.

Snowden defended his description of his salary as being $200,000 a year, calling that a "career high," but saying he did take a pay cut to take the job at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he worked as a contractor at an NSA facility in Hawaii. When Booz Allen fired him, they said his salary was $122,000.


__
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 12:22 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
"The U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me," he said.


The US government covers things up by virtue of having thee best propaganda system the world has ever seen.

All you need do is stroke the sheeples' ego for a couple hundred years, telling them that they and their country are dog's gift to humanity, and then, even when cold hard facts are provided to them, they go into shutdown mode - "No way, not the great USA!".

It turns thinking people into little children, right, Firefly, Frank, Farmer, Finn, ... ?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 04:38 pm
The Lockbox Lie

If our phone records are protected by a “lockbox,” why can the NSA search them without a warrant?

Quote:
Q: Is a court order necessary to query the metadata database?
Feinstein: Is a court order necessary to query—
Q: The metadata database under 215. An individual court order for each query.
Feinstein: A court order—well, I don't know what you mean by a query. A court order—
Q: To search the database.
Feinstein: To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause—
Q: Certified by a judge?
Feinstein: —to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group. You cannot—
Q: But does that have to be determined by a judge?
Feinstein: Could I answer? You may not like it, but I'll answer. Then you can query the numbers. The only numbers you have—there's no content. You have the name and the number called, whether it's one number or two numbers. That's all you have. Then you can get the numbers. If you want to collect content, then you get a court order.
Q: So you don't need a court order for the query itself.
Feinstein: That's my understanding.


That exchange punctured the government’s story. The official talking points, recited by Feinstein, emphasized the “reasonable, articulable cause” standard and the requirement of a court order to get a wiretap. What they glossed over was the disconnect between those two points. The NSA can search the database without proving anything to the court. To extract this confession from Feinstein, Ackerman had to ask his question six times.
If Feinstein’s answer is correct, then everything we’ve been told about the “lockbox” is a charade. Go back and reread what Clapper, Alexander, Feinstein, and Rogers told us. They said the court allows queries only after the presentation of specific facts supporting a particular basis. The NSA can query the data only at specific times under a very specific court-ordered approval process. It can look at the data only after showing a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a specific individual is involved in terrorism. It must prove that level of suspicion.
Those statements clearly imply that the court screens each data request. But it doesn’t. There’s no lock on the lockbox.
That hasn’t stopped current and former government officials from repeating the lockbox line. Yesterday Rogers used it again on Face the Nation. Dick Cheney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, backed him up. On Meet the Press, Michael Hayden, the guy who ran the NSA when it began collecting phone records, assured Rep. Bobby Scott, (D-Va.,) “The only way you can access the metadata is through a terrorist predicate.” When Scott asked, “Where is that written?” Hayden replied: “It's in the court order.” Really? Where’s the court order? When is it applied, and how?
If the court isn’t screening data requests, that leaves two possibilities. One is that nobody’s screening them. The other is that some other, unknown entity is doing it in a way that nobody has explained. Either way, the answers we’re getting are unacceptable. They betray privacy, public trust, and national security.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/06/surveillance_lockbox_why_can_the_nsa_search_your_phone_records_without_a.html
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 04:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Gee, the US lies - say it ain't so, Joe!
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 05:05 pm
@JTT,
We can't manage without lies JT. Have you not worked a simple thing like that out yet?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 05:09 pm
@spendius,
I most certainly have worked that out, Spendi. It was understatement on a grand scale.

It's the damage they do.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 05:13 pm
@JTT,
Being able to manage, given all the circumstances, is the very opposite of damage.

You are over-fond of your purity.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 05:18 pm
@spendius,
Interesting words are "manage" and "damage" don't you think?

Take the "age" away.

In linguistics, a suffix (also sometimes called a postfix or ending) is an affix which is placed after the stem of a word.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 06:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
What is very interesting is that a large percent of the total world internet traffic go through US backbones and US servers even when the two end points of the traffic have nothing to do with the US.

That mean that the Canadians and the South Americans and even the Europeans are having some of their traffic look at by the NSA with no US fourth amendment questions arriving.

So you take the degree NSA is invading US citizens privacy and multiply it by a thousand or so for the rest of the world.

