Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TheIntercept] How the NSA Plans to Infect ‘Millions’ of Computers with Malware
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TheIntercept] How the NSA Plans to Infect ‘Millions’ of Computers with Malware - Page 7

post #61 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Nope, your example is completely moot. The question of videotaping in PUBLIC versus PRIVATE spaces has been settled (for the most part). In fact, the videotaping of police has come under some scrunity but it basically leans towards that the public has a right.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

Internet communication (like phone or mail) is considered PRIVATE.

Furthermore, how do you know if the data collected "infringe on privacy" or not? Do you know how the Internet and packet captures work? In fact, the NSA stores encrypted user data for future cracking. How would they know if the contents are private or not?

In fact, the settlement of public vs private videotaping (and FLIR even) has been settled by public discourse. There has not been enough discussion or public agreement on the topic of Internet. Being the case, the government should not just default to the position that it is ok.
Killing someone or staging a crime is criminal action. Why would a person need to that if they just want to harass or intimidate someone? People in power do use the law as a weapon of intimidation.

False dilemma? Maybe you should go read up on US history? How about..... the civil rights movement of the 1950s? Or McCarthyism? Or J. Edgar Hoover? Stonewall Inn?

Off the top of my head from my raver days... The Baltimore Police's intimidation of Lonnie Fisher of Ultraworld productions. Lonnie lost money and spent years of his time fighting back. When the DA finally stepped in, they agreed that a private citizen was being singled-out and had identified one officer using his authority improperly.
Are you in law? There is no such thing as "generally" or "obvious" in law. Why do you think we have so many lawyers? Please attempt to write an essay covering this topic. Do you have examples that set precedent? Laws are general... but implementation, execution, and interpretation is in the details.

I occasionally do preliminary reviews of software contacts before passing it legal.... Why do thinks contracts are like 5-20 pages purchase something like software?
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) said so:
* "we see little evidence that the unique capabilities provided by the NSA's bulk collection of telephone records actually have yielded material counterterrorism results that could not have been achieved without the NSA's Section 215 program."
* "Cessation of the program would eliminate the privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with bulk collection without unduly hampering the government’s efforts, while ensuring that any governmental requests for telephone calling records are tailored to the needs of specific investigations."

Oh, public discourse settled it, so I guess that's chill. I mean it's not like public discourse has ever been wrong before: slavery, religion, pollution, and now privacy. I don't think an argument from popularity is going to cut it. The fact of the matter is that if someone takes my picture against my will, then that's a violation of privacy on some level.

After all, the definition of privacy is "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people." I got this straight from google, but Merriam webstar also has a similar definition. So security cameras can definitely observe against people's will which would violate privacy.

And how do you define "considered private"? According to who? Public discourse? The government should not just default on the position that it's not OK.

But also you didn't address things like facebook and google and their data mining that definitely infringes on privacy, and yet we don't ban them. So much for the consistency of public discourse. I have a million more examples, but the point is that the United States doesn't allow maximum privacy and never has. You're saying that just because it removes some privacy means it must be bad. You haven't given any arguments besides the argument from popularity that this should be somehow distinguished from security cameras and the internet data mining by corporations.

And also, you don't think harassing someone with law is illegal? Remember when President Obama tried to attack the tea party with the full extent of the "lawful" IRS? That immediately became a scandal. And furthermore, the government has been using the "lawful" IRS to intimidate since the inception of the United States. There's nothing new that couldn't have been done before. And again, there is a maximum punishment entailed by law, so yes, you could send me a ticket for my instances of J walking, but that's about it. Yea people commit infractions, but so what? Generally law abidding citizens aren't committing misdemeanors or felonies all the time like you suggest they are.

But okay, ill try to sum up generally lawful in one sentence. Able to commit infractions, but not able to commit misdemeanors or felonies. There, now I don't have to deal with legal mumbo jumbo since those categories have already been defined. Plus, me being apart of the law or not doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. That's would just be an argument from authority.

