Quantcast

1984 --> 2013

$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
reason #233,300,202 why putting your hope in any political party or administration is a fool's errand. but speaking of fool, you'd have to be one to think your communications have any guarantee to be your own.

any white person who lives the thug life vicariously through The Wire knows you buy burners every few weeks
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
right; it's only knowing who you were talking to & where you were, information for which was gathered in secret.

nothing to see here...
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
so yes, in a nod to JD's point, this does not confirm warrantless wiretapping

this does

10mos old, and was successfully argued by bush, who was using professor peabody's wayback machine
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
saw that on teh fb last week, and then wondered what a reasoned/principled stance would be.

i think we can all agree "if a little spending is good, a lot of spending is better" is a horrible idea, so wouldn't this also apply? i'm sure we can also all agree the programs have expanded under obama, which is certainly against what he telegraphed he would do if elected.

to be clear on 2 points:
- these actions are ok w/ me so far
- hannity is a little bitch
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
How have they expanded other than updated software - Bush had the Narus systems for Internet traffic and similar phone monitoring capabilities for phone tapping? Also are you saying you are for government waste? Bush invested billions in developing the NSA systems which took about a decade to get the point they are today. This isn't a new plan and it couldn't be implemented in the time table Obama has had given the scale.

No administration has made any significant and effective effort to crack down on private data mining systems for our purchases, WWW use, adware etc. Why is it OK for private companies to track you when it could be used improperly for important things like insurance coverage, industrial espionage, identity theft, or more minor wasting of our time and money both in business and home settings?
 
Last edited:
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
:rofl:

that's like saying "obama hasn't expanded spending other than updated the list of who gets money, and how much"

:rofl:
 
Last edited:
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
$tinkle said:
:rofl:

that's like saying "obama hasn't expanded spending other than updated the list of who gets money, and how much"

:rofl:
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Here let me jog your selective memory. They already had the equipment installed at all regional backbones back in the mid 2000s during the Bush Adminstration, Mr. Klein (ATT contractor) leaked that: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153913&p=2114177&viewfull=1#post2114177

And the program was publicly reauthorized and expanded by Congress during the Bush Administration 5 years ago. Projects of this scale can't operate on the timescale you are proposing. You aren't that naive, are you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: July 10, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final approval on Wednesday to a major expansion of the government’s surveillance powers, handing President Bush one more victory in a series of hard-fought clashes with Democrats over national security issues.

The measure, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, is the biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years. It includes a divisive element that Mr. Bush had deemed essential: legal immunity for the phone companies that cooperated in the National Security Agency wiretapping program he approved after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The vote came two and a half years after public disclosure of the wiretapping program set off a fierce national debate over the balance between protecting the country from another terrorist strike and ensuring civil liberties. The final outcome in Congress, which opponents of the surveillance measure had conceded for weeks, seemed almost anticlimactic in contrast.

Mr. Bush, appearing in the Rose Garden just after his return from Japan, called the vote “long overdue.” He promised to sign the measure into law quickly, saying it was critical to national security and showed that “even in an election year, we can come together and get important pieces of legislation passed.”

Even as his political stature has waned, Mr. Bush has managed to maintain his dominance on national security issues in a Democratic-led Congress. He has beat back efforts to cut troops and financing in Iraq, and he has won important victories on issues like interrogation tactics and military tribunals in the fight against terrorism.

Debate over the surveillance law was the one area where Democrats had held firm in opposition. House Democrats went so far as to allow a temporary surveillance measure to expire in February, leading to a five-month impasse and prompting accusations from Mr. Bush that the nation’s defenses against another strike by Al Qaeda had been weakened.

But in the end Mr. Bush won out, as administration officials helped forge a deal between Republican and Democratic leaders that included almost all the major elements the White House wanted. The measure gives the executive branch broader latitude in eavesdropping on people abroad and at home who it believes are tied to terrorism, and it reduces the role of a secret intelligence court in overseeing some operations.

