In the year since Snowden's revelations ...
Displaying poll results.15684 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8469 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6281 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.
No, we didn't. Snowden's revelations have been a real eye-opener.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden's revelations just gave me a chance to go around saying, "See I told you so! Who's the conspiracy nutjob now!"
Re:secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously suggesting that most of people knew about NSA directly intercepting a buttload of normal civilians' internet traffic, for example?
On Slashdot? Yes.
In the general population? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously suggesting that most of people knew about NSA directly intercepting a buttload of normal civilians' internet traffic, for example?
From 2000, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
Snowden's revelations should not have surprised anybody here.
Re:secured by criminals (Score:2)
I've had enough personal experience dealing with my Fearless Leaders to know it very well. Follow the money, fill in the blanks.
Re: (Score:2)
But for whatever reason, an eye witness is ignored, while an email is gold. I'm seriously suggesting that most people knew that others "suspected" the NSA directly intercepted things they "shouldn't". But, despite the evidence supporting those relations, they refused to believe.
It wasn't an accusation of JFK being assassinated by Martians, but that a spy ag
Re: (Score:2)
I've known for sure since ~2003, when I overheard the owner of one minor ISP discussing the issue with the owner of another minor ISP, about how he'd been forced to tack a federal monitoring box onto his system. If it had trickled down to little hole-in-the-wall ISPs whose customers number in the mere hundreds, you can bet it was already well-established with the big providers.
Back about 1997ish, word around was that the FBI had tried to get Earthlink to do the same with its email system, and Earthlink refu
Re: (Score:2)
No. We knew it was a possibility, but we didn't know what was actually going on and so the gov't and press could dismiss techies as paranoid. More importantly, no one was talking about it, which is the really good thing to come out of all this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like we know OJ Simpson did it, but we don't have a written confession. Now we have a written confession from the NSA. Time to convict.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.
This stuff was going on in the 80s. But in those days it was phone tapping. There were computerised phone tapping systems by at least 1984. The police's system in London (UK) crashed during the miner's strike because everyone was talking about pickets.
let's do better next time (Score:2)
Let's note how this statement would have been modded and responded to back when these revealtions were first publicized...
Put the question in the context where acknowledging that Snowden's info was common knowledge among tech industry professionals in that area makes the respondent able to use their answer to demonstrate their own technical prowess...well...
then of course the NSA was spying...i mean...we knew it back in 2006
...and protect ourselves (Score:2)
Chelsea Manning, Aaron Schartz, Snowden...
all apparently very technically skilled/knowledgable people, perfectly capable of contributing to tech/society...
now either dead or in prison (yes, Snowden's not a free man in Russia)
assuming altruistic intentions on all (again, Snowden...but let's assume) they've all been punished much too severely
we, as a tech community, need to protect each other from going off the deep end
we all knew what was technically possible when the internet first came into use, cell phone
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason this is a "scandal" is because scandal-addicts have been starved for one.
No, it was a scandal because we were given actual proof that it was happening, and on a larger scale (and across more countries) than we thought.
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right. Before Snowden, no one "knew" it was happening because there was no proof. Yes, many suspected it, and were probably accused of propagating conspiracy theories, but the proof was finally given with Snowden.
Although I am disappointed in the leaks regarding foreign nations. That IS NSA's mandate and they are supposed to spy on foreign nations (yes, both friendly and not friendly). That didn't have any business being leaked...but I realize journalists will release everything he gave, not just what is good for US citizens to know about.
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I am disappointed in the leaks regarding foreign nations.
You're disappointed that not everyone thinks foreigners are unpeople who have no rights. I'm disappointed that you're disappointed.
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
You're mistaken. I am well aware that these scumbags think no one has any rights, and it's people like you who cheer them on. Innocent people in foreign countries also have inalienable rights, and shouldn't be spied on.
I don't give a fuck what the NSA's mission is, or how many countries conduct these immoral activities; it's immoral. The end.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be nice to be so idealistic. There's nothing immoral about it. It could be argued that it is unethical, but morality has nothing to do with it.
