 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
1 edit | Suprised does this really surprise anyone? i am surprised this hasn't come out earlier. Although this has got to be nerve racking to be exposing this considering the parties involved. If I was a security expert in his position I would also be curious and nervous about a 3rd party having unrestricted, non logged direct access to the very network I am supposed to secure. almost seems unethical to have a job to protect the network and have to turn your head and look the other way when this connection exists.
Either way the telco immunity law will be passed and Verizon AT&T etc will not get in trouble, especially with the president spearheading the project. In the end the whistle blower will get the short end of the stick.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Message me. Thanks |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Agreed... how can you do your job as a network security analyst when you're not allowed to inquiry/log an unrestricted DS3 from an outside vendor into your network.
What makes it scary is that even IF FBI/NSA claim they're only looking for certain items, with an unrestricted/unlogged network sniffing your traffic, how can you be sure that's what they're doing ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | To eliminate the thought of malicious intent look at this in terms of possible human error. No logging, no checking, which could be done. If the person on the other side of the ds-3 gets a virus of some kind there are no controls in place to stop the transmission.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Personal Message me. Thanks |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Exactly. Wether it be a virus, an open email relay flood, bad routing, someone could inadvertently bring a network to its knees by doing this.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 ARGONAUTgot ping?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | reply to jgkolt
"If you want privacy... you may be a terrorist."
Jeff Foxworthy moment.  |
|
 AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to jgkolt
said by jgkolt:does this really surprise anyone? My thoughts exactly. |
|
| reply to en102
said by en102:Exactly. Wether it be a virus, an open email relay flood, bad routing, someone could inadvertently bring a network to its knees by doing this. This type of carte blanche access disgusts me. I've had arguments about this with folks higher up the totem pole than me at the telecom I work for; it annoys me to no end that they insist on sticking with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have no need for privacy" BS.
Someone should be nailed to the wall for this.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | said by Done_Posting:This type of carte blanche access disgusts me. I've had arguments about this with folks higher up the totem pole than me at the telecom I work for; it annoys me to no end that they insist on sticking with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have no need for privacy" BS. Doesn't the threat of a lawsuit concern them? |
|
| No, I think they feel that letting the government rummage through anything they want is somehow more "patriotic" than honoring due process.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:Doesn't the threat of a lawsuit concern them? Why do you think Bush & Co is pushing so hard for immunity from lawsuits? So they won't have to be concerned about it... ever. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by KrK:Why do you think Bush & Co is pushing so hard for immunity from lawsuits? So they won't have to be concerned about it... ever. Ever? The immunity bill covers September 11, 2001 and January
17, 2007.
»rpc.senate.gov/_files/L43S2248FI···07ML.pdf
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | And everything in between, and probably forever. We're at war, remember.
Until the end of days.
 |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | said by KrK:We're at war, remember. Until the end of days. You would be shocked if you knew how factually accurate your statement is, and how close we really are !
 |
|
| reply to jgkolt
Immunity laws aside they will only work while Bush is in office because they are illegal.
Congress cannot pass a law that side-steps the constitution. Such a law is, itself, illegal and will function now only because the Bush administration has placed itself above the Constitution which makes it perfectly clear that a search warrant is required and it must name the SPECIFIC person and place to be searched.
Merely passing a law that says otherwise is not going to change the Constitution.
We have got to kick them all out of office and impeach Bush and Cheney now to hold them accountable. We also have to consider switching to credomobile.com who does not cooperate and also donates to causes fighting spying.
»www.reelectnoone.com |
|
jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
2 edits | way to go paul
Does credo have their own network or do they use someone elses?
Thats a pretty big footprint for a small unknown carrier
Oh wait a minute...
"CREDO uses the Sprint wireless network to carry calls -- it does not maintain its own wireless network."
so wouldn't they be part of it too |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to paulkruger
said by paulkruger: the Constitution which makes it perfectly clear that a search warrant is required and it must name the SPECIFIC person and place to be searched. That's NOT what the Constitution says. It says we're protected from unreasonable searches, and that warrants must describe the place to be searched, etc. That does NOT mean all searches are unreasonable, or that all searches require a warrant.
Police frequently search without a warrant due to probably cause. And, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) & U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) describe circumstances under which telcos may release information without a warrant. Those laws have been on the books before the Bush Administration.
It would be easier to get behind efforts for more oversight and checks/balances if self-styled freedom fighters weren't so "over the top" in their depictions.
Mark |
|
| True but as a ex-cop I know that "probably cause" means that I have reason to believe a crime IS or IS ABOUT to be committed, and where to look for evidence to effect an arrest.
Random searches of every one without probable cause to believe a specific crime IS ABOUT to be committed ow by who, is a fishing expedition and does not constitute "probable cause".
The Supreme Court has never upheld convictions our searches that are mere fishing expeditions. |
|
jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | so would it be entrapment then? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to paulkruger
said by paulkruger:Random searches of every one without probable cause to believe a specific crime IS ABOUT to be committed ow by who, is a fishing expedition and does not constitute "probable cause". I agree. It's just not as absolute (or Bush's fault) as the original statement. I no fan of Bush either. Never voted for him (just to head off the customary reaction that anyone who disagrees with any form of Bush bashing must be a Republican).
Mark |
|
| reply to jgkolt
No not entrapment because entrapment is to "set some one up" to commit a crime they may not otherwise commit.
What they want to do is search EVERYONE in the hopes they catch someone doing something wrong with no idea of what or who.
It is constitutionally no different than breaking into every house in your town hoping to find something they can arrest people for. |
|
