Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 153

Thread: Is privacy coming back?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    2,367
    Even if they are "only" gathering metadata, and I really believe they are, and probably can for the vast majority if not the entire US, that is horrifying. That anyone could defend any of it totally baffles me.
    Oh, and BTW, if they are listening in on even "just 5%" of conversations or email without warrents, for any reason, it is still too much.
    Paul

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    If anyone is interested, here's a link to a pretty interesting interview with the guy that wrote the software. It was very interested to hear how things progressed. I found him to be a highly credible sounding person.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-binney/#seg19
    Again, just to be clear, he did not write any software that was actually employed by the NSA:

    In September 2002, he, along with J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis, asked the U.S. Defense Department to investigate the NSA for allegedly wasting "millions and millions of dollars" on Trailblazer, a system intended to analyze data carried on communications networks such as the Internet. Binney had been one of the inventors of an alternative system, ThinThread, which was shelved when Trailblazer was chosen instead.

    [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...gence_official)]

    I sort of wonder if he'd be singing a different song had the NSA gone with his project, instead of his competition's.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by paul cottingham View Post
    Even if they are "only" gathering metadata, and I really believe they are, and probably can for the vast majority if not the entire US, that is horrifying. That anyone could defend any of it totally baffles me.
    Oh, and BTW, if they are listening in on even "just 5%" of conversations or email without warrents, for any reason, it is still too much.
    Half of me reads the NSA description of how the data is used and thinks, "I'm okay with that." The other half thinks the collection and use of metadata is invasive.

    The third half of me realizes that there may be a price to pay for tying the hands of the NSA too tightly.

    It is a heckuva balancing act. They (NSA) won't tell us much about their successes, so how are we supposed to know whether what we've given up (in liberty) makes it worthwhile?
    Last edited by Phil Thien; 10-02-2014 at 8:46 PM.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Thien View Post
    Again, just to be clear, he did not write any software that was actually employed by the NSA:

    In September 2002, he, along with J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis, asked the U.S. Defense Department to investigate the NSA for allegedly wasting "millions and millions of dollars" on Trailblazer, a system intended to analyze data carried on communications networks such as the Internet. Binney had been one of the inventors of an alternative system, ThinThread, which was shelved when Trailblazer was chosen instead.

    [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...gence_official)]

    I sort of wonder if he'd be singing a different song had the NSA gone with his project, instead of his competition's.
    I didn't say watch it to be convinced of anything, I said that if you wanted to see an interesting interview. We know your stance Phil, unless one of us provides proof that there's a secret program, you're not going to believe it. I stopped trying to have that conversation 2 days ago with you. I posted this interview because I thought it was a fascinating interview. How you took that guy, and turned him into a bitter person because he didn't get selected for something speaks volumes to me.

    I could put 1000 people on here and you'd pick apart every one. I'm done with that conversation and I'm continuing my conversation about privacy by linking to things I think are interesting.
    Lasers : Trotec Speedy 300 75W, Trotec Speedy 300 80W, Galvo Fiber Laser 20W
    Printers : Mimaki UJF-6042 UV Flatbed Printer , HP Designjet L26500 61" Wide Format Latex Printer, Summa S140-T 48" Vinyl Plotter
    Router : ShopBot 48" x 96" CNC Router Rotary Engravers : (2) Xenetech XOT 16 x 25 Rotary Engravers

    Real name Steve but that name was taken on the forum. Used Middle name. Call me Steve or Scott, doesn't matter.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    I didn't say watch it to be convinced of anything, I said that if you wanted to see an interesting interview. We know your stance Phil, unless one of us provides proof that there's a secret program, you're not going to believe it. I stopped trying to have that conversation 2 days ago with you. I posted this interview because I thought it was a fascinating interview. How you took that guy, and turned him into a bitter person because he didn't get selected for something speaks volumes to me.

    I could put 1000 people on here and you'd pick apart every one. I'm done with that conversation and I'm continuing my conversation about privacy by linking to things I think are interesting.
    I noted back in #99 that the guy didn't, in fact, write the code being used. I thought maybe you had missed it, so I thought I would make it more clear this time around.

