nice job corporate media, zero coverage. Nice. Not with a bang but a whimper
http://jurist.org/forum/2012/04/christopher-slobogin-privacy.php On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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:350259 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
