Yeah, I have made these slippery slope arguments for years, but have been marginalized as a conspiracy theorist, or a right wing nut job by many, family and friends a like.
I take no joy in seeing my predictions come true, I do see more people becoming aware, but will it be enough? Will it be in time? Is it already too late? What would our founders have said I wonder? Would there even be a debate, or just hard men with guns making hard decisions. On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:350260 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
