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 8

post #71 of 108
something interesting of note today, regarding the which kind of reinforces the things some have been saying here..

MPs question IS commissioner

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/mar/18/cameron-and-clegg-announce-new-childcare-allowance-reaction-politics-live-blog

scroll down to the intelligence questions ... an interesting excerpt..

Quote:
A Conservative, goes next:

Q: Who examines disciplinary proceedings of the agencies?

Waller says that is not within his statutory remit.

The agencies software will show if anyone is trying to obtain numbers without authorisation.

And Waller says he sees reports of disciplinary proceedings.

Q: And do you look into those?

Waller says he can see what someone was disciplined for?

Q: But do you check the proceedings have been properly conducted?

Waller says he does not check the rules have been followed.

Q: Does anyone else?

No.


there you have it. high potential for wrong doing built into the system.
Edited by Pip Boy - 3/18/14 at 11:28am
post #72 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.

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.
Note that I explicitly mentioned "context"... because it matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
You are missing the point of the analogy..... A dictionary is not nuanced or indepth so therefore it is of little use in a technical or complex debate. The analogy had nothing to do with provability but rather complexity of a word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
That is not true in law when you are talking about something in-depth and the other party is missing information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
This argument again is pretty weak.... then why don't we have $10000 speeding tickets? Wouldn't that be better if you believe it is just to raise money and act as a deterrent? Furthermore, "significant" is relative. A $50 jaywalking ticket is significant to low-income families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
If harassment is a crime, then why are you okay with harassment? Someone being made an example is different then a police officer following and giving tickets to a girl that rejected him in high school. Again..... CONTEXT!

You again are missing the point. Do you know all the municipal, state, and federal laws that you apply to you? NO! No one does, period. Dumblaws.com was just provide examples of silly laws.... there are many of them.

The government is not all knowing and omnipotent..... but by this statement, you basically dropped your entire premise of this debate. If the government is allowed unchecked surveillance, data storage, and data mining capabilities..... and this computing power allows it to do more and become cheaper.... a government can be coming nearly all knowing and omnipotent. (There are actually quite a few books on this.... i.e. 1984).


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
You brought them into the discussion, not I.

And no, I did not say losing some privacy is bad. People should have the right to opt-in to give up privacy for a service.

It is vastly easier getting out of Facebook and Google than getting out of the US. A social life and not all jobs not necessarily depend on Facebook or Google either. Yes, you might be a competitive disadvantage but still pales in comparison to a different country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
All countries are bad making every law clear cut. If this is true, is it possible that it is hard to make clear cut laws? So for the last 5000+ years, the entirety of humans have not been able to figure out how to make laws? I think it is you how does not really really really know how laws work. I think your understand of law is still bit simplistic if you honestly believe that.

Credit card agreements are not that easy... most are 2-4 pages. Besides, credit card agreements are not laws... they are contracts. They have hundreds of pages of laws and court cases behind them.

If you make a law so simple that it is easily attainable and understandable by a layperson, then odds are it is an absolutely terrible law. The reason for this is because there are many scenarios and context that it does NOT address. One-size probably does not fit all. Being the case, you have the courts for interpretation of law.

For example, "Killing is illegal". Ok.... how about war? Or how about self-defense? Ok.... what constitutes self-defense? Or... what about an accident? etc, etc, etc.





Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
It is moot because the review board is privy to confidential information. Any confidential information if it was related to terrorist activity or allies is still confidential after a confidential closed-door review.

Based on what rationale? You can't say "maybe based on something that I don't know and I won't state it.". You just moved the goal posts.


http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

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.
No, I didn't.

As previously stated.... the mass violation of population today is not a strong enough argument for the speculative prevention of some undefined crime in some unbounded future.

Furthermore, computing technologies can become near all-seeing and knowing. This article is about a deployment and automation framework.... more like Chef or Puppet. The actual monitoring and hacking tools are separate utilities inside this system.


http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png
Edited by DuckieHo - 3/18/14 at 6:52pm
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 #73 of 108
Duckie you're not going to convince him so why argue with him?
 
DD Portable
(12 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 5675C Gigabyte GA-Z97X Gaming 5 XFX RX 480 GTR 32GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 Evo Western Digital Black RE4 2TB Western Digital Green 2TB bequiet! Silent Wings 2 140mm PWM 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
bequiet! Silent Wings 2 140mm PWM bequiet! Shadow Wings SW1 120mm PWM bequiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 Arch X64 / Gnome and OSX 10.11 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 590D 4K KBC Poker II be quiet! Straight Power 10 400W bequiet! Silent Base 800 
MouseAudioAudio
Speedlink Omni VI  Sound Blaster Z  Bose Companion 2  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3427U The Googs HD4000 4GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Flash / 128GB SanDisk Extreme SD card ChromeOS / Ubuntu 14.04 12" 2560x1700 bad 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
not much  Aluminium  Trackpad it makes noise I think  
  hide details  
Reply
 
DD Portable
(12 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 5675C Gigabyte GA-Z97X Gaming 5 XFX RX 480 GTR 32GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 Evo Western Digital Black RE4 2TB Western Digital Green 2TB bequiet! Silent Wings 2 140mm PWM 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
bequiet! Silent Wings 2 140mm PWM bequiet! Shadow Wings SW1 120mm PWM bequiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 Arch X64 / Gnome and OSX 10.11 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 590D 4K KBC Poker II be quiet! Straight Power 10 400W bequiet! Silent Base 800 
MouseAudioAudio
Speedlink Omni VI  Sound Blaster Z  Bose Companion 2  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3427U The Googs HD4000 4GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Flash / 128GB SanDisk Extreme SD card ChromeOS / Ubuntu 14.04 12" 2560x1700 bad 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
not much  Aluminium  Trackpad it makes noise I think  
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 108
I love Duckie's posts wubsmiley.gif
 
Media Server
(12 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K MSI Z97S Krait XFX RX 480 Black Edition XFX RX 480 Black Edition 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
G.Skill Trident X 2666mhz Intel 530 Sandisk Extreme Pro LG WH14NS40 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG WH16NS40 Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 64-Bit BenQ XL2730Z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G710+ Seasonic Platinum 1000w Fractal Design R5 Zowie FK1+ 
Mouse PadOtherOther
XTrac Ripper XXL  4 x Vardar F-4 120mm (2x NH-D14, 2x Bottom Intake) 3 x Vardar F-3 140mm Intake (two front, one side) 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Celeron J1800 QNAP Proprietary  Intel HD Graphics Crucial 8GB Kit 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Stock Embedded Linux External, 96 W, 100-240 V TS-451 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Media Server
(12 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K MSI Z97S Krait XFX RX 480 Black Edition XFX RX 480 Black Edition 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
G.Skill Trident X 2666mhz Intel 530 Sandisk Extreme Pro LG WH14NS40 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG WH16NS40 Noctua NH-D14 Win 10 64-Bit BenQ XL2730Z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G710+ Seasonic Platinum 1000w Fractal Design R5 Zowie FK1+ 
Mouse PadOtherOther
XTrac Ripper XXL  4 x Vardar F-4 120mm (2x NH-D14, 2x Bottom Intake) 3 x Vardar F-3 140mm Intake (two front, one side) 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Celeron J1800 QNAP Proprietary  Intel HD Graphics Crucial 8GB Kit 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 4TB Western Digital Red Pro 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Stock Embedded Linux External, 96 W, 100-240 V TS-451 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post

Duckie you're not going to convince him so why argue with him?

Who's arguing? I'm trying to teach him. thumb.gif
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 #76 of 108
@phill1978
Quote:
KV: And how did you satisfy yourself? It seems from your comment that what you did you had a discussion with them,

SMW: Certainly.

KV: You heard what they had to say?

SMW: Certainly.

KV: And you accepted what they had to say?

SMW: Certainly.

KV: Is that it?

SMW: Certainly.

KV: Just a discussion.

SMW: Certainly.

KV: And that’s the way you were satisfied that there was no circumventing UK law. You went down, you went to see them, you sat round the table, you had a chat.

Sound legit? certainly! rolleyes.gif
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 #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Note that I explicitly mentioned "context"... because it matters.
You are missing the point of the analogy..... A dictionary is not nuanced or indepth so therefore it is of little use in a technical or complex debate. The analogy had nothing to do with provability but rather complexity of a word.
That is not true in law when you are talking about something in-depth and the other party is missing information.
This argument again is pretty weak.... then why don't we have $10000 speeding tickets? Wouldn't that be better if you believe it is just to raise money and act as a deterrent? Furthermore, "significant" is relative. A $50 jaywalking ticket is significant to low-income families.
If harassment is a crime, then why are you okay with harassment? Someone being made an example is different then a police officer following and giving tickets to a girl that rejected him in high school. Again..... CONTEXT!

You again are missing the point. Do you know all the municipal, state, and federal laws that you apply to you? NO! No one does, period. Dumblaws.com was just provide examples of silly laws.... there are many of them.

The government is not all knowing and omnipotent..... but by this statement, you basically dropped your entire premise of this debate. If the government is allowed unchecked surveillance, data storage, and data mining capabilities..... and this computing power allows it to do more and become cheaper.... a government can be coming nearly all knowing and omnipotent. (There are actually quite a few books on this.... i.e. 1984).
You brought them into the discussion, not I.

And no, I did not say losing some privacy is bad. People should have the right to opt-in to give up privacy for a service.

It is vastly easier getting out of Facebook and Google than getting out of the US. A social life and not all jobs not necessarily depend on Facebook or Google either. Yes, you might be a competitive disadvantage but still pales in comparison to a different country.
All countries are bad making every law clear cut. If this is true, is it possible that it is hard to make clear cut laws? So for the last 5000+ years, the entirety of humans have not been able to figure out how to make laws? I think it is you how does not really really really know how laws work. I think your understand of law is still bit simplistic if you honestly believe that.

If you make a law so simple that it is easily attainable and understandable by a layperson, then odds are it is an absolutely terrible law. The reason for this is because there are many scenarios and context that it does NOT address. One-size probably does not fit all. Being the case, you have the courts for interpretation of law.

For example, "Killing is illegal". Ok.... how about war? Or how about self-defense? Ok.... what constitutes self-defense? Or... what about an accident? etc, etc, etc.
It is moot because the review board is privy to confidential information. Any confidential information if it was related to terrorist activity or allies is still confidential after a confidential closed-door review.

Based on what rationale? You can't say "maybe based on something that I don't know and I won't state it.". You just moved the goal posts.


http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png
No, I didn't.

As previously stated.... the mass violation of population today is not a strong enough argument for the speculative prevention of some undefined crime in some unbounded future.

Furthermore, computing technologies can become near all-seeing and knowing. This article is about a deployment and automation framework.... more like Chef or Puppet. The actual monitoring and hacking tools are separate utilities inside this system.


http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png

Time to make this a little less TL; dr if possible

"A dictionary is not nuanced or indepth so therefore it is of little use in a technical or complex debate. "

But we're not arguing about how privacy should be defined in specific U.S. law, which it seems like you keep trying to bring the debate back to. We're arguing about whether certain privacy violations, such as this, should be acceptable or not, regardless of U.S. law. Again, why should we care what the majority of Americans have agreed on for this particular argument? I brought up facebook and google to suggest that not all privacy losses are bad and we often give away privacy voluntarily. You don't need unnecessarily dense definitions to know that you give up some of your privacy when you use google or facebook. You don't even need to read the terms of service. Again i go back to your example of gravity. You don't need to know the specifics of relativity when only talking about something like kinematic equations, which are good enough for describing the motions of celestial bodies in most cases. it's called black boxing and it's the reason why we have dictionaries. You haven't given one reason why we should be referring to particular definitions of privacy in U.S. law. You're obsessed with laws in this argument, for some reason.

Furthermore, in what way is this even a technical or complex debate? Complex compared to what? I never agreed this was a technical debate that required technical legal definitions.

"Yes, you might be a competitive disadvantage but still pales in comparison to a different country."
All that I said was, based on your statement, that it was not easy. I never said it was harder than completely moving out of the U.S. And actually, different countries aren't so bad. France, Germany, China, etc, would be pretty solid choices. I would say it would be easier to move to a different country than it would be to give up most of the internet for the rest of my life living in the U.S. Maybe in the 50's 70's it would be possible but not today.

"As previously stated.... the mass violation of population today is not a strong enough argument for the speculative prevention of some undefined crime in some unbounded future."
But you've never proven that losses of privacy are inherently bad. That's the assumption underlining your argument. I brought up facebook and google to suggest that this voluntary mass volition proves that society, including myself, really doesn't care that much about the loss of privacy. Privacy is overrated.

