NSA can follow nearly everything you do online in real-time

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 1, 2013.

  1. Veeshush

    Veeshush Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 680 Lightning
  2. JJayzX

    JJayzX Master Guru

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    Evga RTX2070XCUltra
  3. Sprig

    Sprig Master Guru

    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX560
    The Power of this surveillance is not necessarily the ability to see what you are doing but more who you are communicating with.

    Advanced analytics can paint a pretty detailed picture of your associates very quickly.

    Unfortunately while useful against 'terrorists', it can be used and no doubt is used against dissidents.

    People who, in most countries, have a right to free speech and privacy.
     
  4. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    Only if you're 'short stroking'.
     

  5. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,786
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    Shocking?! actually not really now people that are shocked by this are the ones that would need a reality check. This what happens with progress and damn near everything is online or wifi in some way
     
  6. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    2)- Religious extremism? Ideological extremism? There is no rational justification for attacks directed specifically against innocent civilians.

    3)- So show me one government that has as part of its mandate to rid the world of diseases. The U.S. already goes beyond most countries in this regard with the CDC.

    4)- That's not what I meant by system.

    5)- Only in a pure vacuum with no medium. Even light slows down in water.

    Here's a good read:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.chem/boz5dFTmTrU

    6)- That has to do with the viability for finding a cure in the first place. But something that they believe can be cured, they will invest billions to tens of billions of dollars creating.

    7)- I had no 7...
     
  7. d_mouse

    d_mouse Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    ASUS TUF EVO 5700XT
  8. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,700
    Likes Received:
    1,325
    GPU:
    RTX 3060 12GB
    2 - Then look for the irrational, if the rational eludes you. Any attack is always justifiable, you just have to understand the rational or irrational prevailing logic. Hiroshima springs immediately to mind, plenty of innocent victims there, even today. How many died again? 100,000? And they were innocent victims, man woman and child, every one. My point is you can use rationalism to justify killing/murdering people, because it's been done. So...ask yourself why in the broader sense, because the reasons why some countries are targeted for attack and others are not is worth more exploration than it is being given.

    3 - This is my belief, partly because I was raised to not fight people, but to resolve differences through open debate because...frankly, we sleep under the same stars. So what you can guess I'm saying here is time and money spent on war is poor financing and time management skills at work. Time and money spent on healing/helping people is not, regardless of who they are.

    4 - o-k.

    5 - I'm aware of this, but my use of the phrase is accurate enough in the context of the argument.

    6 - If it cost $1 to find a cure to something, and you would make $2 selling the cure - that's considered a good investment. Spending $100 billion finding a cure to something which will yield $100 million to totally eradicate the illness, is not. Spending $100 billion finding a way to alleviate an illness, but not cure it - making the patient permanently dependent on those developed drugs - is awesome financing, for the rest of time.

    7 - I added, it was my rebuttal.
     
  9. mmicrosysm

    mmicrosysm Master Guru

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Cirrus Logic GD5430 1Meg
  10. shadex

    shadex Master Guru

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    38
    GPU:
    EVGA Merc 6600 XT
    So what happens to all of my sexting messages I sent to my exs? Those dweebs at NSA are gonna have a field day!
     

  11. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs
    Who is this mythical 'decent person' you're referring to?

    - If you take a piss outside, you're a sex offender. Doesn't matter if no one sees your junk, you exposed yourself in public.
    - If your car drops oil, you violate the federal water pollution control act. Doesn't matter if it's intentional.
    - If you collect rain in a bucket, you're violating county water rights. Doesn't matter if there is any criminal intent.
    - If you change lanes without blinking, that's reckless driving. In many states, that makes you a felon, and you're unfit to own a gun or to vote.

    (I personally know 2 people that had to fight to stay off sex offender lists for taking a piss 'in public' (even though both did nothing unusual. Just the usual 'walk behind an obstacle and do your thing').
    Show me a guy on this earth that hasn't taken a piss in public.)

    _Everyone_ is a criminal.
    I mean that literally. _Everyone_.
    You only have to look closely to see what kind of criminal.