Re:secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)
It must be nice to be so idealistic.
Like "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is supposed to be? That's not an insult.
There's nothing immoral about it.
I think it's quite immoral to haphazardly spy on innocent people, wherever they may live.
Re: (Score:3)
Shilling? Shilling for who? People who want the government to respect people's individual liberties?
Hardly haphazard, and the US data gathered was not analyzed unless a search warrant was granted.
You think that collecting this data is any less exploitable, or any more constitutional? Even if we take them at their word and they don't actually look at the data (Foolish considering the hundreds of millions of people throughout history abused at the hands of governments - including the US government - that you people like to ignore.), collecting it is still a violation of people's rights.
No, it your inter
Re: (Score:2)
So what does the Left want? Should the US Government try to "police the world" and treat all people as US Citizens, or not? Of course, you want it both ways.
A government exists for the benefit of the governed, not the benefit of itself, nor of everyone else in the world. If you want to accuse the US government in acting in short-sighted ways in foreign relations (certainly), that's a legitimate discussion, a failure to act in the long-term best interest of the governed.
It's simply not the duty of govern
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real. It's a nasty world out there. If all that ever happens to you is someone eavesdrops on your private conversation count yourself lucky.
"X is worse than Y, so you should just stop criticizing Y. Worse things exist! Get over it, whiner!" Not a particularly logical response to a real problem that impacts people's fundamental liberties. Or any problem, really. I'm not going to count myself "lucky" when a real problem like this exists.
And besides, I'm not sure you want to downplay the significance of the government being able to selectively oppress anyone who angers them with their massive amount of information. A police state would love this, and people who pretend that the government is full of perfect angels only inch us farther and farther away from being "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
With all the injustices in the world someone spying on me ranks about number 18,038,047. There's too much really bad shit going on for ranting over this crap.
Right. So let's just drop everything and tackle world hunger.
We can tackle more than one problem at once. Furthermore, ignoring actual problems and letting scumbags get away with their injustices just makes you part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an idiot. This is a blatant violation of the highest law of the land, and our fundamental rights. They can use this information to harass anyone questions the status quo (like MLK, who was spied on) and find ways to destroy them. Yet, this obvious move towards a police state doesn't bother you. And don't say it does, because if it actually did, you wouldn't be trying so desperately to downplay the issue as if it's nothing.
The mass violation fundamental liberties and our constitution is one of the big
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they did away with the sodomy laws. State Capitol is in Atlanta so it made sense to.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I don't question authority. I said that on the list of crap they do wrong listening to my conversations was the least of my problems. There is a lot of crap that pisses me off more than that. Abusive and stupid taxes for one. That's far higher on my shit list.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not nothing but it's not much either.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you failed to notice, I actually did supply logical arguments to go along with my insult. There's absolutely nothing wrong with insulting your opponent. In fact, I'd say that it's you oversensitive princesses that are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, you're an idiot. You have no respect the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, its constitution, or freedom. If you're going to downplay this hugely important issue, then I see no reason for you to pretend that you even care a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Second of all, those people choose to be hungry and have more children.
Actually, that's the default reproductive strategy in environments with high mortality, and perhaps not exactly a conscious choice.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the moron. To play this issue as the be all and end all of importance. It's a problem, not tyranny itself. There are bigger problems, many of them. There is no guarantee of privacy in the US Constitution. If you want one get your congresscritter to attempt to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that, someone has already purchased him. There is a bigger problem in itself for one example. Campaign finance. How can we have a democracy when all our law makers are for sale to the highest bidde
Re:secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)
You're the moron. To play this issue as the be all and end all of importance.
It's one of the biggest issues we face today. As I said, any police state would love to have these capabilities, and this just moves us significantly further in that direction.
There is no guarantee of privacy in the US Constitution.
You've finally revealed your true colors: Someone who doesn't understand the constitution, or care about it. Read the fourth amendment. It doesn't take a genius to realize the NSA's activities are a blatant violation of the spirit of the constitution, which is something we refer to time and time again as times change.
