what? When did *that* happen? On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:13 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > We should also be concerned about the new data storage policies in place at > the NCTC, allowing them to store information about individuals for up to > six months, no warrants needed, even if you have no ties to terror in any > way. > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:09 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> BTW, for those just reading this, nothing I'm saying is classified and >> could be read from multiple open sources. >> >> Take a CISSP class and you will get far better and more current >> information than I can provide. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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:350258 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
