 | | "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! DUH! I've never understood why anyone would expect privacy over a public network. I guess I assume there is no privacy because I remember a time when there was none on the interwebs.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for
"What he's again confirming here is that major carriers have embedded hardware"
Thanks for pointing out that the big boys are doing this and not every ISP.
AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
 | | | Re: "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! Privacy is an illusion since Bush came in to office. The playing field has not only been level, it's been sodded, stripped, and painted. Bush opened Pandroa's box, and once politicians saw the powers given, none were willing to turn back.
Obama gave the NSA wiretapping program a blanket immunity. Did anyone expect him to reverse course of Bush's 9/11 Fearism tactics? Of course not. Once you give up rights, they are almost always gone or very hard to reclaim. Now, we're only going to see things get MUCH MUCH WORSE.
The media is too lackluster to care. Most of these giants own or are apart of the same establishments profiteering off the government spying efforts.
Et Al.
Time Warner
Cox
etc | |
|
| | | | Re: "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! Privacy was an illusion before Bush came into office. It was during Bush's term that it became common knowledge
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jc100:Obama gave the NSA wiretapping program a blanket immunity.
No, the bill passed by Congress, signed by 2 presidents, and upheld by the courts, gave immunity for civil lawsuits to corporations who legally cooperated with the other provisions of the bill. There is no immunity to unlawful acts by corporations or the government. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! Again with the splitting of hairs. The Telcos were given blanket immunity from CIVIL LAWSUITS regarding the formerly ILLEGAL actions of the Corporations and Government.
In effect complete immunity as a citizen cannot bring criminal charges vs anyone--- only a civil case.
End result: Everyone got away with it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! said by KrK:Again with the splitting of hairs. The Telcos were given blanket immunity from CIVIL LAWSUITS regarding the formerly ILLEGAL actions of the Corporations and Government.
In effect complete immunity as a citizen cannot bring criminal charges vs anyone--- only a civil case.
End result: Everyone got away with it.
Almost correct. The actions were not "formerly illegal". They were legal, by definition. The 3 branches of government decide what is legal. Bill passed by congress, signed by 2 presidents, upheld by courts.
As a citizen you cannot bring criminal charges, correct. No matter how strongly you believe something is illegal, it's not your call. Except indirectly, by voting for your representatives. That's fundamental to our justice system. It's not "splitting hairs". How would you like it if some random guy could haul you into criminal court for whatever?
Unfortunately IMO there are many who hold that the "death by 1000 lawsuits" tactic is righteous when they believe their cause is just. I find it a shockingly inefficient way for a minority to try to impose its will. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: "You Have Absolutely No Privacy" - DUH! said by MyDogHsFleas:Almost correct. The actions were not "formerly illegal". They were legal, by definition. The 3 branches of government decide what is legal. Bill passed by congress, signed by 2 presidents, upheld by courts. *Retroactively after the deeds were done*
Formerly illegal. Now, legal...
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| |  Lone WolfIndependent Voter, Buy Gold and GunsPremium
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| said by jc100:Privacy is an illusion since Bush came in to office.
Which Bush? I always get confused when people say "It's Bush's fault" because I'm older and remember there were two Bushes. One of them was part of the beginning of the Information Superhighway.
I think it's this guy's fault:
Li Ka-shing:
New Ruler of the Information Superhighway
Global Crossing, Enron's evil twin, is about to be "rescued" by a Chinese billionaire with ties to the People's Liberation Army.
Why not? He already controls the Panama Canal. Will it threaten national security to have a Chinese company controlling the fiber-optic network our defense department uses to communicate and store data?
That's something we should be asking.
--
Another 4 years of Hope and Change.