Of course that percent of foreign traffic had been decreasing and now that we are rubbing the facts that we are doing massive no hold bar spying on foreign traffic on our network mean that traffic should be dropping even faster.

http://cdn.itproportal.com/photos/Internet-Map-2_fullwidth.png
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 06:53 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
That mean that the Canadians and the South Americans and even the Europeans are having some of their traffic look at by the NSA with no US fourth amendment questions arriving.

which means not only is Obama's popularity with those under 30 down 17% and 8% overall in one month, but he is also likely getting a chilly reception in europe right about now. To think how they cheered him only a few years back.

Obama, the equal opportunity disappointer.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 07:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Obama, the equal opportunity disappointer.


Give the guy a little slack, Hawk. He's much worse than an "equal opportunity disappointer". You're concerned about this little aspect of his job description but it doesn't bother you that he's a war criminal/terrorist.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 07:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
It not just Obama that super computer/data center/spy center in Utah is unlikely to had started being design and being build four years ago for example.

The intelligent agencies and their black off the books programs have a life of their own independent to a large degree of who is in the white house.

In any case, the only way of stopping or at least slowing this government all governments spying down is to encrypted almost the whole internet.

Of course the US government with special note of the FBI desire laws to be pass so the encrypting softwares would have back doors to allowed for their spying.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 08:09 pm
Quote:
The New York Times
June 11, 2013
Blowing a Whistle

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I’m glad I live in a country with people who are vigilant in defending civil liberties. But as I listen to the debate about the disclosure of two government programs designed to track suspected phone and e-mail contacts of terrorists, I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our lives, not the intrusion of those who gather in secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers.

Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.

I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most.

That is why I’ll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime.

So I don’t believe that Edward Snowden, the leaker of all this secret material, is some heroic whistle-blower. No, I believe Snowden is someone who needed a whistle-blower. He needed someone to challenge him with the argument that we don’t live in a world any longer where our government can protect its citizens from real, not imagined, threats without using big data — where we still have an edge — under constant judicial review. It’s not ideal. But if one more 9/11-scale attack gets through, the cost to civil liberties will be so much greater.

A hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for linking on his blog to an essay by David Simon, the creator of HBO’s “The Wire.” For me, it cuts right to the core of the issue.

“You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about,” wrote Simon. “And you would think that rather than a legal court order, which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame. Nope. ... The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the F.B.I. and N.S.A. are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. ... I know it’s big and scary that the government wants a database of all phone calls. And it’s scary that they’re paying attention to the Internet. And it’s scary that your cellphones have GPS installed. ... The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. ... The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised. And to that, The Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don’t know of any actual abuse.”

We do need to be constantly on guard for abuses. But the fact is, added Simon, that for at least the last two presidencies “this kind of data collection has been a baseline logic of an American anti-terrorism effort that is effectively asked to find the needles before they are planted into haystacks, to prevent even such modest, grass-rooted conspiracies as the Boston Marathon bombing before they occur.”

To be sure, secret programs, like the virtually unregulated drone attacks, can lead to real excesses that have to be checked. But here is what is also real, Simon concluded:

“Those planes really did hit those buildings. And that bomb did indeed blow up at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. And we really are in a continuing, low-intensity, high-risk conflict with a diffuse, committed and ideologically motivated enemy. And, for a moment, just imagine how much bloviating would be wafting across our political spectrum if, in the wake of an incident of domestic terrorism, an American president and his administration had failed to take full advantage of the existing telephonic data to do what is possible to find those needles in the haystacks.”

And, I’d add, not just bloviating. Imagine how many real restrictions to our beautiful open society we would tolerate if there were another attack on the scale of 9/11. Pardon me if I blow that whistle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Jun, 2013 08:19 pm
@firefly,
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN used to play a liberal guru......being wrong too often ended that.

Quote:
But if one more 9/11-scale attack gets through, the cost to civil liberties will be so much greater.

that must be left up to the people to decide, the government has no authority to decide this for us, nor is it a forgone conclusion that americans would cave in to terrorism worse than we already have. it is really sad when a self confessed liberal is willing to so violate liberalisms ideals out of fear and lack of faith in the people.

Oh how the former guru has turned on his old preachings.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/29/2020 at 07:43:39