Verizon & Obama: all your calls are belong to us.
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Hate Charlie? You're even more confused than previously stated
What you call subtext, I call assumption.
Why can't he find everything adorable? It works for you.
It's adorable you think Hoover and McCarthy were presidents.It's adorable you think something like that hasn't been in place since they were Presidents.
We are all sexy bitches though.
I'm not getting too excited by that NYTimes link just because Laura Poitras is the co-author. She's one of Greenwald's circle, and one of the ones who claimed that the NSA had "direct access" to everything on Google's servers when it turned out that Google had basically just set up a secured FTP folder they could drop subpoenaed info into. She has a very clear agenda and a history of deliberately misconstruing info to fit that agenda.
Without actual proof of wrong-doing by the NSA (which Poitras admits in like the 20th paragraph when acknowledging that the NSA does actually need a specific warrant for a specific individual to make one of those social maps), I'm going to stick with my original thought and simply say that this reveal doesn't really change anything except that the secret FISA court needs to go away and/or become much less secret.
Without actual proof of wrong-doing by the NSA (which Poitras admits in like the 20th paragraph when acknowledging that the NSA does actually need a specific warrant for a specific individual to make one of those social maps), I'm going to stick with my original thought and simply say that this reveal doesn't really change anything except that the secret FISA court needs to go away and/or become much less secret.
Dave
Staff member
You obviously didn't watch Family Guy on Sunday.
You had a guest spot as Peter's flappy hooties?
Dave
Staff member
Nah. Herbert (the old pedophile) was on a speed boat and his hooties were a-flappin' in the breeze! (I can't find a picture.)
Thank goodness!
Turns out that the FBI can compel email (and probably other) companies to give out their SSL keys: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed?ref=cm
For the non-technical folks out there, this is a very, very, VERY, VERY, bad idea. SSL is the foundation of "I'm really communicating with whom I think I am" on the internet. If any government has your SSL key, they can intercept 100% of your traffic with you not knowing, and even spoof your entire website to the outside world.
They can even alter in-line what you said. So if you sent an email to another person saying "I want to plead not-guilty because I did not murder that person" from your gmail account through SSL, then without being traced the entity with the private SSL key (government) could alter the message before it was even sent to say "I want to plead not-guilty even though I murdered the person." Then that 3rd-party communication could be used as evidence with a warrant that you did a crime. With NO WAY to tell differently.
This is ungodly horrible that those keys can be compelled. Which means it has probably already been done for the "big" email companies who couldn't shut down, rather than comply. I'm actually wondering if it's even worse, such as, do they already have a copy of the main "Root certificates" of the internet, and can thus man-in-the-middle ANYBODY who isn't using self-signed?
Anybody else feel "safe" still? I'm waiting for the mandatory "tele-screens" in everybody's home that listens all the time, since that's what this is. (1984 for those who don't get that reference)
For the non-technical folks out there, this is a very, very, VERY, VERY, bad idea. SSL is the foundation of "I'm really communicating with whom I think I am" on the internet. If any government has your SSL key, they can intercept 100% of your traffic with you not knowing, and even spoof your entire website to the outside world.
They can even alter in-line what you said. So if you sent an email to another person saying "I want to plead not-guilty because I did not murder that person" from your gmail account through SSL, then without being traced the entity with the private SSL key (government) could alter the message before it was even sent to say "I want to plead not-guilty even though I murdered the person." Then that 3rd-party communication could be used as evidence with a warrant that you did a crime. With NO WAY to tell differently.
This is ungodly horrible that those keys can be compelled. Which means it has probably already been done for the "big" email companies who couldn't shut down, rather than comply. I'm actually wondering if it's even worse, such as, do they already have a copy of the main "Root certificates" of the internet, and can thus man-in-the-middle ANYBODY who isn't using self-signed?
Anybody else feel "safe" still? I'm waiting for the mandatory "tele-screens" in everybody's home that listens all the time, since that's what this is. (1984 for those who don't get that reference)
Okay, this one is really bad.
It may be a case of some FBI lawyer writing out an order full of interwebs jargon that he thinks sounds important (the impression I get based on the FBI claim that they're just trying to get metadata, which you don't need SSL keys for), but either way, it's really effin' bad. Warrants for access or for metadata are one thing, SSL keys are something else entirely.
Saw the article mentioned, and I'm sure national security is a perfectly good reason to completely invalidate the web of trust.
They're saying, "You need to give us your keys," but what they're really saying is, "We don't want to spend the time and trouble sending you tons and tons of requests and have to wait for you to get back to us for each and every one. Why don't you just give us the keys so we can do it all ourselves?"
This is exactly the sort of thing that causes I see no problem with this.
--Patrick
They're saying, "You need to give us your keys," but what they're really saying is, "We don't want to spend the time and trouble sending you tons and tons of requests and have to wait for you to get back to us for each and every one. Why don't you just give us the keys so we can do it all ourselves?"
--Patrick
I really wish there were some way I could help that didn't involve contributing money. I would happily and unhesitatingly contribute hundreds of dollars to this cause if doing so did not amount to financial suicide. But I have no money to give, no whistles to blow, and no time to volunteer (and no desire to be radical about it), so my hands are tied.
This makes me unhappy.
--Patrick
Saw this: This dude just eavesdropped on former NSA director Michael Hayden. And he’s tweeting about it.
This is awesome. Hayden doesn't see why it's bad that the NSA listens in on everything. Then this happens. Maybe the former NSA head will "get it" now why privacy is important.
Ya, I know. But it's fun to dream.
This is awesome. Hayden doesn't see why it's bad that the NSA listens in on everything. Then this happens. Maybe the former NSA head will "get it" now why privacy is important.
Ya, I know. But it's fun to dream.
A new bill to end the bulk collection of metadata is actually getting some support. It might be worthwhile to contact your congress persons and push them to support it also.
And it gets worse. Why stop at just metadata? Let's just tap directly into Google and Yahoos overseas links between their datacenters without their knowledge and grab everything. It's not in the US so we can do what we want.
Quote of the week (at least) from the House Intelligence Committee Chair, Rep. Mike Rogers: "you can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated, right?"
Link, and it has a video too: Mike Rogers: You Can't Have Your Privacy Violated If You Don't Know About It | Techdirt
Link, and it has a video too: Mike Rogers: You Can't Have Your Privacy Violated If You Don't Know About It | Techdirt
You can take it even farther. If you murder someone in their sleep, it wasn't really murder! Hooray!
GasBandit
Staff member
So long as nobody ever finds the body! Good to know that if I make certain repellant politicians disappear without a trace, it's not a crime.