Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

"It's how we teach people things."

Sure. But this isn't really a matter of functionality, but capacity. We already have the tools to do this, it's just a matter of sufficient storage and retrieval capacity. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. This isn't a case of me saying "some day, maybe man will invent some kind of "computing device" that can quickly and efficiently search through large amounts of data automatically (programmatically even!), allowing for massive searches of data for patterns that human minds could never accomplish". We already have such computing devices, and such programming capability. So this is more like saying "some day, everyone will own one of these new horseless carriages". It's just a matter of scale. No new technological breakthrough is required here.



If your goal is to gain as much information as you possibly can, then yes, this is. You're creating an unfair all-or-nothing scenario here, where if even one piece of data can't be obtained because it's too securely kept, the whole concept fails. But that's not true. Obviously, for a system like this "more is better", but "all" is not required for it to function.



I was speaking mostly about the potential for a future where private computers are accessed to increase the amount of information which could be searched (and add stuff that might not ever show up in more public sources). Home computers normally don't have dedicated security teams. The issue of how you collect data that is actually secured is an entirely different question.

But interestingly enough, since I do have direct experience with dealing with corporate networks that span national borders, it's actually a very active issue and something you do have to deal with (and not nearly as easy to secure as you might think). You have to consider the possibility, for example, that the backbone routers themselves are compromised/tapped/whatever. There are a number of point to point encryption methods you have to use for this. Even if you have no evidence that such hacking is occurring at that low a level, you have to assume it is anyway. Basically, the second any part of your link exits a cloud of hardware that you directly own and mange, you must assume it's tapped. Yes, even here in the US of A.



For businesses operating under government contract, the government interest *is* their bottom line. I'm not sure what history you're reading in which a company with a government contract to provide high tech network taps (let's say part number 576-22775/B) will decline to do so because they might just be used for illegal purposes. And the company under contract to assemble some network equipment that includes part number 576-22775/B because it's in the schematic isn't going to decline to do so because they're just paid to assemble the equipment. And the company under contract to install that equipment under the street in downtown USA isn't going to decline to do so either, since they don't know that they have a tap function in addition to whatever other functions they serve. And the company that built the big ginormous data center down the road, with the big fat pipe to said downtown USA's backbone has no reason to think this is used for anything nefarious either.

All you have to do is farm out the work to multiple different companies, each contracted to do just their part, with none seeing the whole picture, and all bound by NDAs, and it's pretty easy to do something like this if you want to. Again, it's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of scale and cost. And that scale is getting bigger each year while the cost is getting smaller. To be fair, the quantity of data we're generating as a population keeps scaling up to, so it's quite possible that there will never be a time when "everything" is an achievable thing. But "enough" is quite achievable I think.

Just to reiterate. Remember that time when Apple cracked their iphone for the FBI because they cared more about the government interest? Remember when other CEOs came out and said "Don't worry government, we'll make sure that everything is tapped for you", then all of their stocks went up because their clients felt more secure?

Nah, he's got plenty of company in that.

You been spying on his e-mails, haven't you? That's the only way you could possibly know that.

Wait? What? First off, what the heck does that have to do with what I said? Secondly, I'm not even sure where to begin. Tell you what. You go run a full nmap scan on 0.0.0.0/32, then get back to me when it's done. If the forums are still running then, that is.



I get that this is your argument. The problem is that your argument doesn't actually counter what I was talking about.



Exactly. Which is why it's a good way to go if you want to hack into as many systems as possible. Let me also point out that you are obsessing on just one of several different methods I mentioned, somehow assuming that if the whole "use a self replicating hack" method can't hack into everything, that this means that there's no chance of anyone getting hacked. That's... bizarre.



Sigh. You have a very narrow attention span, don't you? There were *two* different points I was making:

Point 1. The government currently runs systems where they collect large amounts of arbitrary data and use it to perform pattern searches for various criteria, arguably to look for terrorists, but that could be used for anything (ie: abused). The phone metadata collection is one part of this. The stuff Snowden leaked about collecting data on social media is another. There are presumably others that haven't become public knowledge.

Point 2. While that first issue is problematic, it's not actually illegal. However, we need to be diligent to make sure that the government does not add "hacking into people's personal computers and pulling data off of them" to the datasets they may use for these kinds of searches. This would violate the 4th amendment and result in a reduction of our privacy.