The rich will still get richer and the poor get an Obamaphone and Food Stamps. lol
| |
|
 danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | So then encryption means nothing? While I believe they are capturing some data, capturing it all is a bit far fetched. The sheer amount of data running across the wires these days is HUGE, ridiculously massive. Even the Federal government with all its resources just doesn't have the storage capacity to store it all. They would need tractor trailers full of disc drives daily to keep up with the volume of both encrypted and non-encrypted data flowing daily across the US alone.
I would also wonder about the state of encrypted data. Can it really be decoded so simply? Does Google et. al. just let government entities just capture and decode their encrypted data? Sorry, but call me skeptical of these claims and allegations. | |
|
| | | Re: So then encryption means nothing? They capture all the data. Their current issue is storage. They can only keep the data for a certain period of time before they have to flush it due to storage constraints. That's the point of the new facility, to be able to keep the data for longer.
The idea was in the past if they needed a wire tap they would go to a judge to issue one, and once issued from that point forward they could listen in. Now, they have access to all the history too. | |
|
| | | said by danclan:Does Google et. al. just let government entities just capture and decode their encrypted data? Sorry, but call me skeptical of these claims and allegations.
Ask youself how the FBI got access to General Petraeus' gmail account so quickly and easily. Nope, no collaboration there between Goog and the feds. | |
|
| | momus_98
join:2002-09-10
Pflugerville, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: So then encryption means nothing? said by Killersaurus:Ask youself how the FBI got access to General Petraeus' gmail account so quickly and easily. Nope, no collaboration there between Goog and the feds. Gen. Petraeus was the director of the CIA and held other high level positions. Not really the best example as he'd certainly be under far more scrutiny than the average citizen.
--
"War does not determine who is right; only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
"Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their
country." - Bertrand Russell | |
|
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: So then encryption means nothing? He was still using the same email service as us non-CIA directors. So the government can get your email if they want it, you're just hoping they don't want yours. | |
|
| | | I imagine they can filter and compress the amount of data down quite a bit since most of it is redundant or obviously irrelevant. "Persons of interest" or persons who match certain patterns can be targeted for the most intensive data gathering, and corporations would cooperate willingly, though they probably don't need to be asked | |
|
| vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Of course they do. Now end-to-end encryption (where the carrier has no access to the key) is different, and probably much more secure. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Google email isn't encrypted. It is unencrypted despite using encryption transport technologies like SSL. Unless you and your communication partner both use encryption systems and techniques, everything is clearly available for the government to view provided they fill out the proper forms, pay the processing fee, etc. Google isn't alone in this sense. All providers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast, etc.) will give the authorities access to your information stored on their systems if requested by a law enforcement agency and the proper steps are followed.
Privacy is an illusion unless you create your own privacy. | |
|
| |
|  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | quote:
So then encryption means nothing?
I dont see how they can read that,and THIS!!! (this message) on demand like that........ | |
|
 lordfly
join:2000-10-12
Homestead, FL
 ·SkyNet360
| Backups Considering this vast amount of data, I figure they will have to forego standard backup procedures. About the best they could do is do real cloning between centers. I don't want to do the math, but a Petabyte storage device would fill up rather quickly. I can see drive space manufacturers making a ton of dough from this little adventure. Maybe new technology will come out of this.
We shall see how far this goes. It is dangerous to store that much information. | |
|
| | Look at Petraeus If what happened to the director of the CIA wasn't a wakeup call to everyone, then they're going to stay asleep. The FBI cracked his gmail account with obviously no effort and without there being any evidence of an actual crime taking place. There was no legal support for what they did and yet they were able to get full access to not only his personal account, but to his mistress's. I may have read one article about the implications of this ability shown off by the FBI, but everyone else was too interested in the sex scandal to even notice. | |
|
| | | Re: Look at Petraeus And that was the FBI, which needs to at least appear to be following procedures and regulations when it wants to build a case for court. The NSA does not need to worry about oversight | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Killersaurus: The FBI cracked his gmail account with obviously no effort and without there being any evidence of an actual crime taking place. All that is perfectly legal now.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
| danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
2 edits | Re: Privacy This has nothing to do with data streams but with offline hash attacks......e.g. someone hacked and stole user account data and and wants to brute force attack.
1024/2048bit key encryption is far harder and as yet have not been broken. The minimum bit length today is 2048 for keys.
Your data can also be easily protected if you use AES-256 to encrypt and send anything as I don't believe its been shown to be broken yet either.
The complicated issue regarding warrants and searches is somewhat addressed here:
»www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/···20121117 | |
|
| |  So Who..
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. | |
|
| | | Re: So Who.. Sorry, you don't have the security clearance to access your email. | |
|
| | NO Privacy No American citizen has complete privacy If you have a cell phone, use the internet pay taxes have credit or been arrested or a host of other tie-ins. If the Federal or State govt wants information they will get it, with or without a warrant, the Constitution means nothing if you have generated enough concern or interest. That's not to say you can't escape but it's hard.
My brother lived basically undetected for years (Evidently the Feds wanted him for something) but had to use alias no credit cards, no bank accounts but died a penniless pauper and would have been buried in public mass burial if he hadn't revealed who he was before he died. Death is about the only way you will get any true privacy. | |
|
 PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| do non-USA outlet VPNs defeat this? if you are on a VPN that outlets to Europe using an OpenVPN client and keep SSL intact during browsing, would that prevent the US government from accumulating all your online activity? sure that outlet country could have it (and find you if they could get the vpn provider to give them your mac address), but it seems only USA is still post-9/11 hysterical enough to bother. | |
|
| | | Re: do non-USA outlet VPNs defeat this? said by Packeteers:if you are on a VPN that outlets to Europe using an OpenVPN client and keep SSL intact during browsing, would that prevent the US government from accumulating all your online activity? sure that outlet country could have it (and find you if they could get the vpn provider to give them your mac address), but it seems only USA is still post-9/11 hysterical enough to bother.
VPN cant save you from the government cause they can setup a honey pot. People like to think they have security and everything's private but really you cant hide behind tor or VPN if the government is REALLY looking for you. | |
|
| | PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: do non-USA outlet VPNs defeat this? that really was not my point.
the question is - does a non-usa outlet vpn circumvent the usa from accumulating all your usual data traffic, since they can still capture all your data packets coming off your mac address, but it will be SSL encrypted AND vpn encrypt jacketed jibberish, not something they could easially keyword search or catalog about you.
not - does it prevent a determined security agency from finding you out. | |
|
|  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:6
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Packeteers:if you are on a VPN that outlets to Europe using an OpenVPN client and keep SSL intact during browsing, would that prevent the US government from accumulating all your online activity?
Bits is bits, encrypted, or not. If the bits traverse U.S. carrier networks, they get scarfed up.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | Re: do non-USA outlet VPNs defeat this? said by NormanS:said by Packeteers:if you are on a VPN that outlets to Europe using an OpenVPN client and keep SSL intact during browsing, would that prevent the US government from accumulating all your online activity?
Bits is bits, encrypted, or not. If the bits traverse U.S. carrier networks, they get scarfed up. getting scarfed up being able to read. They would have gigabits of encrypted traffic that they would have to decrypt somehow and right quick if they want anything useful in a meaningful time frame to be able to act on it.... | |
|
| | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: do non-USA outlet VPNs defeat this? said by danclan:getting scarfed up being able to read.
How do you figure? (My first read put an, "is" in your comment; made more sense that way. Not sure, on re-read, what you are saying.)
They would have gigabits of encrypted traffic that they would have to decrypt somehow and right quick if they want anything useful in a meaningful time frame to be able to act on it....
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | The lack of transparency / illegality bothers me more The potential loss of privacy is bad. This should be guaranteed by 4th amendment rights. What bothers me even more, is how this happens without any law passed. It's a bypass of democracy, to violate our rights, with no accountability. W Bush approved it, and Obama did not fix it. There are a few senators who tried to do something, but not enough people are on our side.