    Sorry your feathers got ruffled.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by John Coloccia View Post
    Seriously, don't ever submit to any search under any circumstances. I have enough police officer friends and acquaintances that I've talked to about this that all tell me the same thing...it can't help and it can only hurt, and if they want to give you a hard time, believe me that they will find SOMETHING to give you grief about. At a minimum, they'll ruin your afternoon.
    This made me think of a recent incident with the son of a friend. He and three of his friends were in a park, sort of tailgating on his vehicle. They had had a few beers (he's 21) and were passing a joint (this wasn't in Colorado) when they spotted two officers on bicycles approaching them in the distance. They did what they felt they needed to to hide the evidence, including close up and lock the son's vehicle. When police asked questions, the son refused to implicate himself and refused to allow the police to search his vehicle. They handcuffed him and sat him away from the other three, who all cooperated with the police. In the end, the son received 5 citations, including obstructing a police dog (by greeting the dog the way most dog lovers would). Six squad cars, eight police officers and they threw everything they could at him because he wouldn't talk. It cost him over $2K in attorney fees and fines while the cooperating friends were sent home.

    One can interpret this in different ways but the bottom line is when the authorities decide they want to ruin your day, they will. And most often the judicial system will support them. You need a good attorney and maybe even the media to dilute the power they collectively wield. If in fact Apple cannot decrypt their own software, that would substantially reduce their apparent complicity in blocking law enforcement's belief they have the right to infringe on personal rights when allegedly pursuing justice. But it won't stop them from doing what they believe they have the right to do and they will just find another means to do so. And as long as we live in a society that freely and willingly gives up private and personal information and allows it to be submitted into a system that requires blind faith that information will never be used against you, that society is vulnerable to losing all it's privacy.

    Whatever Apple's and ello's claims might be, I find it hard to simply accept their words at face value. I've seen too many good-intentioned ideas succumb to the human emotion of greed. And with greed already deeply embedded in the three branches of our government, I have little faith that privacy invasion will ever cease, or even return to what it was prior to the electronic data revolution. Not as long as there is a profit to be made.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    If anyone is interested, here's a link to a pretty interesting interview with the guy that wrote the software. It was very interested to hear how things progressed. I found him to be a highly credible sounding person.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-binney/#seg19
    Okay I watched the video, I thought it was very interesting. You will see he isn't objecting to all voice being collected, but all metadata. Voice, he says, is very targeted. BUT, they find the voice based on the metadata (which is the way an intelligent person would go about it).

    And a couple of his assumptions about why his project was passed over may be colored. He made a reference to commenting-out lines of code by adding a "C" in front. Well, that is FORTRAN. If I were comparing projects, and one is written in FORTRAN and another in one of the C's, I'd likely be much more interested in the C code. Not because I can't handle the FORTRAN, but it will be easier for me to scale C projects, and to find new employees willing to work on C projects. The universities aren't exactly churning-out FORTRAN coders.

    And a competent C guy can do FORTRAN, but no supervisor can handle the amount of eye rolling and sarcasm that will ensue.

    But yeah, I think the guy lays out his points very well, and he DOES NOT want the U.S. metadata collected, period, end of story. He feels it is a violation of our constitutional rights. And there are a ton of people that feel that same way. The best way I've heard this put is, "freedom of association which is tracked by the gov't isn't freedom of association at all."

    And like I've said, I'm torn.

    As Mr. Binney points out in the video, they're trying to identify these sorts of social networks. And I see where that metadata would be invaluable.

    The thing is, that interview was taped last year. And now news reports indicate there may be more U.S. born citizens that have become sympathizers and may be attempting to reach-out and even join terrorist organizations. That could be propaganda, I suppose. But people looking for somewhere to fit in join cults which also seems inexplicable, so I can't rule it out.

    So if U.S. citizens talking with other U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is exempt from metadata mining, that would seem to make the job of the NSA to "connect the dots" that much more difficult.

