17
   

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:02 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
"Many criminal acts are committed on the Internet simply because of the illusion that it gives of anonymity. It's a fallacy, and completely delusional. But so are they," Levin said. "The distinction between public and private has been lost, thanks to the Internet."


Try the darknet instead of the open internet and you do have all the privacy anyone could wish for.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
yes, you are just teasing with this notion that you are not a police state advocate...


Hell it is not like we all do not know that Firefly love big government/ big brother is it not Hawkeye?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:10 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You don't think that whoever leaked the information should be prosecuted?


If the person who leaked this information is an employee of NSA good luck in finding him as I myself could get this kind of information to a reporter without being trace back so I am assuming that my skill set is not greater then a NSA employee.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
members of congress do not have the power to cancel our right to consent to our government.

They are the government. And, when we don't like what they are doing, we can let them know about it, and we can vote them out, or even have them impeached. That's the way these things work.



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:17 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
If the person who leaked this information is an employee of NSA good luck in finding him as I myself could get this kind of information to a reporter without being trace back so I am assuming that my skill set is not greater then a NSA employee.

Well, BillRM, his name is on the front page of the NY Times.
Quote:
Ex-Worker at C.I.A. Says He Leaked Data on Surveillance
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

The newspaper The Guardian identified its source for a series of articles on American surveillance programs conducted by the National Security Agency as Edward Snowden, who has worked at the N.S.A. as a contractor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/former-cia-worker-says-he-leaked-surveillance-data.html?hp&_r=0

Mr Snowden is currently in China and giving interviews explaining why he leaked the info. I just saw him on MSNBC.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:21 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Well, BillRM, his name is on the front page of the NY Times.


So Mr. Edward Snowden came out in the open himself that does not mean that the Federal government could had trace him back if he did not allow it.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:32 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
They are the government. And, when we don't like what they are doing, we can let them know about it, and we can vote them out, or even have them impeached. That's the way these things work.


We have the best damn government money can buy that why the american people approval ratings of congress is currently at less then 12 percents.

The system is rigged in many ways to keep the will of the people from being reflected in the congress members that get elected.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:33 pm
@BillRM,
Are you suggesting he's on the martyrdom job Bill?

Wouldn't the Government be more efficient if it knew what we were all doing? An employer which doesn't know what its employees are doing won't be an employer long.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:36 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are you suggesting he's on the martyrdom job Bill?


I have no idea why he came forward of his own free will just that if he had wished to get the information to reporters without being trace back he could had done so.

Quote:
Wouldn't the Government be more efficient if it knew what we were all doing? An employer which doesn't know what its employees are doing won't be an employer long.


The government is suppose to work for us not the other way around.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:48 pm
@BillRM,
But being more efficient IS working for us.

Are you saying that the Gov. collecting info. about us is inefficient?
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 02:57 pm
smart man being in china where they approve of this sort if thing and want to show up the US government as hypocrites. I bet he stays there on a chinese government pension rather than in an American jail.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:00 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
members of congress do not have the power to cancel our right to consent to our government.

They are the government. And, when we don't like what they are doing, we can let them know about it, and we can vote them out, or even have them impeached. That's the way these things work.





the way it is supposed to work is that they dont sell the american people down the river in the first place. the remidy will never make us whole again.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:07 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are you saying that the Gov. collecting info. about us is inefficient?


I am saying it is the breaking of the constitution right to privacy of every citizen in the nation just to start with nor do I think that gathering such a data base on 200 millions plus citizens is the most efficient means of dealing with the terrorist threat.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:27 pm
Quote:
June 8, 2013
Your Smartphone Is Watching You
By ROSS DOUTHAT

ON Thursday, just after reports broke that the National Security Agency had been helping itself to data from just about every major American Internet company, an enterprising Twitter user set up an account called “Nothing to Hide,” which reproduced tweets from people expressing blithe unconcern about their government’s potential access to their e-mails, phone records, video chats, you name it.

“If it can save people from another 9/11 like attack, go for it,” one declared. “My emails/phone calls are not that exciting anyway ...”

Another tweeted: “...this sort of thing was bound to happen. We live in the information age. Besides, I have nothing to hide.”

And another: “If you share your whole life on social media who cares if the government takes a peek?!?”

These citizens have a somewhat shaky grasp of how civil liberties are supposed to work. But they understand the essential nature of life on the Internet pretty well. The motto “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” — or, alternatively, “abandon all privacy, ye who enter here” — might as well be stamped on every smartphone and emblazoned on every social media log-in page. As the security expert Bruce Schneier wrote recently, it isn’t that the Internet has been penetrated by the surveillance state; it’s that the Internet, in effect, is a surveillance state.

Anxiety over this possibility has been laced into online experience since the beginning. (Witness Clinton-era netsploitation movies like “Enemy of the State.”) But in the early days of the dot-com era, what people found most striking about online life was how anonymous it seemed — all those chat rooms and comment sections, aliases and handles and screen names. A famous New Yorker cartoon depicted two canines contemplating a computer, as one promised the other, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

This ideal of anonymity still persists in some Internet communities. But in many ways, the online world has turned out to be less private than the realm of flesh and blood. In part, that’s because most Internet users don’t want to cloak themselves in pseudonyms. Instead, they communicate in online spaces roughly the way they would in a room full of their closest friends, and use texts and e-mails the way they would once have used a letter or a phone call. Which means, inevitably, that they are much more exposed — to strangers and enemies, ex-lovers and ex-friends — than they would have been before their social lives migrated online.

It is at least possible to participate in online culture while limiting this horizontal, peer-to-peer exposure. But it is practically impossible to protect your privacy vertically — from the service providers and social media networks and now security agencies that have access to your every click and text and e-mail. Even the powerful can’t cover their tracks, as David Petraeus discovered. In the surveillance state, everybody knows you’re a dog.