Supporters maintained that the plan includes enough safeguards to protect Americans’ civil liberties, including reviews by several inspectors general. There is nothing to fear in the bill, said Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who was a lead negotiator, “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

But some Democratic opponents saw the deal as “capitulation” to White House pressure by fellow Democrats.

“I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill,” Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said Wednesday as the outcome was all but assured.

The final plan, which overhauls the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by Congress in 1978 in the wake of Watergate, reflected both political reality and legal practicality, supporters said.

Wiretapping orders approved by secret orders under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted. Heading into their political convention in Denver next month and on to the November Congressional elections, many Democrats were wary of handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

The issue put Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. He had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for what he called “an improved but imperfect bill” after backing a failed attempt earlier in the day to strip the immunity provision from the bill through an amendment.

Mr. Obama’s decision last month to reverse course angered some ardent supporters, who organized an Internet drive to influence his vote. And his position came to symbolize the continuing difficulties that Democrats have faced in striking a position on national security issues even against a weakened president. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, who had battled Mr. Obama for the nomination, voted against the bill.

Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, was campaigning in Ohio and did not vote, though he has consistently supported the immunity plan.

Support from key Democrats ensured passage of the measure.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee and helped broker the deal, said modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was essential to give intelligence officials the technology tools they need to deter another attack. But he said the plan “was made even more complicated by the president’s decision, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to go outside of FISA rather than work with Congress to fix it.”

He was referring to the secret program approved by Mr. Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that allowed the N.S.A, in a sharp legal and operational shift, to wiretap the international communications of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda without first getting court orders. The program was disclosed in December 2005 by The New York Times.

As Congress repeatedly tried to find a legislative solution, the main stumbling block was Mr. Bush’s insistence on legal immunity for the phone companies. The program itself ended in January 2007, when the White House agreed to bring it under the auspices of the FISA court, but more than 40 lawsuits continued churning through federal courts, charging AT&T, Verizon and other major carriers with violating customers’ privacy by conducting wiretaps at the White House’s direction without court orders.

The final deal, which passed the House on June 20, effectively ends those lawsuits. It includes a narrow review by a district court to determine whether the companies being sued received formal requests or directives from the administration to take part in the program. The administration has already acknowledged those directives exist. Once such a finding is made, the lawsuits “shall be promptly dismissed,” the bill says. Republican leaders say they regard the process as a mere formality to protect the phone carriers from liability.

Lawyers involved in the suits against the phone companies promised to challenge the immunity provision in federal court.

“The law itself is a massive intrusion into the due process rights of all of the phone subscribers who would be a part of the suit,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing several hundred plaintiffs suing Verizon and other companies. “It is a violation of the separation of powers. It’s presidential election-year cowardice. The Democrats are afraid of looking weak on national security.”

The legislation also expands the government’s power to invoke emergency wiretapping procedures. While the N.S.A. would be allowed to seek court orders for broad groups of foreign targets, the law creates a new seven-day period for directing wiretaps at foreigners without a court order in “exigent” circumstances if government officials assert that important national security information would be lost. The law also expands to seven days, from three, the period for emergency wiretaps on Americans without a court order if the attorney general certifies there is probable cause to believe the target is linked to terrorism.

Democrats pointed to some concessions they had won. The final bill includes a reaffirmation that the FISA law is the “exclusive” means of conducting intelligence wiretaps — a provision that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, and other Democrats insisted would prevent Mr. Bush or any future president from evading court scrutiny in the way they say that the N.S.A. program did.

