I'm worried about the US government front-dooring / side-dooring / back-dooring / open-windowing the random number generators that 3rd party apps use. Such as /dev/random.
I'm worried about all those botnets "taken down" from criminals. I'd not put it past them (NSA, Interpol, ...) to just re-purpose that botnet to running their own version of Distributed.net's dnetc on any crypto fed to it. It's what I'd do with them. Allocate a few hundred million for a gov't contract, and Microsoft will do it for them.
Wasn't there a shooting incident recently by someone they were aware of as being a danger?
Er, they were outright warned with clear text about the Boston bombers, by the USA's frenemy Russia. If they're blowing it using clear text, crypto's not really going to hurt them anymore.
Second, even with the big name agencies that have crypto-busting supercomputers, they don't have enough computing power to decrypt everything that they want to.
Which is where the specialists in private industry come in. Both the oil and financial industries have lots of resources they love to place at the command of lucrative gov't. contracts. The gov't buys secret space planes with the black budget.
The effin' NDP won. They beat the Progressive-Conservatives who were running the government since the Nixon days.
Note that when you say "running" here, it's pretty much an absolute. At one time years ago, the capitol's newspaper declared itself to be the official opposition, as no opposition candidates had been elected. It's been like that since Social Credit days ('50s).
The oil industry must be having conniption fits about now.
Re: Lack of an EDIT button on TD forums has led me to...
Perspective!
That (the high level view), and prioritize (pick favorites), but don't sweat the small stuff. However, make sure what you intended to be dead really is dead.
Not for long. You know your gov't is exporting all the stuff TD talks about to all its international neighbours, of course? John Diefenbaker likened it to a mouse sharing a bed with an elephant. We always know about you doing one of those roll-overs. Our existence depends on it.
I've never read the Washington Constitution. Is it anything like the US Constitution (I'm being deliberately thick here; sorry)? At one point in US history, "The States" had primacy over central gov't, but (post-Lincoln?) it's all been feds "on top." That's my USA history "TL;DR."
Throughout the cold war the US was specifically never at war.
I fixed your Subject: line. The human race has got to get over this tendency to sanitize speech and beliefs. Lawyers, Politicians, and states don't get to define reality. It's quite capable of doing that all by itself.
Were individual human beings dieing at the hands of adversarial military forces? That question applies to any conflict you can imagine involving state or privately driven military forces. For me, I first think of Korea. Diplomats called it a Police Action, I believe. Bovine excrement.
I don't give a flying !#$ what politicians and diplomats say war is when those individual human beings testify to the existence of war. We owe them to spread this truth.
I believe that the telcoms are paid by the government to collect continuous location data, store it and share it freely with government agencies.
That should require a warrant, yes? Did they get one? Have they violated the Constitution, or not? After all, they had to pass a law to retroactively make AT&T's transgressions on the part of the fibbies legal.
If you suspect that you live in a fascist society, you should just go hide under a rock?
I imagine he meant it as part of the overall toolkit. After all, if you're going out on the streets of Warsaw in '39 with the express purpose of shivving in the back every Nazi you run across, a Faraday cage for your cell phone might be a worthwhile investment. Contradictions aside.
If no winning candidate ever publicly proclaimed this, then how is the voting public to know what the prospective politician will do after having been elected?
You have three (theoretically) equal entities in your gov't: Exec. Branch (President), Congress, and Justice system (cf. Supreme Court).
So, the way this works is, Congress writes a law which upon being tested demands interpretation by the Supreme Court. At that point, it's a crapshoot and can even be political (yes!?!) because Supremes are nominated by Executive branch, which is beholden to one of the two wings of the always ruling party.
I like to take opportunities like this to enjoy that underrated emotion called anger. Enjoy this angry moment. Be angry, and lambaste anyone and everything deserving with everything you've got in a holy war for justice! Live it to the fullest you can. Have fun! :-)
Yes. So? 99% of the ads displayed on websites I visit are storing away all kinds of stuff it gleans from my browser. EFF has a tool which'll show you what's possible.
As I say, it's as threatening to me as meeting a police officer on the street while he/she walks a beat. I expect it.
If I wanted to go dark, I'd use tor browser bundle.
For instance, the library I use does not keep historical records of books checked out by their users although they do offer an "opt in" to allow for historical tracking. I suspect that the default of no tracking is a direct response to not have any records that can be seized by law enforcement.
My library says this about its historical data which is farmed out to something called BiblioCommons:
To delete your BiblioCommons account, please contact the BiblioCommons Privacy Officer. Note that while your BiblioCommons account information will not be available after deletion, some of that information may persist on memory discs.
Which is where I thought "Hold it. We make backups, don't we? This is basic big org IT. Of course we'll take backups."
So, whether they actually track history or not, it's recoverable, and just grepping log files for your library acct. no. is all that's needed.
We need a new computer language. We've got Ada, now we need Lovelace. Then we port the Linux kernel to Lovelace. Let's go Pinky. I imagine this'll take us until noon tomorrow at least. Then, world domination!
Right now, if your phone is turned on, then you consent to being tracked wherever you go.
I don't have any problem with that. It's the virtual form of a cop walking a beat. However, the devil's in the details. How much will they see? How far will they go to find out? At what point should they be expected to get a warrant before continuing?
As to storing historical information at my provider which may become available subsequently to the police upon presentation of a warrant, I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. Perhaps how long that history is stored is negotiable, or should that be defined by statute? That's a value judgement. If possible, I'd go for no logging, but I doubt I'd get it.
Use it. Only one transmitter can use a frequency at a time assuming they don't share. Otherwise, they'd interfere, possibly cause noise. Once you've filled the spectrum used by that sort of equipment (radio?), you've filled the spectrum. Governments like to have auctions for blocks of spectrum; artificial scarcity is a lucrative business.
How does one consume a domain name?
Allocate it to its buyer assuming it's available.
They are intangible. They cannot be consumed.
They just were. That doesn't mean they need to disappear now. They still exist. They're intangible.
So the Dems are cowing to Hollywood and the music labels and people are surprised?
This isn't Red Team vs. Blue Team. Have you seen the size of the military's budget? That blows all other considerations out of discussion. They both, Dems and GOP do this, you know?
On the post: Encryption: What The FBI Wants It Can Only Have By Destroying Computing And Censoring The Internet
Re:
I'm worried about all those botnets "taken down" from criminals. I'd not put it past them (NSA, Interpol, ...) to just re-purpose that botnet to running their own version of Distributed.net's dnetc on any crypto fed to it. It's what I'd do with them. Allocate a few hundred million for a gov't contract, and Microsoft will do it for them.
On the post: Encryption: What The FBI Wants It Can Only Have By Destroying Computing And Censoring The Internet
Re:
Er, they were outright warned with clear text about the Boston bombers, by the USA's frenemy Russia. If they're blowing it using clear text, crypto's not really going to hurt them anymore.
On the post: Encryption: What The FBI Wants It Can Only Have By Destroying Computing And Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: In addition
Which is where the specialists in private industry come in. Both the oil and financial industries have lots of resources they love to place at the command of lucrative gov't. contracts. The gov't buys secret space planes with the black budget.
On the post: France And Canada Both Move To Massively Expand The Surveillance State
Re: Re: Re: proREGRESS
Note that when you say "running" here, it's pretty much an absolute. At one time years ago, the capitol's newspaper declared itself to be the official opposition, as no opposition candidates had been elected. It's been like that since Social Credit days ('50s).
The oil industry must be having conniption fits about now.
On the post: Team Prenda Has A Very Bad Day In Court... And You Can Watch It All
Re: Where the blame lies
I'd ditch the "Super Lawyer (R)" though.
On the post: Law Enforcement's Cluelessness On Display In Congressional Hearing On Undermining Encryption
Re: Lack of an EDIT button on TD forums has led me to...
That (the high level view), and prioritize (pick favorites), but don't sweat the small stuff. However, make sure what you intended to be dead really is dead.
:-)
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constructive consent
Not for long. You know your gov't is exporting all the stuff TD talks about to all its international neighbours, of course? John Diefenbaker likened it to a mouse sharing a bed with an elephant. We always know about you doing one of those roll-overs. Our existence depends on it.
I've never read the Washington Constitution. Is it anything like the US Constitution (I'm being deliberately thick here; sorry)? At one point in US history, "The States" had primacy over central gov't, but (post-Lincoln?) it's all been feds "on top." That's my USA history "TL;DR."
On the post: New York Times Publishes Name Of CIA's Drone Strike 'Architect' While Other Media Outlets Pretend This Is Still Some Sort Of Secret
Thoughout the cold war the US was ALWAYS at war!
I fixed your Subject: line. The human race has got to get over this tendency to sanitize speech and beliefs. Lawyers, Politicians, and states don't get to define reality. It's quite capable of doing that all by itself.
Were individual human beings dieing at the hands of adversarial military forces? That question applies to any conflict you can imagine involving state or privately driven military forces. For me, I first think of Korea. Diplomats called it a Police Action, I believe. Bovine excrement.
I don't give a flying !#$ what politicians and diplomats say war is when those individual human beings testify to the existence of war. We owe them to spread this truth.
They'll never be hear again.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: FCC Regulations [was Re: ]
That should require a warrant, yes? Did they get one? Have they violated the Constitution, or not? After all, they had to pass a law to retroactively make AT&T's transgressions on the part of the fibbies legal.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Money, money, money, money!" Youtube it.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constructive consent
I imagine he meant it as part of the overall toolkit. After all, if you're going out on the streets of Warsaw in '39 with the express purpose of shivving in the back every Nazi you run across, a Faraday cage for your cell phone might be a worthwhile investment. Contradictions aside.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: 3rd Paty Doctrine
You have three (theoretically) equal entities in your gov't: Exec. Branch (President), Congress, and Justice system (cf. Supreme Court).
So, the way this works is, Congress writes a law which upon being tested demands interpretation by the Supreme Court. At that point, it's a crapshoot and can even be political (yes!?!) because Supremes are nominated by Executive branch, which is beholden to one of the two wings of the always ruling party.
Smiple.[sic]
On the post: Flimsy Last Ditch Effort To Derail Real Net Neutrality Protections Launches In Congress
Re: posting nice
On the post: The Virgin Group Disputes Trademark Application Of Tiny Olive Oil Company Vasse Virgin Because Of Course They Did
Re: Virgin Dispute
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: Re: Constructive consent
Yes. So? 99% of the ads displayed on websites I visit are storing away all kinds of stuff it gleans from my browser. EFF has a tool which'll show you what's possible.
As I say, it's as threatening to me as meeting a police officer on the street while he/she walks a beat. I expect it.
If I wanted to go dark, I'd use tor browser bundle.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: Library records ?
My library says this about its historical data which is farmed out to something called BiblioCommons:
Which is where I thought "Hold it. We make backups, don't we? This is basic big org IT. Of course we'll take backups."
So, whether they actually track history or not, it's recoverable, and just grepping log files for your library acct. no. is all that's needed.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constructive consent
We need a new computer language. We've got Ada, now we need Lovelace. Then we port the Linux kernel to Lovelace. Let's go Pinky. I imagine this'll take us until noon tomorrow at least. Then, world domination!
On the post: Appeals Court Says Warrantless Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate 4th Amendment Because 'Third Party Doctrine'
Re: Constructive consent
I don't have any problem with that. It's the virtual form of a cop walking a beat. However, the devil's in the details. How much will they see? How far will they go to find out? At what point should they be expected to get a warrant before continuing?
As to storing historical information at my provider which may become available subsequently to the police upon presentation of a warrant, I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. Perhaps how long that history is stored is negotiable, or should that be defined by statute? That's a value judgement. If possible, I'd go for no logging, but I doubt I'd get it.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re:
Use it. Only one transmitter can use a frequency at a time assuming they don't share. Otherwise, they'd interfere, possibly cause noise. Once you've filled the spectrum used by that sort of equipment (radio?), you've filled the spectrum. Governments like to have auctions for blocks of spectrum; artificial scarcity is a lucrative business.
Allocate it to its buyer assuming it's available.
They just were. That doesn't mean they need to disappear now. They still exist. They're intangible.
On the post: Our New IP Czar Gives His First Speech... And It Is Not Encouraging At All
Re: Oh Bummer
This isn't Red Team vs. Blue Team. Have you seen the size of the military's budget? That blows all other considerations out of discussion. They both, Dems and GOP do this, you know?
Next >>