    Where do you draw the line?
    Last edited by Phil Thien; 10-03-2014 at 11:00 AM.

  8. #128
    Awesome post, Julie.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    2,367
    I find myself wondering how they caught anyone at all before mass surveillance. I seriously doubt the small increase in "safety" (a strange way of looking at it in a gun mad country in my estimation, you are much more likely to be killed by a gun than a terrorist, not a judgement, an observation) is worth the wholesale loss of privacy.
    Last edited by paul cottingham; 10-03-2014 at 4:27 PM.
    Paul

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In my basement
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Thien View Post
    Half of me reads the NSA description of how the data is used and thinks, "I'm okay with that." The other half thinks the collection and use of metadata is invasive.

    The third half of me realizes that there may be a price to pay for tying the hands of the NSA too tightly.

    It is a heckuva balancing act. They (NSA) won't tell us much about their successes, so how are we supposed to know whether what we've given up (in liberty) makes it worthwhile?
    No, it's not a balancing act. It's an overreaching act.

    The NSA is the sister agency of the CIA; neither one is allowed to touch, work on, or intervene with anything on American soil. That the NSA collects *any* information on Americans is against their charter.

    The FBI are the ones that are chartered for the homeland, not the NSA/CIA/DIA.

    Privacy, as we knew it 30 years ago, is gone (I can only say 30 years because I'm 34). The average American is too busy caring about the Kardashians and The Voice to understand or even comprehend "privacy" and "security". I recently went on business trips and had to go through airports. I got to deal with the TSA extensively. You know how much safer I felt? None.

    "Empty your pockets of everything" - out of 10 times through TSA, I only got called on not emptying my pockets once
    "Make sure all metal is off your person" - out of 10 times, I walked through the scanners 10 times with a metal belt buckle

    My backpack that went through the X-ray machines had a good amount of wires. Literally, 4 3 foot Category 5E cables. 8 wires per cable, so almost 100 feet of wire. Then there was my iPhone. Small tools. Keys.

    All in all, for a resourceful person, I had plenty of weaponry and equipment to make explosives or take key personnel and hijack a plane. While flying from San Francisco to DC, when the pilots had to take a leak, guess who guarded an open cockpit door? The little old lady that was a stewardess. Seriously? Does grandma know Kung-Fu?

    The point? Security and privacy are long gone, my friend. It's a facade, and the average American is tacitly complicit in believing it. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain, for then you might have to realize that only you are responsible and accountable for yourself. If recent news and child-rearing "experts" are reasonable gauges, it's no wonder no one wants to look behind the curtain and see the truth.
    The Barefoot Woodworker.

    Fueled by leather, chrome, and thunder.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Mtl, Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    Quote Originally Posted by paul cottingham View Post
    I find myself wondering how they caught anyone at all before mass surveillance. I seriously doubt the small increase in "safety" (a strange way of looking at it in a gun mad country in my estimation, you are much more likely to be killed by a gun than a terrorist, not a judgement, an observation) is worth the wholesale loss of privacy.
    i wondered the same thing. But now with all the surveillance capability are they doing a better job? billions of cell phone calls and emails happen everyday...how do they narrow them down to something useful. millions of people lead normal lives and are not plotting terror against the us or its citizens but they, the terrorists only need to cause mayhem just once in a while to cause fear..is this the price of a free and open society?

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    4,563
    Well said, Adam.

    I flew commercially for the first time in 20 years last December. I kept my trap shut, but TSA was like a bad joke you've heard too many times. At one checkpoint, after emptying my pockets, removing my shoes and belt, I still set off the metal detector. YAY! Pat down! They were surprised they didn't find anything. (You know, because machines NEVER malfunction...) I saw all kinds of ways I could get something past the security were I of the mind to do so.
    Jason

    "Don't get stuck on stupid." --Lt. Gen. Russel Honore


  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Cruea View Post
    No, it's not a balancing act. It's an overreaching act.

    The NSA is the sister agency of the CIA; neither one is allowed to touch, work on, or intervene with anything on American soil. That the NSA collects *any* information on Americans is against their charter.

    The FBI are the ones that are chartered for the homeland, not the NSA/CIA/DIA.

    Privacy, as we knew it 30 years ago, is gone (I can only say 30 years because I'm 34). The average American is too busy caring about the Kardashians and The Voice to understand or even comprehend "privacy" and "security". I recently went on business trips and had to go through airports. I got to deal with the TSA extensively. You know how much safer I felt? None.

    "Empty your pockets of everything" - out of 10 times through TSA, I only got called on not emptying my pockets once
    "Make sure all metal is off your person" - out of 10 times, I walked through the scanners 10 times with a metal belt buckle

    My backpack that went through the X-ray machines had a good amount of wires. Literally, 4 3 foot Category 5E cables. 8 wires per cable, so almost 100 feet of wire. Then there was my iPhone. Small tools. Keys.

    All in all, for a resourceful person, I had plenty of weaponry and equipment to make explosives or take key personnel and hijack a plane. While flying from San Francisco to DC, when the pilots had to take a leak, guess who guarded an open cockpit door? The little old lady that was a stewardess. Seriously? Does grandma know Kung-Fu?

    The point? Security and privacy are long gone, my friend. It's a facade, and the average American is tacitly complicit in believing it. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain, for then you might have to realize that only you are responsible and accountable for yourself. If recent news and child-rearing "experts" are reasonable gauges, it's no wonder no one wants to look behind the curtain and see the truth.
    A couple of points/questions:

    (1) From your first three paragraphs are you saying you'd be okay with the FBI being the ones in charge of collecting the metadata? I think the NSA is doing it because they (NSA) also have much of the foreign completion data, so they can tie things together. I'd actually prefer the NSA do it, quite frankly, as they (NSA) aren't responsible for law enforcement here. It creates a bit of a firewall, in other words. And again, it isn't like the NSA is endlessly pouring over this data, they access it pretty infrequently, and with oversight. So says the NSA and congress. Now we can chose not to believe them. But as I've stated, it is pretty difficult to keep hundreds of people from blabbing when a program like this is misused.

    (2) Your points about airport security are well-taken. But do you think a guy from the Middle East doesn't imagine airport screeners are going to look at him a bit more closely than they look at you, regardless of what the TSA says? Why do you think terrorist organizations are trying to recruit people that don't look Middle Eastern? Have you seen the recent press reports of young (impressionable) girls from Australia that were brought to the Middle East as possible mating partners?

    So many of these programs (airport security, metadata collection, etc.), by their mere existence, make the job of terrorists more difficult. Just the possibility of getting caught boarding an airplane, or of the NSA identifying a cell because of the use of telephones, makes it that much more difficult for terrorist organizations.

    I think it was Snowden that said the NSA wanted to monitor chat traffic on gaming networks. Whether they are or aren't doesn't really matter, because if you're a terrorist you now have to assume they may be.

    The government is going to be blamed no matter what. If there is an attack, they will be blamed for not having done enough. Until then, they will be blamed for having gone too far.

    The game is called "You can't win."
    Last edited by Phil Thien; 10-14-2014 at 11:19 AM.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Mtl, Canada
    Posts
    2,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Roehl View Post
    Well said, Adam.

    I flew commercially for the first time in 20 years last December. I kept my trap shut, but TSA was like a bad joke you've heard too many times. At one checkpoint, after emptying my pockets, removing my shoes and belt, I still set off the metal detector. YAY! Pat down! They were surprised they didn't find anything. (You know, because machines NEVER malfunction...) I saw all kinds of ways I could get something past the security were I of the mind to do so.
    face it the TSA agents are not the brightest people around. I always though it was more of a make work program for those who are unemployable in regular jobs like the ones most persons have. At least unemployment was reduced in certain sectors.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Wintle View Post
    face it the TSA agents are not the brightest people around. I always though it was more of a make work program for those who are unemployable in regular jobs like the ones most persons have. At least unemployment was reduced in certain sectors.
    With a staff of approx. 50k, the employees are representative of what you'd find in the general population.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •