Agreed about the impact of the law, don't see how it will help. Data mining against U.S. citizens seems to be all this will enable. It's all ready being done, and at large scale, but this will only increase that and codify it into law. think total information awareness writ large.
As to your second statement, well should you discover the exploit, you could honey pot it, use it for false flag or doubling operations. On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > don't tell me anything you shouldn't. I have no desire to talk to the > Men in Black either. > > It's just that in this context.... ummmmm. I was going to say won't > they notice if you remedy the breach but nm, in many cases there would > be things you could do. Assuming the other side isn't sophisticated > enough to detect those things. Hmm. Still don't quite see how this law > would do anything good in this context. > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:50 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It's not just human sources. > > > > You don't want to reveal methods and capabilities. If you reveal a > SIGINT > > capability than the notional "enemy" will change their TTPs (tactics, > > techniques and procedures), and you have closed a potential source. > > > > Additionally you wouldn't want a vulnerability to be open sourced until > > your own systems have been patched, otherwise you potentially expose your > > self to further attacks from multiple directions. > > > > I don't feel comfortable talking about anything operational or tactical. > I > > still could be prosecuted. > > > > Let's keep things general :) > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> by the way, if you can comment on what sort of cybersecurity threat > >> might be classified I'd be interested. I would think that detection > >> usually happens at the hardware and software level, and that there > >> would not be the concern about protecting an informant or an agent > >> that you might have in other situations. Or, because of course I don't > >> actually know that, supposing there were such people, how pointing out > >> a threat would endanger them. Considering the state of network > >> security, I'd suspect that there's little point in worrying about > >> anything exotic enough to be identifiable until really basic problems > >> like default passwords are resolved.... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Agreed. > >> > > >> > I mean, we were working China stuff when I was at OSAC (2002-2005), as > >> well > >> > as Pakistan, Lebanon, Brazil and others. We got by just fine on the > >> > available information from both open and classified sources (scrubbing > >> > classified intelligence for distribution to American companies > operating > >> > abroad being part of OSACs primary mission). > >> > > >> > The major reason things are supposed to be classified is the fear of > >> > releasing information that will reveal sources and methods. This is a > >> very > >> > real concern. There are people out there on the sharp end gathering > this > >> > information that do not have diplomatic covers to hide behind, and > would > >> be > >> > very dead should they be discovered. > >> > > >> > Also, China has a very real impact on U.S. intellectual property and > >> > business in general. They copy everything and manufacture it without > any > >> > royalties, often even beating import restrictions and tariffs. > >> > > >> > It's a tough situation, but I really don't thin that this bill is > going > >> to > >> > help that situation, only further shred whatever privacy we as > >> individuals > >> > still retain. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> the new NSA data center has everything to do with this. They will > need > >> >> the capacity. > >> >> > >> >> This is not about China, though. > >> >> > >> >> D > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > He also said he'd veto the NDAA, and we see how that turned out. > >> >> > > >> >> > FISA, NDAA, NDRP, Patriot Act, it goes on and on with these people. > >> >> > > >> >> > I really hope that we as Americans can get our shit together and > >> change > >> >> > things electorally, but I don't see that happening. > >> >> > > >> >> > People are more interested in Dancing with the Stars and Jersey > Shore. > >> >> > > >> >> > There is also a bill floating around to allow the IRS to deny you > your > >> >> 2nd > >> >> > amendment rights, and your right to travel (through denying you a > >> >> passport) > >> >> > even when not convicted of anything. > >> >> > > >> >> > Plus the new NSA data center in Utah. > >> >> > > >> >> > Interesting times. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dana <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> thank you! that means a lot coming from you. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I should add that Obama has threatened to veto this legislation > if it > >> >> >> gets to his desk in its present form, but it will not get to his > desk > >> >> >> in its present form. A whole bunch more amendments were just > proposed > >> >> >> today so it's anybody's guess what the bill currently says. Note > -- > >> >> >> none of the amendments address the "notwithstanding all other law" > >> >> >> language apparently, and according to CNET some of them make the > bill > >> >> >> even worse. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I almost feel like chicken little saying the sky is falling this > soon > >> >> >> again after SOPA, but it really is bad stuff. If the intent is > not to > >> >> >> impinge on privacy, why retain language that says it's ok to do > so? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Remember all that fuss over warrantless wiretaps a few years ago? > >> They > >> >> >> wouldn't have to worry about warrants any more. And the stated > >> >> >> rationale -- Chinese hackers -- would not be affected by the > >> >> >> provisions of this bill. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Good article Dana, thanks. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Dana <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.fusionauthority.com/news/4841-threat-to-fourth-amendment-surfacing-in-congress.htm > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350254 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