Additionally, this same argument could be made by saying that spending money on research is bad because we have no idea what the future outcomes will be. It's called hypothesizing and prediction. Or perhaps every stock trader was using logical fallacies by hypothesizing about stock vectors. You can make likely predictions about some aspects of the future. I never said it will, i said it might, so there is no logical fallacy at all, unless you think it's impossible, which would be thoroughly unprovable. The reason it's likely, however, is because technology is becoming more and more intertwined in society as time progresses, and as technology gets inherently better, so will this information system. You make this argument quite a bit actually. And the consequences aren't significant enough, as i've argued, to really make a difference.We often give up our privacy.


"People should have the right to opt-in to give up privacy for a service."
People should have the right to opt-in to give up money for a service. It sounds good at first until you realize, taxes. Paying with some privacy would be considered a price/tax to live in the U.S. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing in any shape or form at all. You would need to prove that was somehow counter utilitarian.

"then why don't we have $10000 speeding tickets? Wouldn't that be better if you believe it is just to raise money and act as a deterrent?"
It might be better, it might not. Why are you arguing against U.S. law anyways? Obvious irony is obvious. I'm just telling you what those laws are: disincentives. All laws are just disincentives of varying degree anyways. Infractions are just at the bottom. Now you're just complaining about law in general. This is also just a tangent to the main discussion.

"Furthermore, computing technologies can become near all-seeing and knowing. "
Well it would definitely prevent crime in that case. Sounds like a good way to stop all crime actually. It also sounds like you support my position that it will likely be able to be useful in the future, which you called an argumentative fallacy.

"That is not true in law when you are talking about something in-depth and the other party is missing information."
Allegedly missing information that's not relevant to the argument at all. Red herring 101. Also every time you needlessly question my knowledge about particular laws, you're just expressing more red herrings because its not the main topic of discussion .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring


"Besides, credit card agreements are not laws"
I didn't say credit card agreements were laws, I said "credit card agreements, for example".I suppose i should have made it a bit more clear, but i meant it as a result of bad laws that allow credit card contracts to be overly dense and intentionally tricky with things like 0% APR . No one has time to go through and understand every single terms of service, every single contract 100%, etc. Therefore it shows bad laws.

"and this computing power allows it to do more and become cheaper.... a government can be coming nearly all knowing and omnipotent. (There are actually quite a few books on this.... i.e. 1984)."
Pure speculation and evidence cited from science fiction. Not exactly solid ground. What's next, terminator? *insert skynet quip. Plus, conveniently, this argument would again support my position that eventually the the NSA information system will become effective enough due to advancing technology to actually be able to catch criminals, assuming none have already been found. For the sake of the argument, I'll just take your word that the committees are mostly honest.

I failed hard on trying to make it shorter though rolleyes.gif
Edited by serp777 - 3/19/14 at 2:30am
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 #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post

Duckie you're not going to convince him so why argue with him?

You could say the same thing about me. I'm never going to convince him so why argue with him? But why post a comment wondering why duckie wants to argue with me? Seems more pointless. At least at the minimum Duckie and I are honing debate skills on some level .
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 #79 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

But we're not arguing about how privacy should be defined in specific U.S. law, which it seems like you keep trying to bring the debate back to. We're arguing about whether certain privacy violations, such as this, should be acceptable or not, regardless of U.S. law. Again, why should we care what the majority of Americans have agreed on for this particular argument? I brought up facebook and google to suggest that not all privacy losses are bad and we often give away privacy voluntarily. You don't need unnecessarily dense definitions to know that you give up some of your privacy when you use google or facebook. You don't even need to read the terms of service. Again i go back to your example of gravity. You don't need to know the specifics of relativity when only talking about something like kinematic equations, which are good enough for describing the motions of celestial bodies in most cases. it's called black boxing and it's the reason why we have dictionaries. You haven't given one reason why we should be referring to particular definitions of privacy in U.S. law. You're obsessed with laws in this argument, for some reason.
No, what I am arguing is privacy and law complex in their very nature. It might be relatively ok to give up some privacy to a company.... but this is very different from the government. I am trying not to equate the two.

If you want to use the gravity example, knowing about gravity in general is fine for a baseball player while knowing about gravity is critical for a engineer slingshoting a probe around a planet. Google tracks you to market you things after you agree to them and you have the power to opt-out. This is vastly different from the government secretly tracking you to see if you committed or will commit crimes even if you don't agree to it and don't have the power to opt-out. Furthermore, there is recourse if a company like Google did something to violate or leak personal information. There is very little recourse with the government when they do the same. The context is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Furthermore, in what way is this even a technical or complex debate? Complex compared to what? I never agreed this was a technical debate that required technical legal definitions.
If you are discussing privacy or law, it is a technical debate due to the nuances.