    Most people don't get targeted.
    Some unfortunate people get royally screwed for what a typical person would call 'nothing' - while no one even pays notice.




    No one notices screwy laws because these laws aren't consistently enforced.
    If the government got on everyone's asses and charged everyone exhaustively, there would be an upheaval.
    But the government paces itself, only grabbing a person here and a person there, selectively.
    They mainly charge two kinds of people.
    A) Whoever annoys someone in authority.
    B) Whoever is available whenever they need to generate documentation showing how much work they do so as to excuse the existence of their job.

    Think of it this way.
    It's government prosecution's 9-5 job to push people through the system.
    (I use "prosecutor" generally, as the entire prosecution wing of the government. Not just the individual in court.)
    The individuals doing the work personally don't care if you do random obscure offenses.
    The individuals doing the work personally won't even agree with many of the offenses even existing.
    But the individuals doing the work are paid to go through the process.
    The individuals doing the work need to generate paperwork to show why they have a job.
    The individuals doing the work can't afford to ignore things that come across their desk just in case something falls through the cracks and an audit tries to point the finger personally at them.
    It's a system where you have a process, you follow it, and you get paid.
    The individuals doing the work have nothing else to do. It's their job.

    The prosecution spends public money, so it's free to the prosecutor.
    Whether it costs the defendant money, just doesn't matter to the prosecution.
    To the government employees doing this as their 9-5, it's one giant 'debate team' exercise ... only the defendant's future is on the line.
    The government employees don't care. You're a stranger, and this is their pay check.

    But that's just why the system sucks.




    The real 'concern' is what the system makes possible.
    Legally possible. With no possibility for finding abuse.

    If you collect information about people, and you make a list of laws they've broken, you can always charge anyone with criminal conduct and put them away.
    Imagine how easy it is to get rid of 'Occupy' protesters, if you can just arrest and charge each of them for an array of obscure offenses.
    And it's not even "abuse of power", because the laws really do exist, and they really did break them.

    You, and everyone in your family, could at any time be charged with an array of offenses (that you _are_definitively_ guilty of) that would put you all away for longer than it matters.

    Even if you choose to fight it in court, the government has infinite money and time. You don't.
    They can ruin you financially without ever getting a conviction, just by dragging it out.

    The government only needs to want to do it.

    -scheherazade
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  12. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs
    Depends on the state.
    Some states require consent from people being recorded - even in public property.
    It goes to 'wiretap' laws, where there is 'an expectation of not being recorded' (regardless of where it's happening), so to record, you have to inform the recorded subject and have their consent.

    Usually (well, pretty much *only*), these laws are enforced when you record a police officer and they don't like it.


    Technically, that's propaganda.
    Our government and media have a 'play dumb to the public and cheer-lead' policy.

    Actual studies on the subject demonstrate that people are upset about U.S. policy being at odds with their own ambitions.
    Like when the U.S. supports a dictator, and the people want to get rid of that dictator, but due to the U.S. support they don't have the power to force any change.
    That puts them at odds with the U.S..
    We have a very long history of buying and directing the policies of middle east nations, to our benefit, to their leadership's benefit, and to their people's loss.

    They don't "hate our freedom". They're too busy with their own lives to give a crap about something that ethereal.

    That said ... I've witnessed an Israeli vs Arab argument online (voice chat in ZDaemon), and it was jaw dropping.
    The Israeli didn't give a crap about killing thousands of Arabs. Any threat allows you to kill as many as you want.
    The Arab blamed everything on Jews and anyone that did anything to Arabs was a Jew (even if it was obviously another Arab).
    I didn't know who was worse... the sociopath or the racist.

    So yeah, I do think that the people that are actually willing to go through with any actions will be the more radical.
    But we shouldn't neglect how we've motivated them in becoming more radical.

    -scheherazade
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  13. Comrade_Jerkov

    Comrade_Jerkov Master Guru

    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX1080 G1
    time to find the most f***ed up porn I can find.