If you say, "Well, the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it!" then you've missed the entire point of the constitution, and the principles of this country. It definitely doesn't give the government the power to spy on nearly everyone's communications.
Get a grip.
No, you get a grip. You're setting up all these false dichotomies and pretending as if we have to ignore blatant violations of the constitution and our freedoms simply because you think that the mass violation of the highest law in the US and our individual liberties is no big deal, and that there are bigger things that are happening.
Multiple times now you've tried to downplay this significant issue, and at the same time, you pretend that you want to live in a free country. It does not seem that way.
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
They collect metadata, times of calls numbers etc.
They could just as easily collect the actual data. Why is the metadata any more private? Furthermore, metadata *is just data*; it can't be anything else.
They shouldn't be collecting a damn thing. We kill people based on "metadata." Metadata could have been used against the founding fathers, and to find Paul Revere. This mass surveillance is a tool for oppression, and nothing more. Metadata matters. [eff.org]
So while they're supposedly not listening in on everyone's calls, what they're doing is just as evil.
(that's where it starts to get sticky with the broad leeway a government can and will allow itself to monitor a conversation - aka a slippery slope)
Nope. The mere collection of this so-called "metadata" is a violation of the constitution and people's individual rights. That's where it gets sticky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one. This because I think the monitoring of communications by the government is far from the worst thing they do. The simple fact is that of all the things they do, this is in fact not the worst or nearly the worst. Yes they don't have the right to do this kind of surveillance. Under the 10th Amendment, which no one really gives a shit about anymore probably close to 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional. That
Re: (Score:2)
You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one.
I'm saying that if we allow things like this to go on, we'll move farther and farther in that direction. There is a difference.
My real problem is that you keep downplaying the issue, and act as if it's nothing. To people who think the government should follow the highest law of the land and people care about privacy, it's a huge issue. It might not be the absolute worst case scenario, but that doesn't mean it's not a huge issue.
I say again that the outrage against this would be better placed elsewhere on greater problems.
This level of outrage needs to be directed towards every single unconstitutional
Re: (Score:2)
You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one.
That depends on your perspective. If you were one of the people who went out peacefully objecting to the way our society works in any of the 1% demonstrations recently and found yourself being pepper sprayed for no apparent reason with no recourse against the police officer that did it you might not be so sure.
Re: (Score:2)
There you go! That's another thing I find more objectionable than eavesdropping on my calls. It's still not evidence of a police state. Over zealous police have been with us for pretty much ever. It's a consequence of putting power in the hands of people not trained and/or suited for it. The right to demonstrate peacefully is essential to a free society and is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife is also a mother.
But that doesn't mean you're a father...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get real. It's a nasty world out there. If all that ever happens to you is someone eavesdrops on your private conversation count yourself lucky. I don't much like it either but your reaction is way over the top. With all the injustices in the world someone spying on me ranks about number 18,038,047. There's too much really bad shit going on for ranting over this crap.
Except that the really bad shit happens after they eavesdropped on you. The whole eavesdropping is not self-serving but is done for the purpose of making bad shit happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If/when you are ever arrested on some wishy-washy bullshit charges, you can expect that the prosecutor is going to dig, dig, sift, and dig some more on all that eavesdropping to find "substantiating evidence".
Have you ever watched any Youtube videos, telling you how to talk to cops? Bottom line is, "don't talk to the cops". They will intentionally misconstrue the most innocent remarks to help them build a case against you. Common wisdom is, the moment the cop turns his lights on to pull you over, he has
Re: (Score:3)
The right not to be observed is not an inalienable right.
The right to not have your private communications spied on is a fundamental right. Furthermore, had the British used such technology against the founding fathers, they very likely would've explicitly forbade it in the constitution, much like they did with numerous other tactics that were used against them. This is a blatant violation of people's fundamental liberties, and the spirit of the constitution. Don't pretend it's anything else, authoritarian.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm disapointed that you don't get the purpose of intelligence services. It's their job to spy on foreign countries, not on their own citizens.