And also, in regards to your last source, even if they discovered absolutely nothing, there's no reason they couldn't find things in the future, especially with this automation technology that keeps improving over time. And I doubt that the committee is being entirely honest with the American people. Since when have committees always been 100% truthful? It's likely they did learn some things about other countries and terrorist activity, but they simply wouldnt tell the committee because they dont want our allies to know the extend of the NSA, and they dont want to let terrorists know we're on to them. They also were probably using the committee to soothe the fears of our allies by saying we found "nothing." It honestly just looks like a political tool instead of an honest inquiry.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #62 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coma View Post


There is some trickiness here. I think that if American citizens saw the NSA from within, they would realize several things:
1. The vast majority of its employees are probably very patriotic and have a strong sense of morality.
2. That this is probably part of their recruitment scheme.
3. That their leaders also share those traits, and take very seriously the prevention of misuse.

And public opinion would take a 180 degree turn. But for American citizens to be able to see the NSA from within would mean that others could too, and that would cripple the NSA.

So then what do you do?

TLDR; We would tell you but then we would have to kill you servant. Nope! not buying it.

You would think that with the....

•Air Force
•Air Force Reserve
•Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
•Arms Control and International Security
•Army
•Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
•Capitol Police
•Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
•Coast Guard
•Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
•Defense Field Activities ?
•Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
•Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
•Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
•Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
•Defense Security Service (DSS)
•Defense Technical Information Center
•Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
•Department of Defense
•Drug Enforcement Administration
•Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
•Federal Protective Service
•Government Accountability Office (GAO) < lollolo this, just this, you're doing it wrong!
•Government Ethics, Office of <--Again, doing it wrong!
•Homeland Security Department
•Interpol
•Marine Corps
•National Guard
•National Security Council
•National Security Agency (NSA)
•Navy
•Northern Command
•Pacific Command
•Pentagon Force Protection Agency
•U.S. Customs and Border Protection

What was the thought process behind adding •Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over ONE single act of aggression post 2000AD and how many other odd number of organizations listed above couldn't have done what was required?

Social security is running out, national debut is spiraling high like bird of prey, wages for citizens fall behind inflation further and faster, a dystopian America is emerging at an alarming rate and everyone feels helpless, like a deer in the headlights, or is one of the lucky few that has it just good enough to look away (but not for long). We the people are getting FARMED as a resource to support massive clandestine agencies that would just as soon "deal" with us if we get too loud about being anti. The government is a Well fed fat parasite head of hubris that would just as soon make the anemic body dance until it dies and enjoy the ride for as long as they can, smile and lie to us while diddling us and practically daring us to notice or speak up.

Maybe its an age or generational thing and younger people are conditioned to accept such massively unnecessary and obtrusive overhead but when I was 16,18,21,25...this is never in a million years how I imagined America in 2014.



Honestly even IF and that's a big if this department is of the moral fiber you say it is, we're not in the position right now as a country to be well paying some unit of spooks that basically dismiss us to read 1/5 of our texts and listen to how ever many in 19 phone calls! That's NOT EVEN intuition based law enforcement or security, that's just random trolling for something random just to have it! Yes I give you that every now and then they most certainly catch a good caper but reel it in some, at what cost?
Edited by Neckbeard13 - 3/17/14 at 1:03pm
Wilson
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3570k ASRock Extreme4 Msi GTX 670 Twin Frozr OC EVGA 2x4 MB superclocked DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Aincient WD 7200 20$ Rocketfish Universal Win8 Samsung synchmaster B2030 1600x900 Native 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Inland Wired USB Gaming Keyboard Corsair 600w Corsair carbide 300r LOGITECH G502 Proteus Core Tunable Gaming Mouse  
Audio
Logitech - Z323 Speaker System 
  hide details  
Reply
Wilson
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3570k ASRock Extreme4 Msi GTX 670 Twin Frozr OC EVGA 2x4 MB superclocked DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Aincient WD 7200 20$ Rocketfish Universal Win8 Samsung synchmaster B2030 1600x900 Native 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Inland Wired USB Gaming Keyboard Corsair 600w Corsair carbide 300r LOGITECH G502 Proteus Core Tunable Gaming Mouse  
Audio
Logitech - Z323 Speaker System 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Oh, public discourse settled it, so I guess that's chill. I mean it's not like public discourse has ever been wrong before: slavery, religion, pollution, and now privacy. I don't think an argument from popularity is going to cut it. The fact of the matter is that if someone takes my picture against my will, then that's a violation of privacy on some level.