    In other news I was told to change my Guru password because it was 2,792 days old hahaha.
     
  14. Veeshush

    Veeshush Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 680 Lightning
  15. d_mouse

    d_mouse Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    ASUS TUF EVO 5700XT

  16. Relayer

    Relayer Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI RX3870 512
    Way to miss the point! What he's saying is that there is no more expected right to privacy on the internet than there is walking down the street. The internet is just as public as the street.

    The reason you can't yell fire in a public building (when their is no fire) has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That is a discussion refering to freedom of speech, not any right to privacy issues.




    On topic: I don't agree that the everything on the internet is as public as walking down the street. My posts here are public for all to see. My emails should be granted the same privacy as the US postal service, though. Cell phone calls should be granted the same privacy rights as landlines are. All of these things should require a warrant before they can be used against you in a court of law.

    There are exceptions to illegal search and seizure laws though where public safety is concerned. For example, you don't need to grant someone access to a lawyer before questioning if you have reason to believe that the person could have time sensitive information that would effect public safety. Example, He knows where a bomb threat is. You don't need to wait for his lawyer to arrive before you ask him where the bomb is. If he tells you and you go there and disarm it, the information he gave you to find it is perfectly admissible as evidence against him.

    This is a war. Not a typical war, but intelligence on your enemy needs to be gathered. What the NSA is doing is necessary today. What we need to worry about is that we don't permanently surrender freedom so that in the future, when it might not be necessary to gather this information for the public's safety, we can remove this and restore our pre 9/11 freedoms. Allowing that to happen by itself would be a victory for the terrorists.

    re: Snowden, He's a traitor. He's right where he belongs bouncing between countries where he'll never know the freedoms he had ever again. I hope he likes China and Russia and spends the rest of his life there. He doesn't deserve to live in the US.
     
  17. Relayer

    Relayer Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI RX3870 512
    Yes, yes, yes... China is the victim in this. They're protecting your freedom. Don't trust America. They've never done anything to protect anyone's freedom. It's all simply about the oil, money, and power.

    Get a clue, mate!
     
  18. Akhkaru

    Akhkaru Master Guru

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 770 4GB WF
    I'm sorry, but anything that violates anyone's privacy unwillingly is against one's constitutional rights, regardless of whatever rationalization you try to throw at it. We're not just farm animals that need to be looked over, watched and prodded when we're doing something that is frowned upon. We're people with our own ambitions and our own thoughts. We should not surrender our privacy for any reason, nor should we lose our freedom. Our government should be transparent to the people, allow us to see what's going on and allow us to make the changes. Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed of what has become of our government. The government wasn't instituted to control us, it was instituted FOR us. We (the populace) should have the ability to collectively dictate what happens in our government and how things are being run and we simply do not have that ability. Our large government is demolishing our dollar, our freedoms, our privacy, and our lives as a whole. Honestly, it can't continue down the path it is because it's only going to get worse.

    Snowden isn't a traitor, he's a damned hero for giving us this information. Let's not forget that Obama promised governmental transparency and thanks to Snowden, we now have a little bit of an insight of what our government is up to.

    I don't care how you look at it, but in the end, what they're doing is against our rights. We don't need to sacrifice our freedom or our constitution to "fight" terrorism, regardless of what you want to believe. That's just naive thinking at its finest.
     
  19. Ghosty

    Ghosty Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    481
    GPU:
    3050 RTX
    China being the most populating county in the world. Also the fact that 95% of world countries all relay on oil and gas.
     
  20. Relayer

    Relayer Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI RX3870 512
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's nothing to be concerned about. There does need to be transparency with government and people do need to know what they are up to. We need to know that innocent citizens aren't knowingly and without regard suffering because of the government's actions. The fact that they monitor everything to uncover and prevent terrorist activity and plots is in no way a revelation to me though.

    I'm way more concerned with the possibility that the IRS was used to intimidate Republican supporters prior to the presidential election. Or that we are continuing to supply military aid to a military that just overthrew the democratically elected government in Egypt.
     

Share This Page