So anything your nation does in your name to fuck over foreigners is fair play then is it just because that is their mandate?
The thing to recognise is that foreigners who object to this sort of thing often have very little they can do as a comeback to make it stop. They can't lobby their own government to do anything about it since their government is powerless in the face of the huge US military. So they strike back the only way they can, they attack the easy targets who give their government a mandate to
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
2. There are international agreements about human rights that the USA did sign. It's really bad that people like you pay your taxes expecting your government to break these agreements and think that's their job.
3. It's a very Nazi position to think it's OK to do to others everything you don't want on yourself or your equals.
4. There is a big difference between spying foreign nations and spying on actual security threats. If there is a threat on a foreign nation, go spy those specific targets. If there is no threat to your security, don't do it for the sole purpose of disrespecting people's rights, laws, constitutions, sovereignty, etc. just because they're not Americans (isn't it a Security Agency?).
I keep telling people there are many decent Americans (my best friend is American so it's hard on me when people generalize) and that we can't treat them like they are all your type of people, but it's really hard to make that point when we see this kind of speech.
FYI, I'm from Brazil, a country that hasn't been in wars for 200 years, that states in its constitution that we'll not have nuclear weapons, that did suffer from an US implanted dictatorship and never did retaliate. Also a country that, just like the USA, did sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our people doesn't expect our government to disrespect other country's laws or people. That's not being awesome, it's just having morals and not being Nazi.
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand. When they discuss rights/violating rights in the US, they continually differentiate between US citizens and other citizens. Not because other citizens have no rights, but because The US government has no legal authority over those people. When debating US wiretapping and the legality of it, they can only argue about the effect on US Citizens, because US laws have legal control only over US citizens (technically)
Think about it: there are laws against starving your own children. But there
"citizens" ? (Score:2)
"US laws have legal control only over US citizens"
The United States Bill of Rights does not use the word "citizen". It uses the word "people".
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Informative)
Pelosi reined the NSA in??
What rock are you living under?
She in fact has voted for every bill and amendment that gives the NSA power. Maybe you missed the video of her stuttering and stammering after a 17 Y/O highschool student asked why she did?
Re:secure by default (Score:4, Insightful)
She was every bit as bad and deserves no more credit than they do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that the Republicans probably don't appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence with Pelosi.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> Pelosi reined the NSA
Exactly. Obama runs the most transparent government in the history of mankind, and he said he stopped this. We know it to be true because of his transparency. The only people still whining about the NSA are Republicans too stupid to understand the truth.
Re:secure by default (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly don't consider myself a "scandal addict", and most of the manufactured "scandals" (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, IRS/Tea Party, etc., etc.), are indeed just throwing something at the wall and hoping it sticks.
This is not the same. This is collection of massive amounts of data on citizens who are under no suspicion of wrongdoing, let alone enough to get a warrant. That needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in a similar way as wiretapping, where a warrant based upon individualized evidence of wrongdoing is required and the data collection is done so as to minimize the collection of data not related to the purpose of the warrant.
So, you're right about the majority of the "scandals". But not this one. This one is a serious problem. It's not the fault of any given administration, but it needs to stop with this one. I wish people would drop the idiotic faux-scandals and concentrate on this.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst thing about it is that it's stupid and ineffective. Capturing everything and running it through filters is lazy and puts entirely too much faith in the technology. Old fashioned humint is hard but done properly is way more effective. The people actually up to bad stuff end up figuring out ways around the technology. Time to stop listenign to every single conversation in the world and focus on actually doing real spy work.
Not ineffective (Score:2)
Broad wiretapping might not be as effective as wiretapping people you already are almost certain are guilty, but it's probably quite effective per dollar spent compared to other methods of investigation. Also, when you decide to investigate someone, you already have a pile of data on them, so the investigation can go quicker. Furthermore, this sort of thing causes coordination difficulties for criminals because they can't use communications technology.
The program is even more effective if its primary purpos
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fast and Furious was a fuckup, to be sure. Those do happen. You learn from them and you go forward the wiser for it. If your standard for any organization is that they never make a mistake or poor decision, I'm afraid you're in for a lot of disappointment indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell is Fast & Furious not a scandal?
I agree. People from Bush's administration should be sanctioned for starting it, and people from Obama's administration should be sanctioned for continuing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-taxation groups who are known for hiding political activities under a misclassification get extra tax scrutiny. I'd consider it shocking if they didn't take a good, hard look as compared to the standard screening.
Re:secure by default (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now, the spotlight is shined on the NSA... but compared to other intel agencies, they are not the ones who are going to make you vanish in the middle of the night.
Perhaps not, but with a single false positive they could make my life a living hell.
I dont lie awake at night worrying about it; I'm not the type of guy intelligence people are interested in. I'd never hurt anybody. If I find an insect indoors I either leave him be or if he starts "bugging" me I'll make a paper shuttle to gently escort him outdoors and set him free.
But with the massive database the NSA has accrued, any analysis they do on it is going to generate many, many false positives. That's my real concern. Analysts are humans, humans make mistakes. Based on their assessment of WMD in Iraq and other failures being publically reported, they seem to be making a lot of them. So while I'm not exactly worried, I am concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to respond to a single one of my arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not funny at all that "the public" ignores blatant violations of the constitution and people's individual liberties; it's sad. It shows that many people only pretend to care about the principles this country is supposed to aspire to, and in fact support or ignore policies that take us in the direction of a police state.
Snowen? Really? (Score:2)
Can't spell Snowden right, eh?
The last option should be changed to Snowen who, to match the typo.
Slashdot's editorial service at its best.
Re:Snowen? Really? (Score:5, Funny)
The "d" was dropped when NSA recompiled the web page in your browser.
Do not worry about the dropped "d". The dropped "d" was never there.
Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything I do on a network connected device is vulnerable to the NSA or other alphabet soup in some way. At the very least, the data is. As we have seen there is no real expectation of privacy; these guys are too deeply connected to everything that happens, they have too much data, and they sure as hell have enough smarts and computing power to decrypt whatever they want.
I still use cash when possible, when given the choice I use very long keys, anything important is encrypted, but to be realistic if "da gub'mint" wants to get me there's little I can do. Heck, unplugging entirely and living in an isolated cabin out in the far reaches of Alaska probably means I'm automatically labeled a terrorist which would draw even more attention. And if for some reason someone wants to create false records, who is to stop them? They will wave their "state secret" flag around and you won't even be able to question them.
So, realistically, there's not much one can do. Big Brother won. There's no way it will ever go away, either. Even if they say they will stop, or that they cannot defeat X, will you really believe them?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, maybe it's because I grew up around the beltway and knew plenty of nice folks who worked for the NSA. I'm not really worried about them.
Here are some things I've done to improve my security stance against things that I actually feel are more of a threat, though:
* Upgraded OpenSSL on my box, so the script kiddies don't get in.
* Don't announce that we're going on vacation on Facebook or Twitter, and I don't post pics until I get back home.
* Keep my important docs and firearms and backups in a fire safe
Re: (Score:3)
I've wondered about an ID system with a smart chip, except based around a certificate and trust model. For example, Alice's ID would have a cert (each cert has a different life span [1]) showing that she is over 21, has a valid driver's license, is a US citizen, is not a felon.
At the bar, the card gets swiped, the cert shows she is over 21, so is allowed in. No birthdate needed.
When going for a loan, there is a cert showing her FICO score is above a threshold, her income is above a certain amount, and she
Re: (Score:2)
The United States has lists to indicate that someone: "can not fly", "can not be employed", "should be put in jail", "should be killed", etc.
When you go to a bar and get your ID scanned, the response returned from the government could be: "kill him".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe only queries or certs that make sense as per laws, such as 13, 18, 21, 25, 65, etc. There wouldn't be a legal reason that a bar would need to know anything more than if they are legal, unless they were doing a retiree special (which the over 65 cert would cover.) The goal is to provide the minimal amount of info as needed for regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have... I've been carded more than once at the Goodwill, too, for their senior discount.