And every looming technological breakthrough, from Google Glass to driverless cars, promises to make our every move and download a little easier to track. Already, Silicon Valley big shots tend to talk about privacy in roughly the same paternalist language favored by government spokesmen. “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know,” Google’s Eric Schmidt told an interviewer in 2009, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

The problem is that we have only one major point of reference when we debate what these trends might mean: the 20th-century totalitarian police state, whose every intrusion on privacy was in the service of tyrannical one-party rule. That model is useful for teasing out how authoritarian regimes will try to harness the Internet’s surveillance capabilities, but America isn’t about to turn into East Germany with Facebook pages.

For us, the age of surveillance is more likely to drift toward what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “soft despotism” or what the Forbes columnist James Poulos has dubbed “the pink police state.” Our government will enjoy extraordinary, potentially tyrannical powers, but most citizens will be monitored without feeling persecuted or coerced.

So instead of a climate of pervasive fear, there will be a chilling effect at the margins of political discourse, mostly affecting groups and opinions considered disreputable already. Instead of a top-down program of political repression, there will be a more haphazard pattern of politically motivated, Big Data-enabled abuses. (Think of the recent I.R.S. scandals, but with damaging personal information being leaked instead of donor lists.)

In this atmosphere, radicalism and protest will seem riskier, paranoia will be more reasonable, and conspiracy theories will proliferate. But because genuinely dangerous people will often be pre-empted or more swiftly caught, the privacy-for-security swap will seem like a reasonable trade-off to many Americans — especially when there is no obvious alternative short of disconnecting from the Internet entirely.

Welcome to the future. Just make sure you don’t have anything to hide
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/douthat-your-smartphone-is-watching-you.html?hp
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:41 pm
@BillRM,
The smart money here Bill is on the TT being an excuse. And that they are gathering the info. simply because they are able to.

And those supervising the snooping will themselves be snooped on unless they get a special dispensation.

You're not actually answering my questions. What you do or do not think is the most efficient way of dealing with the TT is neither here nor there in the absence of reasons.



0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:49 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Or use tor and tormail and zpone and so on.


I have absolutely no idea what those are. You might as well be speaking Swahili to me.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:54 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It is at least possible to participate in online culture while limiting this horizontal, peer-to-peer exposure. But it is practically impossible to protect your privacy vertically — from the service providers and social media networks and now security agencies that have access to your every click and text and e-mail. Even the powerful can’t cover their tracks, as David Petraeus discovered. In the surveillance state, everybody knows you’re a dog.


Nonsense when I am in the dark net or even just tunneling around with tor my ISP and all the security agencies in the world together can not trace me.

Privacy that technology removed can be return by technology.

Right now my isp have no damn idea where I had gone all they see is encrypted packets going to the first node of the tor network. The first node does not know where I am going or the content of my traffic only the location of the second node, the second node does not have the content of my traffic only the address of the exit node that does know the traffic and where it is going but not where it came from.

These three nodes can and likely to be in three nations.



Quote:


http://www.process.org/tor.html

d a r k n e t



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This Ben Franklin quote gets thrown around quite a bit these days with good reason. It certainly doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to realize that civil liberties in the US and indeed around the world are being eroded by corporate government interests.

That said, this is not a space for a political rant but to address one aspect of this erosion and hopefully provide a bit of a stop gap for those who desire it. Internet surveillance/wiretapping is a reality. The privacy of your on-line communications in an unprotected environment is easily compromised. We believe that your government, whoever they may be, do not have the right to monitor your personal communications.

Enter Darknets.

Darknets, besides having a very sexy monicker, allow for a much higher degree of anonymity on-line. Enter into a Darknet and you can browse the web like a ghost visiting a room, appear like a mirage to the machines that you access and perhaps more importantly, be virtually untraceable back to your host machine. Add encrypted mail and secure web chat and telephony such as Skype and you have a pretty solid solution for protecting your privacy on-line. This sort of technology is especially compelling if you are living in an environment where free speech is restricted and anonymity is critical.

The Darknet solution we support is called Tor. Tor is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Whether you are aware of it or not, they have been privacy watchdogs for the public since the early days of the internet. Tor uses a network of computers "nodes" to split up data when it leaves your machine. The data is re-routed through a series of computers so if the data packets are intercepted they are in pieces and unintelligible.
It's the digital equivalent of shredding a letter and then sending all the shreds through a different mail route in separate envelopes. The shreds are only reassembled when they reach the desired destination. If you were to intercept one shred on route it would tell you nothing about the whole. process.org is one of the nodes on this Darknet. We donate a percentage of our server bandwidth to support Tor. You needn't run a server to participate in the network. It's available to everyone!

Check out the Tor page at the EFF for instructions on getting set up with Tor.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 03:57 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
have absolutely no idea what those are. You might as well be speaking Swahili to me.


Too bad because without that knowledge you are at the mercy of your ISP and any government and so on.

Try going to the Electronic freedom foundation at EFF.org and look up the information they have on how to keep your privacy on the net from just about anyone.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:12 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Oh when I run into from time to time some filtering/blocking of websites in libraries or other open wifi sites I just switch on tor to go where I care to go.

It kind of like using an elephant gun to kill a cat but it does work just fine also if you have an email account that does not used SSL and you are on a public hotspot turning on tor will keep anyone sharing the hotspot from reading your mail.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:26 pm
@BillRM,
I would like to hear some experts talk about how likely it is that trained terrorists would get caught in this surveillance...it sounds like they would have to be country bumpkins. if this is the case then my theory that SAFETY! is being used as an excuse to build a police state just got more evidence for it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/29/2020 at 08:39:08