It doesn't matter if the intent is good now. It's only a matter of time before this illegal power is used to control the political process as well. | |
|
|
| | Attaining online privacy is inconvenient That's one of the primary reasons that the average individual does not have it. I launched a site in '09 that provides end-to-end encryption of threaded messages and files. I believed that there was an unsatisfied demand for electronic communication protection. I was wrong. Although many say they want it, most are not willing to do anything different to get it. They want all the free stuff they use to change instead. ThreadThat dot com is still available today. It is ad-free and cost-free and I continue to support it because I believe you should have a choice. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: Attaining online privacy is inconvenient Hey! Mr. P. How long you been with NSA now? Almost ready to retire no? JUST KIDDING. People just don't CARE about privacy, and they really haven't HAD any for a long long time. "Your Rights" and "Your Freedoms" have all been nothing but a joke for decades.
Many, many, MANY years ago when I was in my early-mid 20's and dinosaurs walked the Earth... before PC's were even thought of, I responded for a job at a 3 letter agency that was advertised in the New York Times. It was NOT a spook job... just a Computer Center Supervisor for said agency. I knew I'd have to get a clearance and knew how crazy that could be because my elder brother already had gone through that (almost got evicted from his apartment because the Feds that came to his landlady to ask about him "forgot" to say it was for a security clearance)... but what the heck.
I arrived at the INTERVIEW to be greeted by a man sitting behind a desk on which there was a 5 inch thick file. I was in my 20's... had gone to school, not very political at all....was a geek, and yet this agency had a 5 inch thick file ON ME!!! They knew WHO I got SNAIL MAIL FROM!!! THEY HAD DATES!!!
OK, perhaps at the age of 16 I had brought SOME of this on myself. I used to be into short wave radio and send away to stations for QSL cards, a nice postcard that stations around the world would send you if you sent them information about their programming at a certain time and some technical info. I wallpapered my room with them, so I got routine mail from Radio Havana, Radio Moscow and Radio Peking, because as an American, once they got your name, they NEVER LET GO.
So people, "your rights", "your freedoms", disappeared LONG before all the Presidents you speak of. I doubt that they were much more than the "Party Line", propaganda for longer than any of us has walked this Earth. People now have just been trained to be too stupid to CARE, to understand the implications. If you really THINK there is a "GOOD GUY", you're delusional.
--
Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it. | |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA | no need for the online modifier You can always check out of society and live in a hut somewhere. They you can have privacy. Otherwise, not so much.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | We still have privacy It's called 2 tin cans and a string. | |
|
hgraul
join:2005-12-04
Saint Louisville, OH | Hey! It's on TV And people think "Person of Interest" is made up. Maybe a bit over blown, but I'm thinking not made up. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·DIRECTV
| Dems or Reps, same difference..NO difference! The fact is that BOTH major US political parties are nothing more than shills for special interests, especially Israeli interests...
Most of the significant information gathering outfits that collect data from the US telephone cos are located or HQ'd in "Israel" or are owned by partisan jewish interests.
The only person freedom and liberty loving American should have voted for is Virgil Goode, the Constitutional Party candidate.
Problem is that the elections are rigged. | |
|
| | | | Re: Dems or Reps, same difference..NO difference! Serious tin foil hat. the "data collection" companies you're talking about are outsourced billing providers. The telephone companies choose to use them.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net | |
|
 BrendanWarr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO | Privacy Privacy has been dead since the commercialization of the telephone. | |
|
cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON | copyright infringment? I wonder, if they're storing everyone's internet data, that must mean they're also storing pirated content... Someone should alert the MPAA. | |
|
 EGeezerGo CatsPremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 | Dichotomy It seems they don't have the money to build out internet to under-served areas, but have plenty of money to build 10GB lines to dump and store our data.
--
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.
| |
|
|
|
·