Point 1 was about the utility to government to collect "everything" (if they could) because it would increase the amount of things they could search for, and the odds that they could find whatever they are looking for within the data. I never once suggested that it was possible to actually physically access "everything", but merely to say that the more data that can be used for such searches the better (from a "find bad guys" point of view).

Point 2 was purely about the potential violation of our privacy and the need to makes sure that our privately held data is not accessed in this manner. I never even remotely suggested that hacking into people's home computers would magically contain every single bit of data. I was talking about adding that "private" data to the "public" data they already have access to.

It's like you can't follow a conversation, but just pick out individual statements that are made, take them completely out of context, and then just kinda randomly vomit responses. It's strange.



No. This is incredibly annoying btw.



And? You get that a contract generally involves the business getting paid in return for some service it provides, right? That doesn't "go against their bottom line". It's like you just completely ignored what I just wrote.




What... The... Hell.... does that have to do with government contracts? Nothing at all.



Huh? Who do you think designed and built the rifles our soldiers use? Who do you think designed and built the ships our Navy sails? Who do you think designed and built every single tank, humvee, MRE, uniform, radio, tent, patch, and nail file that government employees (military or otherwise) use? Where do you think the software programs that our intelligence agencies use come from? Magic? You think that missiles are built by government employees? Or the guidance systems for those missiles? You think government employees develop nerve gasses, and chemicals, and bio weapons?

All of these things (yes, even the illegal ones) are done by civilian businesses contracted by our government. They are bound by incredibly tight NDAs with ridiculous legal penalties if they tell anyone what kinds of things they are working on. And yes, if/when the government wants to do something illegal, it's not hard at all to part out the pieces among a number of such contractors so that none of them see the big picture. More to the point, they do this with pretty much every secret project, whether the resulting use is legal or illegal, partly so that the act of parting the pieces out doesn't allow anyone to assume anything nefarious is going on and as a means of ensuring that if there is a security breach or someone leaks information, the whole project isn't compromised. It's a smart way to keep things secret, but also allows for any sort of illegal projects to be done as you might wish.

You're incredibly naive if you don't think this sort of thing is going on now, and has been all along.



Or, Oh I don't know. Live in an area with a lot of tech companies and a largish military presence? You can't possibly think that all those biotech companies are working on research for the good of mankind can you? Because the government really just has a great interest in pure research, right? And software development. They just want to help make better firewalls for people. I'm sure that's it!

What rock have you been living under? I'm not some crazy guy spouting conspiracy theories about the government, but I'm am a realist who accepts that our government does do a large amount of secret stuff some of which is technically illegal. Kinda has to. They key IMO isn't to rail about anything that might be being done, but to make sure that certain boundaries that we really care about are not crossed. You seem to be insistent that either nothing illegal is being done at all, or everything that could be illegal is. Um... The real world tends to exist in the range between those extremes.

You could always begin with

I'd like to know how Gbaji feels about the Snow Den, the hottest night club in the Arctic Circle.

You make it sound like Russia is the the only entity with interest in influencing US race. It is just like with the 9/11 conversation. The argument who benefits is null as everyone will try to pull in their own direction. Is it interesting observation? Kinda.

Admittedly, few have found anything really interesting and lord knows people were looking hard. There are some interesting quips here and there, though. If I was more obsessive, I would be all over it.

I think the emails do serve a purpose though. If I was 17 year old watching my first election evolve the way it does now, I would probably be going into ***** they are lying to us' mode already. I personally think it is a valuable community service to awaken young minds early.

I am trying to remember the time my veil of innocence was torn asunder. Today it seems to happen way early man.

Also.

Apparently, some changes were made as a result of those emails. Still nothing too interesting.

Edited, Jul 24th 2016 12:49am by angrymnk

Agreed. Unless there are really good snippets show up with, dunno, baby eating, there is nothing there so far. On the other hard, I was so wrong about this cycle I am now fully justified with saying Gary will show up to a presidential debate. It is not like I could more wrong at this point.

It could have, but I guess we won't know now, will we; not after the illusion of a fair playing field has been removed. There is a reason Sanders was eventually started to be treated as a genuine threat as opposed to a nuisance. Amusingly enough, by doing so they actively undermined credibility of their own party. For the record, I am all for it. I want both Rs and Ds to fail, disband, and fall into obscurity. Rs are well on their the way. Ds just need a little push...

Edited, Jul 24th 2016 11:20am by angrymnk

Remarks such as these force me to question your intelligence. Are you really arguing that politician's perceived piety level is not an issue for electorate? Really?