After all, the definition of privacy is "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people." I got this straight from google, but Merriam webstar also has a similar definition. So security cameras can definitely observe against people's will which would violate privacy.

And how do you define "considered private"? According to who? Public discourse? The government should not just default on the position that it's not OK.

But also you didn't address things like facebook and google and their data mining that definitely infringes on privacy, and yet we don't ban them. So much for the consistency of public discourse. I have a million more examples, but the point is that the United States doesn't allow maximum privacy and never has. You're saying that just because it removes some privacy means it must be bad. You haven't given any arguments besides the argument from popularity that this should be somehow distinguished from security cameras and the internet data mining by corporations.

And also, you don't think harassing someone with law is illegal? Remember when President Obama tried to attack the tea party with the full extent of the "lawful" IRS? That immediately became a scandal. And furthermore, the government has been using the "lawful" IRS to intimidate since the inception of the United States. There's nothing new that couldn't have been done before. And again, there is a maximum punishment entailed by law, so yes, you could send me a ticket for my instances of J walking, but that's about it. Yea people commit infractions, but so what? Generally law abidding citizens aren't committing misdemeanors or felonies all the time like you suggest they are.

But okay, ill try to sum up generally lawful in one sentence. Able to commit infractions, but not able to commit misdemeanors or felonies. There, now I don't have to deal with legal mumbo jumbo since those categories have already been defined. Plus, me being apart of the law or not doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. That's would just be an argument from authority.

And also, in regards to your last source, even if they discovered absolutely nothing, there's no reason they couldn't find things in the future, especially with this automation technology that keeps improving over time. And I doubt that the committee is being entirely honest with the American people. Since when have committees always been 100% truthful? It's likely they did learn some things about other countries and terrorist activity, but they simply wouldnt tell the committee because they dont want our allies to know the extend of the NSA, and they dont want to let terrorists know we're on to them. They also were probably using the committee to soothe the fears of our allies by saying we found "nothing." It honestly just looks like a political tool instead of an honest inquiry.

What's funny is you think you've refuted Duckie.
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
post #64 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by scyy View Post

What's funny is you think you've refuted Duckie.

Ok, ill make sure and add your "opinion" to the opinion poll. Just kidding actually, I don't really care what you think unless you've actually got an argument.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Oh, public discourse settled it, so I guess that's chill. I mean it's not like public discourse has ever been wrong before: slavery, religion, pollution, and now privacy. I don't think an argument from popularity is going to cut it. The fact of the matter is that if someone takes my picture against my will, then that's a violation of privacy on some level.

After all, the definition of privacy is "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people." I got this straight from google, but Merriam webstar also has a similar definition. So security cameras can definitely observe against people's will which would violate privacy.

And how do you define "considered private"? According to who? Public discourse? The government should not just default on the position that it's not OK.

But also you didn't address things like facebook and google and their data mining that definitely infringes on privacy, and yet we don't ban them. So much for the consistency of public discourse. I have a million more examples, but the point is that the United States doesn't allow maximum privacy and never has. You're saying that just because it removes some privacy means it must be bad. You haven't given any arguments besides the argument from popularity that this should be somehow distinguished from security cameras and the internet data mining by corporations.

1) Are you on private property, or on what's considered private property (note: private property can be public). Recording is generally prohibited without consent if the property is not considered public. The GP, General Public, can be recorded by anyone at any time as long as you are in a public area. Regardless of property status unless it's specifically sited. If you have yard, people can see you in it, they can take your picture. It's legal, in the books, it's why we created the privacy fence.

2) If you read the fine print for web sites, you give them permission. Don't like it, then I would recommend you to not use those types of sites. Too bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

And also, you don't think harassing someone with law is illegal? Remember when President Obama tried to attack the tea party with the full extent of the "lawful" IRS? That immediately became a scandal. And furthermore, the government has been using the "lawful" IRS to intimidate since the inception of the United States. There's nothing new that couldn't have been done before. And again, there is a maximum punishment entailed by law, so yes, you could send me a ticket for my instances of J walking, but that's about it. Yea people commit infractions, but so what? Generally law abidding citizens aren't committing misdemeanors or felonies all the time like you suggest they are.

But okay, ill try to sum up generally lawful in one sentence. Able to commit infractions, but not able to commit misdemeanors or felonies. There, now I don't have to deal with legal mumbo jumbo since those categories have already been defined. Plus, me being apart of the law or not doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. That's would just be an argument from authority.

And also, in regards to your last source, even if they discovered absolutely nothing, there's no reason they couldn't find things in the future, especially with this automation technology that keeps improving over time. And I doubt that the committee is being entirely honest with the American people. Since when have committees always been 100% truthful? It's likely they did learn some things about other countries and terrorist activity, but they simply wouldnt tell the committee because they dont want our allies to know the extend of the NSA, and they dont want to let terrorists know we're on to them. They also were probably using the committee to soothe the fears of our allies by saying we found "nothing." It honestly just looks like a political tool instead of an honest inquiry.

First, there isn't a rule of what is an infraction/misdemeanor/felonies. Other than what's considered federal, outside of that it's all state control. So your J walking on one state, could be a misdemeanor in another (example might not be prime but speeding tickets do work that way as I'm not checking every state's legislature). So what you are talking about there is state vs federal crimes. Which still doesn't define "generally lawful" as one state might see you as "generally lawful" while another might see it otherwise.

We also shouldn't get started on the many cases where people plead down, as to get a lesser crime than what actually happened. There are prime examples of this, some towns might give you a j-walking ticket when they find you out and about drunk. Even more, there are still a few towns that would just drive you home instead of a public intox. =O WOAH WHAT!? Urban vs Suburban vs City morals and social standings. The U.S. Isn't really this hard rock set in stone where everything is the same everywhere. I've had friends who went to states "they don't belong". And believe me, you DO NOT belong.

As far as what they discovered? Well anyone with knowledge of how the underground works would have a high inclination to believe that. You think the drug scene lasted this long because the government is stupid? Or maybe because there are still forms of communication you cannot patrol without having a microphone in the crap hole of every citizen. So I'm guessing if the Mexican cartels can basically industrialize meth and ship it over, terrorists can do terror without being caught. Not hard to figure out how, just harder to actually find the people and stop them.
Edited by mushroomboy - 3/17/14 at 9:58pm
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Oh, public discourse settled it, so I guess that's chill. I mean it's not like public discourse has ever been wrong before: slavery, religion, pollution, and now privacy. I don't think an argument from popularity is going to cut it. The fact of the matter is that if someone takes my picture against my will, then that's a violation of privacy on some level.
What do you think laws and democrat/republic governments are? Public consensus. It's not about right or wrong... but what people agree to at the time and in context. This is how the world work. It's not simply about popularity.

Correct, you may feel violated but for society to function... the US legal system and people have basically agreed on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

After all, the definition of privacy is "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people." I got this straight from google, but Merriam webstar also has a similar definition. So security cameras can definitely observe against people's will which would violate privacy.
A dictionary's concise definition has very little to do with the text and centuries of law.

It's like saying that the dictionary definition of "gravity" is "the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth." The definition is utterly complete and an all encompassing definition of gravity since it is what the dictionary says, right? ....except that it ignores a few hundred papers discussing vastly deeper details on the topic. A dictionary is a source of word definitions. It is not a source of indepth knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

And how do you define "considered private"? According to who? Public discourse? The government should not just default on the position that it's not OK.
Law is not black or white.... but more gray.

The 4th Amdement of the US Consitution sets the framework for privacy.

SCOTUS settled that postal mail is private in 1877: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=96&page=727#733
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986 extended the coverage to electronic information.
(Plus there are countless other cases as well).

