Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Shafted again

Expand Messages
  • Hugh Miller
    I blogged this and decided I needed to email it too, so here it is: **************************************************************** Big Brother: 1, The
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I blogged this and decided I needed to email it too, so here it is:
       
      ****************************************************************
      Big Brother: 1, The People: 0.  Now nothing you text, even if you encrypt it, or your service (like Gmail) automatically encrypts it, is now secure.  Why should you worry, since you of course like 99% of us have nothing to hide?  Well, it's because the US Gov't has just come up with another way to invade our privacy and they DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A WARRENT OR A COURT ORDER to enable them to DO it.  I flirted with encryption about 10+ years ago because of sensitive business information in email.  I finally gave it up because it was too cumbersome, you had to share an encryption certificate with the one you were communicating with, and besides, who else could get their hands on it unless they were some super hacker with a Cray supercomputer (yes, it was THAT long ago... LOL).  Then I got a laptop and suddenly, security in a wi-fi hot spot when I was away from home became important.  I got privacy shield, which does slow you down noticeably, but protects you from snoopers at hot spots.  Later, I found out the major email services, like Google, already encrypt your email so no one can snoop on you at a hot spot.  Still, one more constitutional right has been taken away from us and one does have to wonder which will be next?
      ***************************************************************
       
      End of the original blog.  Here's some additional thoughts--
       
      The reason given, and which makes perfect sense to me, is the FBI and the NSA (and other agencies) told congress regular landline phone use is shrinking rapidly as more and more depend on their cell phones for communication, so they had to have the capability to decode encrypted text messaging.  So far, I agree....but wait a minute!  Didn't they have to have a court order in able to tap a phone line?????????????????  None of the news articles I have read on this to date even mention the necessity of a court order in order to do this!  I sure hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so!
       
      Gee, remember Obama's promise to get rid of all that "illegal invasion of privacy" that the Bush administration set up on phone taps?  Well, they weren't illegal because they required a court order which requires reasonable proof/suspicion of wrong-doing and to this day I have never heard of a PROVABLE incident the rules weren't followed, only rumor and inuendo bruited about by the Media with its constant drumming of the paranoia theme.
       
      And to top it off, the Obama administration, very quietly extended the Bush Administrations tapping policies.  Poltical hypocrisy of the worst sort.  I'm gagging here....
       
      Badger
    • Steve Pettit
      If you want to have fun, come up with your own encryption schema, and NOT give the NSA a back door into it. You will be buried under Federal Criminal Charges.
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        If you want to have fun, come up with your own encryption schema,
        and NOT give the NSA a back door into it.

        You will be buried under Federal Criminal Charges.

        As a side note - I do have my own, though it's never gotten beyond the
        initial "cool, it works!" stages. I've never used it in public, nor
        do I intend to.

        Steve
      • Hugh Miller
        Right on, Steve! You said it! I realise the necessity of some sort of law on this, but being able to tap into the public without a warrent? Sheesh! They re
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Right on, Steve!  You said it!
           
          I realise the necessity of some sort of law on this, but being able to tap into the public without a warrent?   Sheesh!  They're throwing the constitution out of the window on this one.  What a sad pass this is coming to be.
           
          Badg
           
          (i think the theory is, as I understand it,is that if you are using texting/internet then it is on the public airways and not protected by the constitution since it is in the 'public arena'.  Bull, pure bull,and they are going after skype too.  I can't believe all this...it's SO Orwellian)

          On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Steve Pettit <kryslin@...> wrote:
           

          If you want to have fun, come up with your own encryption schema,
          and NOT give the NSA a back door into it.

          You will be buried under Federal Criminal Charges.

          As a side note - I do have my own, though it's never gotten beyond the
          initial "cool, it works!" stages. I've never used it in public, nor
          do I intend to.

          Steve


        • Brian Jordan
          Badger: It s not that I think this is a tempest in a teapot or for any reason not worth concern or comment. It s definitely cause for concern. Still, I think
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 22, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Badger:

             

            It’s not that I think this is a tempest in a teapot or for any reason not worth concern or comment. It’s definitely cause for concern.

             

            Still, I think you are getting just a bit ahead of yourself.

             

            I do not doubt that, when tapping telephone calls first became a reality, there were no laws on the books to deal with it. I do not doubt that the need for the laws was made clear as people were brought to court and started screaming bloody murder as wire-tapped evidence was presented to prove their guilt. I do not doubt that lawyers protested these actions and dragged them through the courts and slowly up the legal food chain. I do not doubt that, as various groups worried about how private their phone calls were in the modern age, they started lobbying legislators to have protections put in place.

             

            I do not doubt it will happen all over again.

             

            Should we be worried?  Certainly.  But this is not the final part of the discussion, only the very beginning.

             

            Sliding towards sunrise,

            Brian Jordan, who is not getting into the Obama portion on the grounds that he a) knows a can of worms when presented with one and b) lacks the needed data to argue it one way or the other with proper coherence.

             

            From: 6crecroom@yahoogroups.com [mailto:6crecroom@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Miller
            Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:23 AM
            To: jlink@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [RecRoom] Shafted again

             

             

            I blogged this and decided I needed to email it too, so here it is:

             

            ****************************************************************

            Big Brother: 1, The People: 0.  Now nothing you text, even if you encrypt it, or your service (like Gmail) automatically encrypts it, is now secure.  Why should you worry, since you of course like 99% of us have nothing to hide?  Well, it's because the US Gov't has just come up with another way to invade our privacy and they DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A WARRENT OR A COURT ORDER to enable them to DO it.  I flirted with encryption about 10+ years ago because of sensitive business information in email.  I finally gave it up because it was too cumbersome, you had to share an encryption certificate with the one you were communicating with, and besides, who else could get their hands on it unless they were some super hacker with a Cray supercomputer (yes, it was THAT long ago... LOL).  Then I got a laptop and suddenly, security in a wi-fi hot spot when I was away from home became important.  I got privacy shield, which does slow you down noticeably, but protects you from snoopers at hot spots.  Later, I found out the major email services, like Google, already encrypt your email so no one can snoop on you at a hot spot.  Still, one more constitutional right has been taken away from us and one does have to wonder which will be next?

            ***************************************************************

             

            End of the original blog.  Here's some additional thoughts--

             

            The reason given, and which makes perfect sense to me, is the FBI and the NSA (and other agencies) told congress regular landline phone use is shrinking rapidly as more and more depend on their cell phones for communication, so they had to have the capability to decode encrypted text messaging.  So far, I agree....but wait a minute!  Didn't they have to have a court order in able to tap a phone line?????????????????  None of the news articles I have read on this to date even mention the necessity of a court order in order to do this!  I sure hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so!

             

            Gee, remember Obama's promise to get rid of all that "illegal invasion of privacy" that the Bush administration set up on phone taps?  Well, they weren't illegal because they required a court order which requires reasonable proof/suspicion of wrong-doing and to this day I have never heard of a PROVABLE incident the rules weren't followed, only rumor and inuendo bruited about by the Media with its constant drumming of the paranoia theme.

             

            And to top it off, the Obama administration, very quietly extended the Bush Administrations tapping policies.  Poltical hypocrisy of the worst sort.  I'm gagging here....

             

            Badger

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.