Otherwise, it's just:
"Privacy good!"
"No, security better!"
"NO! Privacy best!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

All that I said was, based on your statement, that it was not easy. I never said it was harder than completely moving out of the U.S. And actually, different countries aren't so bad. France, Germany, China, etc, would be pretty solid choices. I would say it would be easier to move to a different country than it would be to give up most of the internet for the rest of my life living in the U.S. Maybe in the 50's 70's it would be possible but not today.
You can't just move to France or Germany from the US. (Not sure about China.) It's hard to move unless you have a job.

Never said you have to give up the Internet.... you can still use most of the Internet anonymously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

But you've never proven that losses of privacy are inherently bad. That's the assumption underlining your argument. I brought up facebook and google to suggest that this voluntary mass volition proves that society, including myself, really doesn't care that much about the loss of privacy. Privacy is overrated.
A democracy/republic cannot properly function without privacy. There are many examples throughout history where knowledge of other's private lives is abused. It might work for awhile but it is too easy for abuse. Freedom requires privacy. Yes, we all agree to give up some freedom in return for some security. How much to give up is the debate. However, absolute security means absolutely no freedom.

Private companies are inherently different from governements so again, you cannot equate the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Additionally, this same argument could be made by saying that spending money on research is bad because we have no idea what the future outcomes will be. It's called hypothesizing and prediction. Or perhaps every stock trader was using logical fallacies by hypothesizing about stock vectors. You can make likely predictions about some aspects of the future. I never said it will, i said it might, so there is no logical fallacy at all, unless you think it's impossible, which would be thoroughly unprovable. The reason it's likely, however, is because technology is becoming more and more intertwined in society as time progresses, and as technology gets inherently better, so will this information system. You make this argument quite a bit actually. And the consequences aren't significant enough, as i've argued, to really make a difference.We often give up our privacy.
There's a difference with your two examples:
Researchers have ethical rules and do not directly or intentionally harm/violate others.
Stock traders have regulations and do not directly or intentionally harm/violate others.
While either can do "bad" things, there are laws and recourse (except when they can outpace law...).

There is a benefit of surveillance however does it outweigh it's (non-capital) cost to society? That is the debate that people should be having.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

People should have the right to opt-in to give up money for a service. It sounds good at first until you realize, taxes. Paying with some privacy would be considered a price/tax to live in the U.S. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing in any shape or form at all. You would need to prove that was somehow counter utilitarian.
Except citizens do have ways of controlling what is done with taxes... voting, lobbying, and taking office.

Again, without proper debate and open discussion, how are citizens or even the government suppose to manage government surveillance?

Congress or citizens cannot make decisions or decide what is acceptable especially when it applies directly to them if something is done without their knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

It might be better, it might not. Why are you arguing against U.S. law anyways? Obvious irony is obvious. I'm just telling you what those laws are: disincentives. All laws are just disincentives of varying degree anyways. Infractions are just at the bottom. Now you're just complaining about law in general. This is also just a tangent to the main discussion.
No, I am logically extending your argument. The correct answer would be: Society deems it is unfair for speeding tickets to be $1000.

So let's walk this through.... government raises speeding tickets to $1000. People get pissed when they get issued one. More people get pissed.... and more. Then enough people tell the government change this law or we won't re-elect you!

So let's go back to the topic..... government is secretly invading your privacy...... ..... ..... .... .... .....

People do nothing because they don't know!

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Well it would definitely prevent crime in that case. Sounds like a good way to stop all crime actually. It also sounds like you support my position that it will likely be able to be useful in the future, which you called an argumentative fallacy.
It would also be ripe for abuse as the current systems have already been abused. Again, a democracy/republic cannot exist without privacy.

Personally, I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state (which goes against the basis of the US).


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Allegedly missing information that's not relevant to the argument at all. Red herring 101. Also every time you needlessly question my knowledge about particular laws, you're just expressing more red herrings because its not the main topic of discussion .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring.
If one has more knowledge or understanding on a topic than another, how is it a red herring? I'm attempting to explain the context and reality. If that is not framed, then we are not talking on the same page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

I didn't say credit card agreements were laws, I said "credit card agreements, for example".I suppose i should have made it a bit more clear, but i meant it as a result of bad laws that allow credit card contracts to be overly dense and intentionally tricky with things like 0% APR . No one has time to go through and understand every single terms of service, every single contract 100%, etc. Therefore it shows bad laws.
That is a weak argument....

So what you are saying is.... "if something is overly dense and intentionally tricky, then that is evidence of a bad law?"

That's absurd. If you want a "good" law, it will be a few hundred pages each since laws set frameworks and do not always fully cover implementation.

In addition, do you know how federal laws are passed? They are a result of compromise and bundling.... that's how they can get concise to pass. If you want nice/tidy laws, you would have to live in an authoritative government. I can also guarantee you that such nice/tidy laws would either be arbitrarily enforced or inappropriately applied since they could not account for situations or context.

For example, the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" was passed in 2010 (after a LOT of compromises). It then took SEC and CFTC 3 years and 800 pages to define what swaps are. So in democracy/republic, you want near-perfect laws that are a thousands of pages and take a decade to pass.... or do you want authoritarianism?


Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

Pure speculation and evidence cited from science fiction. Not exactly solid ground. What's next, terminator? *insert skynet quip. Plus, conveniently, this argument would again support my position that eventually the the NSA information system will become effective enough due to advancing technology to actually be able to catch criminals, assuming none have already been found.
It is not speculation. There are many obvious technology trends:
* Smartphone adoption rate.
* Internet adoption rate.
* GPS adoption rate.
* Decreasing cost of SoCs.
* Decreasing cost of wireless communication.
* Decreasing cost of storage.
* Growth of Big Data mining technologies.
* Internet of Everything.
* Increased video/pictures volumes.

Seriously, go read up on what the computer industry is doing and wants to do..... this is public and common knowledge stuff.

AGAIN... you keep forgetting my point. I never said this technology cannot catch criminals.

I and many people are saying: The cost of this security may not be worth the cost in freedom.

Until the public has this debate, it should not be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

For the sake of the argument, I'll just take your word that the committees are mostly honest.
No, you have to take the word of the committee because you have absolutely no proof otherwise. It would be irrational NOT to.

Again, why would the NSA hide information supporting their case from a review board that plans to publish their findings to the public? It would be counterproductive for the NSA to not demonstrate the worth of a system to the people who will help determine the fate of the system.
Edited by DuckieHo - 3/19/14 at 6:22pm
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 #80 of 108
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/inside-the-nsas-leaked-catalog-of-surveillance-magic/

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/nsas-automated-hacking-engine-offers-hands-free-pwning-of-the-world/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/spy-agency-intercepts-yahoo-webcam-chats-nudes-and-all/
Bow;chicka+wow-wow, now that IS privacy being encroached on in a most undesirable and obtrusive way, Then for them to turn around and call it "Undesirable Nudity" really undesirable is truly in the eye of the beholder here.
Quote:
More specialized BIOS attacks were developed to take advantage of motherboard-based System Management Mode (SMM) capabilities on Dell and Hewlett-Packard servers. Dell PowerEdge servers were targeted with an implant called DEITYBOUNCE, while HP Proliant 360DL G5 servers were targeted with one called IRONCHEF. Both allowed NSA operators to gain remote control of systems in SMM mode—giving the agency firmware-level control over infected servers and the ability to do things like run “rootkits” on the server operating system.
Quote:
For systems where a BIOS hack is impractical, the NSA has other tools to install a persistent backdoor. One, called GINSU, uses a PCI bus device installed on the computer. An implant called BULLDOZER creates a stealth wireless bridge, providing radio-based remote control of the backdoor to TAO operators. If the rootkit on the system (called KONGUR) is removed by a system re-installation, the GINSU backdoor can re-install the software on the next boot-up.
Quote:
For networks that the NSA can't get to physically, there's NIGHTSTAND, a self-contained Wi-Fi hacking system that can break into networks up to eight miles away, in optimum conditions. NIGHTSTAND hijacks the target network and uses packet injection attacks to install exploits on the target network's computers. Combined with a Windows exploit called SOMBERKNAVE, which uses a computer's Wi-Fi adapter to "phone home" with data, it could be used to collect data from target computers even when they're not intentionally connected to a network.

Just a few quick snips highlighting some of the methodology(USB and Eithernet implants put in diverted shipments of hardware, really, hacking and modifying cords and adaptors en-route to manufacturers and stores?) , at this point I'm afraid one has to assume if they can think it up, they have done it.
Edited by Neckbeard13 - 3/19/14 at 10:17pm
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
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