Do you know how US government and legal system work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

But also you didn't address things like facebook and google and their data mining that definitely infringes on privacy, and yet we don't ban them. So much for the consistency of public discourse. I have a million more examples, but the point is that the United States doesn't allow maximum privacy and never has. You're saying that just because it removes some privacy means it must be bad. You haven't given any arguments besides the argument from popularity that this should be somehow distinguished from security cameras and the internet data mining by corporations.
Facebook and Google are private companies and not a government. They are providing a service that end-users are explicitly agreeing to accept as terms of their service.

The difference between a company and government are many..... but a major one is that you can not easily opt out of a government. There is limited recourse if you disagree with the government. Also, private companies do not have militaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

And also, you don't think harassing someone with law is illegal? Remember when President Obama tried to attack the tea party with the full extent of the "lawful" IRS? That immediately became a scandal. And furthermore, the government has been using the "lawful" IRS to intimidate since the inception of the United States. There's nothing new that couldn't have been done before. And again, there is a maximum punishment entailed by law, so yes, you could send me a ticket for my instances of J walking, but that's about it. Yea people commit infractions, but so what? Generally law abidding citizens aren't committing misdemeanors or felonies all the time like you suggest they are.
Actually, President Obama did not try to attack the Tea Party with the IRS.... do you have proof of that? What happened was a single IRS office tried to streamline audit selection and thought explicit key word filter was a good idea. You might also want to note that left-leaning organizations were included as well. (BTW, keyword searches is a good way to identify possible targets... however, it would have to be statistically done and not subjectively. But then again, there is the risk of bias.)

Do you know how much it time, stress, and money it can cause to prove harassment? The onus is on the one being harassed and not the harasser when you are talking about positions of authority.

Again.... you really don't know much about law do you? Do you know how many municipal, state, and federal laws you fall under? Furthermore, a lot of laws conflict with one another.... this is where interpretation takes place in the courts. Do most people you know have time to spend weeks a year in court, filing out piles of paperwork, and paying a $50-500/hr lawyer?

Actually, law abiding citizens are committing crimes all the time. Go find your state: www.dumblaws.com This is the tip of the iceberg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

But okay, ill try to sum up generally lawful in one sentence. Able to commit infractions, but not able to commit misdemeanors or felonies. There, now I don't have to deal with legal mumbo jumbo since those categories have already been defined. Plus, me being apart of the law or not doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. That's would just be an argument from authority.
How naive.... Law is all legal mumbo jumbo for a reason because there are always exceptions, context, circumstances.

If infractions are acceptable, what's the point of them? Furthermore, people do commit misdemeanors all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

And also, in regards to your last source, even if they discovered absolutely nothing, there's no reason they couldn't find things in the future, especially with this automation technology that keeps improving over time. And I doubt that the committee is being entirely honest with the American people. Since when have committees always been 100% truthful? It's likely they did learn some things about other countries and terrorist activity, but they simply wouldnt tell the committee because they dont want our allies to know the extend of the NSA, and they dont want to let terrorists know we're on to them. They also were probably using the committee to soothe the fears of our allies by saying we found "nothing." It honestly just looks like a political tool instead of an honest inquiry.
So.... who's reaching now? I have proof of my statement. You do not have proof supporting yours. So you then say my proof from the government can't be trusted? If your argument that a review board cannot be trusted, then how is your case that that government should be allowed to do this valid? Circular argument that works against your case.

Furthermore, the review board rejected the NSA's case.... if one of the points of the review was to prove worth, wouldn't one think the NSA would.... well, try to prove this program's worth?

In addition, the committee had the power to review top secret and confidential information. However, it did not disclose this information. Therefore, your entire argument about "our allies" or "terrorists" is moot.

In addition, did you even bother reading the review? "Might find things" is not a strong enough case for "violations en mass today".



You're bringing a knife to a gun fight... stop believing everything you hear and go to the original sources of information. Listen to the arguments and understand the issues. Research what you don't know or understand.
Edited by DuckieHo - 3/17/14 at 10:47pm
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #67 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

What do you think laws and democrat/republic governments are? Public consensus. It's not about right or wrong... but what people agree to at the time and in context. This is how the world work. It's not simply about popularity.

Correct, you may feel violated but for society to function... the US legal system and people have basically agreed on the issue.
A dictionary's concise definition has very little to do with the text and centuries of law.

It's like saying that the dictionary definition of "gravity" is "the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth." The definition is utterly complete and an all encompassing definition of gravity ignoring a few hundred papers discussing vastly deeper details on the topic.
Law is not black or white.... but more gray.

The 4th Amdement of the US Consitution sets the framework for privacy.

SCOTUS settled that postal mail is private in 1877: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=96&page=727#733
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986 extended the coverage.
(Plus there are countless other cases as well).

Do you know how US government and legal system work?
Facebook and Google are private companies and not a government. They are providing a service that end-users are explicitly agreeing to accept as terms of their service.

The difference between a company and government are many..... but a major one is that you can not easily opt out of a government. There is limited recourse if you disagree with the government. Also, private companies do not have militaries.
Actually, President Obama did not try to attack the Tea Party with the IRS.... do you have proof of that? What happened was a single IRS office tried to streamline audit selection and thought explicit key word filter was a good idea. You might also want to note that left-leaning organizations were included as well.

Do you know how much it time, stress, and money it can cause to prove harassment? The onus is on the one being harassed and not the harasser when you are talking about positions of authority.

Again.... you really don't know much about law do you? Do you know how many municipal, state, and federal laws you fall under? Furthermore, a lot of laws conflict with one another.... this is where interpretation takes place in the courts. Do most people you know have time to spend weeks a year in court, filing out piles of paperwork, and paying a $50-500/hr lawyer?

Actually, law abiding citizens are committing crimes all the time. Go find your state: www.dumblaws.com This is the tip of the iceberg.
How naive.... Law is all legal mumbo jumbo for a reason because there are always exceptions, context, circumstances.

If infractions are acceptable, what's the point of them? Furthermore, people do commit misdemeanors all the time.
So.... who's reaching now? I have proof of my statement. You do not have proof supporting yours. So you then say my proof from the government can't be trusted? If your argument that a review board cannot be trusted, then how is your case that that government should be allowed to do this valid? Furthermore, the review board rejected the NSA's case.... if one of the points of the review was to prove worth, wouldn't one think the NSA would.... well, try to prove this program's worth?

In addition, the committee had the power to review top secret and confidential information. However, it did not disclose this information. Therefore, your entire argument about "our allies" or "terrorists" is moot.

In addition, did you even bother reading the review? "Might find things" is not a strong enough case for "violations en mass today".





You're bringing a knife to a gun fight... stop believing everything you hear and go to the original sources of information. Listen to the arguments and understand the issues. Research what you don't know or understand.

"It's not about right or wrong... but what people agree to at the time and in context. This is how the world work."
So as long as everyone agrees about something it must mean we should do it or believe it or accept that it's right. That's just how the world works. Now that's a naive claim. It's called making mistakes. We don't want to make mistakes generally.

"the US legal system and people have basically agreed on the issue."
That's fantastic for them. At one point they also agreed on slavery and so many other things that now we consider to be bad or wrong.

In addition, your analogy comparing relativity to the general definition of gravity, vs privacy and the laws regarding privacy is flawed. Comparing an empirically based science to a highly disagreed upon evolving system of rules and obligations is just not rational. This means that I don't have to accept authoritative definitions that aren't relevant unless some proof or evidence or reason/argument given. Unfortunately, as you know, there's no easy way to empirically test the possible outcomes of certain situations in law because the world is always changing. In relativity, you can precisely determine the parameters and output. In law you can't. And furthermore, are you simply saying general definition don't exist and should just not be used? I can say gravity is caused by the curvature of space time and that would be sufficient for an equally general conversation, or even more simply the attraction between two bodies. That definition of gravity is good enough for many contexts, although of course not all.

There's no good reason to use esoteric and overly dense legal definitions, just as it would be just as useless to talk about every specific detail of relativity all the time when talking about relativity .

Infractions are acceptable because the government gets cash as a result. And obviously the government wants cash because it pay its bills with money. So the extra money gathered through people speeding is agreeable. Infractions are more like disincentives, which is why they're not as significant. People don't do those things because they dont want to pay the cash fine. But my point still remains.


And if people commit misdemeanors all the time, then it would be good to punish them. I see no problem with punishing a constant offender, even if it is about harassment. People get made an example of commonly as well. Plus I haven't even broken any laws according to the www.dumblaws.com california page. This is all assuming that the government is all knowing and omnipotent, which is obviously false.

Furthermore, of course facebook and google are private companies. I don't know why you thought that I thought they weren't. You missed the entire point entirely--just because we lose some privacy doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. We necessarily give up some privacy as a result of having the convenience of facebook, google, etc.The private agreement that we make when you go on facebook has nothing to do with what im talking about. I'm not saying that's the same thing as a government entity at all. Also, i cannot easily get out of using facebook and google, etc. My work and social life depends on being able to use these features of the internet. If i don't use them, i will be at a significant competitive disadvantage to my peers who do use it. I'm sure it's very similar for many other people.

"How naive.... Law is all legal mumbo jumbo for a reason because there are always exceptions, context, circumstances."
Actually making clear cut laws is something that this country is bad at. Credit card agreements for example. Laws, ideally, should be clear and direct while also being attainable by a lay person. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that it would be impossible or even unlikely since there's no way you know the maximum extent of english language efficiency; law makers just aren't clever enough yet.

"In addition, the committee had the power to review top secret and confidential information. However, it did not disclose this information. Therefore, your entire argument about "our allies" or "terrorists" is moot."
how, exactly, would it be moot? they obviously wouldn't want to release confidential information if it was related to terrorist activity, or if it concerned their allies. That was just speculation anyways, but it more likely because it was based on some rationale.

Plus your rebuttal complete ignores the fact that this system might find criminal activity in the future, which was my first claim in that section. it will be more efficient and effective as a result of automation technologies like the one indicated in the article. It will no doubt be getting even better as time goes on.
Edited by serp777 - 3/18/14 at 12:08am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #68 of 108
That was TL;DR, but on the slavery point - if anything, that just shows that only history can tell you what is currently acceptable that may not be acceptable in the future. Slavery was acceptable at a time, then morality changed and it was deemed unacceptable. More recently (and in a limited way), cannabis is now legal in Colorado (paraphrasing). Who knows, maybe gun ownership is next?
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #69 of 108
Interesting.

I always found watching network traffic amusing, now we'll have to look for suspicious packets biggrin.gif
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
post #70 of 108
its about time the rest off the world blocks internet access from america the nsa is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world and there spying on the internet is the biggest crime
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 3770k asus rog maximus v formular evga gtx760 acx evga gtx760 acx 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
g skill ripjaws x samsung 850 evo 240gig toshiba 3tb toshiba 3tb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
toshiba 3tb toshiba 3tb samsung 830 120gb seagate external 3tb 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
western digital external 320 gig hitachi external 500gig liteon blue ray drive liteon dvd burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
water windows 10 home / also windows 10 pro insider p... hitachi 40hxc06ub razer 
PowerCaseMouse
evga supernova 1000p2 nzxt 810 switch razer deathadder 2013 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 3770k asus rog maximus v formular evga gtx760 acx evga gtx760 acx 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
g skill ripjaws x samsung 850 evo 240gig toshiba 3tb toshiba 3tb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
toshiba 3tb toshiba 3tb samsung 830 120gb seagate external 3tb 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
western digital external 320 gig hitachi external 500gig liteon blue ray drive liteon dvd burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
water windows 10 home / also windows 10 pro insider p... hitachi 40hxc06ub razer 
PowerCaseMouse
evga supernova 1000p2 nzxt 810 switch razer deathadder 2013 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TheIntercept] How the NSA Plans to Infect ‘Millions’ of Computers with Malware