Tho since I started asking for the "old fogie" discount rather than the "senior" discount, they haven't carded me. Hmmm....
But I like the idea of minimal information ID. I am more than this, less than that, eligible or not, and everything else is none of their affair.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about cost. It costs resources to break keys or break into machines. If you increase the cost by 10x, then they can break only 1/10 of what they could originally break using the same budget.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you can do which they won't find out about in advance is invade Crimea.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Brother won.
You giving up is not the same thing as them winning. As the quote says, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.". Sure, it's a tiring fight that I have been in for probably longer than you. I can see why people give up after a while, but that is your choice and not their victory.
No change, but not out of carelessness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?
Or perhaps you live in China, or Myanmar, or USA circa 2032, any other country where the government takes a decidedly 'proactive' approach towards managing the political behavior of the public?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To provide more cover for those who are more likely to be oppressed. This "They probably won't oppress me, so it doesn't matter." mindset is nothing short of selfish.
Besides that, you can't really predict when the government will decide to come after you. I'm sure the people who made those Twitter bomb jokes didn't think the government would see it, take them seriously, and then harass them, but they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Dave? Is that you Dave?
I've been trying to reach you at you home phone of 549-555-8625 but it goes to voicemail. Your cell 215-555-8778 says it's disconnected. Please call me at 365-555-1244 so we can get your problem with your Social Security number, 949-83-7573, straightened out. OK?
Re: (Score:2)
My answer to this, every time, is what the fuck for?
Feel free to come over and browse my porn and see my web history.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to come over and browse my porn and see my web history.
.. and send an annotated copy of it all to your mom and to the employer you've been hoping to get a job with, if you don't fall in line with (insert privacy-invading-agency's name here)'s 'suggestions' on how ought to behave.
Just because you're not embarrassed by your porn habits doesn't mean they can't be used against you.
What is the Plain Text option suggesting? (Score:3)
Missing option. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd rather not say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious missing option(s): I've (mildly|seriously|radically) downgraded my security practices. Or simply I've given up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like including an option "I never vote in Slashdot polls".
Bye, bye Windows. (Score:2)
I mostly used Kubuntu and Xubuntu before this anyway, but I no longer trust MS to not have gov't backdoors built-in. Yes, I know nothing is 100%, but I'm more comfortable using an OS that's open-source over one that's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No but open source is maybe, Microsoft is a sure 100% guarantee.
Not changed... (Score:2)
No need to change (Score:2)
Postcards and Talking on Street Corners (Score:2)
If you treat email as if it were a postcard that anyone can read, and you don't provide information on the interwebz that you wouldn't be willing to shout out on a street corner (SSN, credit card number, etc..) you're good. If you think any online security is actually secure against a dedicated attack, you're going to get pwned.
If you're less concerned about "security" and more about "freedom of speech", the same rules apply. In this day and age, if you say something (via postcard, on a streetcorner, on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmm, you do know that the SD Formatter software is for Win/Mac right? And yayoubetcha said they used Linux right?
Yes, I know that. I still think that I provided important information.
Also, dd does more than just image entire devices, it can move individual files around too.
Indeed, for him I recommend doing the dd on file system level.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no safeguard that will stop them from abusing the data if they have it. You can't possibly keep this government and all future governments under control.
Not to mention, just them collecting the data violates fundamental privacy rights and the constitution, so that alone is unacceptable. You should be worried.
Re: (Score:2)
future abuses.
Are you certain that abuses are not being committed now? And that they have not been for quite some time?
It's not the law enforcement function that bothers me so much as the tendency for infomtion to leak two ways between government and corporate America.
I've worked for compnies that seemed to have all too easily accumulated file cabinets full of competitors' data. Particularly if they were foreign competitors (but many domestic as well). And it was well know that when Customs inspects the laptops of fore
Re: (Score:2)