David Stout contributed reporting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
still waiting for the part where you realize obama administration's "updating of software" (like it's an IAVA patch) amounts to expansion of gov't & its wider casting of its net

as to this:
No administration has made any significant and effective effort to crack down on private data mining systems for our purchases, WWW use, adware etc. Why is it OK for private companies to track you when it could be used improperly for important things like insurance coverage, industrial espionage, identity theft, or more minor wasting of our time and money both in business and home settings?
Click to expand...
as a citizen, you can opt out of private contracts, simply put (however inconvenient). no one compels you to enter into the gov't regulated market place. you cannot opt out of an administration

for a fairly smart guy, you tend to give short shrift to the necessary consideration of these fundamentally different entities
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
You cannot opt out of dealing with private dataminers which are functionally hold a monopoly over the entire US marketplace.
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
$tinkle said:
.
.
<--- orly?
Click to expand...
Living like Ted Kaczynski is not an option for the average person. A functional monopoly exists over our society which prevents people from opting out of private data mining and the resulting problems. The government has just joined the party...
 
Last edited:
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,082
24,611
media blackout
syadasti said:
Living like Ted Kaczynski is not an option for the average person. A functional monopoly exists over our society which prevents people from opting out of private data mining and the resulting problems. The government has just joined the party...
Click to expand...
you're forgetting input/output.

garbage in = garbage out
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
jonKranked said:
you're forgetting input/output.

garbage in = garbage out
Click to expand...
The average person isn't going to try to live their life under fictional identities and numerous other steps required to attempt that - its a functional monopoly on society. Taking those steps would prevent you from participating as a normal member of society (just as other functional monopolies have barriers) - the life of a hermit, criminal, or illegal immigrant is not acceptable to average Americans.

And they are getting better and better at drinking from the firehose: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/what-the-nsa-can-do-with-big-data/
 
Last edited:
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Private-Public Sector Synergy:

Hospitals and other medical organizations are supposed to be bound by HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) to keep medical records private. Patient information that is shared is supposed to be stripped of key identifying information (this is known as the Safe Harbor rule). However, HIPAA and other privacy legislation is riddled with loopholes&#8212;so many that it has been estimated that over 800,000 organizations can access your records.

Here is one big, fat loophole: state public health agencies are exempt from Safe Harbor rules when they sell private medical records as part of a health database. When this medical data is cross-referenced with other public information (such as news reports and other databases), it can reveal your identity.

Many states in the US voluntarily follow HIPAA guidelines when sharing electronic medical records, but at least twenty-five states leave some combination of identifying information that makes it possible for whoever buys the data to pinpoint anyone&#8217;s personal medical record&#8212;and then make it public. Records in Washington, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Arizona were particularly vulnerable, according to records reviewed by Bloomberg News and Latanya Sweeney, director of Harvard University&#8217;s Data Privacy Lab.

Who would want this data? The drug industry, for one. Pharmaceutical companies are major buyers of these medical records&#8212;they use them to design ads to doctors and target potential patients. Other buyers include IMS Health, a provider of prescription data, also used by drug companies; OptumInsight, a division of UnitedHealth Group, the country&#8217;s biggest health insurer; and WebMD, which uses the data to tailor information found on their website.

As the public becomes more aware of just how vulnerable electronic medical records (EMRs) are, consumers may be more reluctant to seek medical care. Patients rely on doctor&#8211;patient confidentiality, and that sacred trust is meaningless if one&#8217;s information is sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
As the public becomes more aware of just how vulnerable electronic medical records (EMRs) are, consumers may be more reluctant to seek medical care.
Click to expand...
i'm trying to envision a significant reduction in numbers seeking medical care for just this reason.

i cannot.

then, i remember that among other roles, i'm an admin on a production system for unabridged army medical records (which has proxy access to other systems w/ PII)

ok, now i can
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Offering advice or false sense of security?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/encryption-foiled-wiretaps/

Encryption was reported for 15 wiretaps in 2012 and for 7 wiretaps conducted during previous years. In four of these wiretaps, officials were unable to decipher the plain text of the messages. This is the first time that jurisdictions have reported that encryption prevented officials from obtaining the plain text of the communications since the AO began collecting encryption data in 2001.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom