1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#102 Jul 13 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Maybe the floor really is lava.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Jul 13 2016 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
"might".

If the other methods were ineffective, they "might not".

What if they weren't a suspected drug dealer, how about, say, on some watchlist, but not accused of a specific crime? Maybe the FBI should just check their location metadata to see if they've gone anywhere suspicious, or looked at or wrote anything suspicious.

Certainly, hacking a cellphone is the only way of seeing where someone travels to. Back before smartphones, law enforcement had no possible way of keeping tabs on a suspect. You pretty much picked the worst possible example for reasons to compel a backdoor because other avenues were ineffective. You might as well say the FBI will compel a company to hack your phone because they want to know your name.

In any event, "establish a precedent for putting back doors in all consumer devices" was inaccurate which was my initial point.

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 9:59am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Jul 13 2016 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe the floor really is lava.
Sure it is; until dad starts yelling at least. Maybe it's time the rest of the world caught up with reality! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#105 Jul 13 2016 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Well, you can get a warrant and tail someone you suspect of a crime. That's not a problem, no one is arguing that, if justified, the police shouldn't do that.

However, going on a fishing expedition of all the places someone has been in the past since the beginning of time (or at least sim/cell ownership) is a horse of a very different color.

I doubt you'd suggest that the police should, if it could be done cheaply, put a tail on every citizen at all times, without requirements to prove reasonable suspicion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#106 Jul 13 2016 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I doubt you'd suggest that the police should, if it could be done cheaply, put a tail on every citizen at all times, without requirements to prove reasonable suspicion.
If it helps many of us are willingly putting on the tracking devices simply because they're useful and entertaining. We're even broadcasting the information publicly so there's no need for a warrant. Ironically there may be little purpose in laws to protect privacy 20 years from now because we'll so eagerly give it up for convenience.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Jul 13 2016 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Ya'll man, cops outside Pinkberry #Howtheyknow
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#108 Jul 13 2016 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
I doubt you'd suggest that the police should, if it could be done cheaply, put a tail on every citizen at all times, without requirements to prove reasonable suspicion.

I also wouldn't suggest that that was a risk in this case. Law enforcement has to show legitimate and significant need to get court approval to compel other businesses to assist them in an investigation and have been restricted in how they can go about it and I don't see much reason to assume that it would be different here, or that it should be different.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Jul 13 2016 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Ya'll man, cops outside Pinkberry #Howtheyknow

Posted from Pinkberry @ 1133 Privacy Avenue, Libertyville OH
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Jul 13 2016 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that timeline changes anything. FBI asks Apple for help, Apple refuses, FBI tries to force the issue, realizes they don't need Apple and lets the world know that they were able to crack Apple's security just fine without them using outside sources. Again, Apple both fails to assist in the terrorist investigation AND has the fallibility of their security demonstrated (yet again). Whatever bright face you want to put on that is up to you.


Well, tbh it is mostly, because I do not think you are an idiot and also because I am trying to determine what caused you to reach the conclusions you did. Since you are not an idiot, odds are you either have incomplete set of information, specific agenda, or a case of mild boredom.

So lets see which. Why did FBI ask apple for help?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#111 Jul 13 2016 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Why did FBI ask apple for help?

To get to the other side?

I already spent a page talking to TLW about it. You missed the boat of interest, kid.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Jul 13 2016 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Why did FBI ask apple for help?

To get to the other side?

I already spent a page talking to TLW about it. You missed the boat of interest, kid.


You put me in quite the predicament Joph as now I am torn on the way to approach this particular response. On the one hand, I could refer to you as OG, question your ability to copy and paste, and your aesthetic appeal, while letting this thread devolve into a less amusing version of 'I am not your friend, buddy.'

Then again, I could not. Since I assume you can, indeed, copy and paste, would you be so kind as to point my humble person to the relevant gems that are your thoughts on this particular subject? If not, I will gladly partake in new nuggets of wisdom you care to share.

So why did FBI ask apple for help?


Edited, Jul 13th 2016 7:34pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 7:37pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 7:38pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#113 Jul 13 2016 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government.
If this was true, Congress would be a very different place.


Working, as in "employed by", not "elected to". I thought I was pretty clear that I was not talking about the higher profile elected and appointed positions, but the rank and file employees working in the various agencies. Interesting that you seem to have deliberately ignored the point I was making and went after the cheap "gotcha" instead. Well, less interesting and more predictable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Jul 13 2016 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government.
Assuming you really believe this to be true: on what do you base this statement? I actually, truly want to know.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#115 Jul 13 2016 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There is no movement to actually fix the lists. These politicians have known about these errors for years, because the concern isn't the legitimacy of the no fly lists..


Flying on a commercial airliner is not an enumerated right in our constitution. Owning a firearm is. So errors that are acceptable when the list is a "no fly" list are *not* acceptable when it's a "no guns" list. Attempting to re-purpose the no fly list to make it sufficient due process for a no guns list, would likely never work, and would create dangerous gaps in the no fly list (where erring on the side of safety makes more sense). The bar to prohibit flying is far far lower than that required to prohibit gun ownership. You can't use the same list for both. But that didn't stop an entire half of our political spectrum from emotionally demanding just that thing (and conservatives getting bashed for correctly opposing this).

My concern is the day when the liberals "win" this fight, and stupid stuff like this actually gets put into law. I mean, it's clear that they do this just to create the conflict and the resulting political rhetoric, but what if one day the conservatives decide not to play the foils? Who loses? We all do. Someone has to stand up to the lunacy, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do this in a political environment where doing so costs so much politically due to a public that seems too easily manipulated by emotion and so incredibly ignorant of some very basic concepts about rights and liberty (like, say the fact that flying and owning a gun are not equivalent from a rights perspective).

Quote:
You are suggesting something beyond stupid to be injected in our practices for the sole purpose of supporting your talking points. The point is your #5 will never happen or at least be supported by society.


Only so long as people like me actively speak out against it. When the other "side" constantly bashes us for this, what exactly are they fighting for? I assume you don't actually want an oppressive authoritarian government, so why so consistently attack those who work hard to prevent it from happening?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
In this thread, we were specifically speaking about government being able to legally hack into your computer and collect data there. You keep missing this point, despite me repeating it several times.

You haven't countered my point. "Expectation of privacy was nice while it lasted". You never had privacy to your network (phone or Internet) actions to begin with.


You do have privacy with regard to data on your own computer at home though. Even if that computer is attached to a network. Hence, my repeated mention of the government hacking into your computer and collecting data there. A point you keep ignoring. I'm not arguing that things you do online are private. What websites you visit is not private, in the same way that what restaurant you go out to eat at tonight is not. You are in a "public space" the second you interact with someone else's computer on the internet and thus have little or no expectation of privacy.

Your own files, stored on your own computer at home *are* private. The government can't just hack in an look at that stuff without a warrant.

Quote:
Privacy is your diary in your room.


Or on your own computer, in your room. Legally, something you write in a text file on your computer (ie: not posted online) is just as protected by the 4th amendment as something you write in your diary. How do you not get this?

Quote:
Your network actions are available to your provider.


I'm not talking about your network actions. This is why I keep telling you your not addressing my point.

Quote:
Why "hack" into your system via a backdoor, when you can go in the front door?


Because I'm talking about files stored solely on someone's own computer located in their own home. Files which the government can *only* obtain by hacking into that computer and retrieving them. I'm saying that it's really important that we understand that this *is* private, while stuff you do online is *not* private. The concern is that people (like yourself apparently) will confuse the two, conclude that we don't have any expectation of privacy on the network, and thus not raise the alarm when privacy in our own homes is infringed. And frankly, your response more or less confirms that concern.

Quote:
That's why the FBI requested assistance from Apple to open their phone before doing it themselves. The point being, you're ok with the people who's job to exploit you to have your information, but not the people who's job is to protect you.


Huh? These are totally different situations. Again though, this is part of the problem. You honestly don't seem to understand what privacy rights we have, much less what might infringe them. You don't possess the tools to make a distinction between the FBi wanting to hack into a phone that they already possess, and have a warrant to search, versus the FBI secretly hacking into people's home computers with out any warrant at all to look to see if they are engaged in criminal behavior.

Which is scary. Well, not in your case, but in the fact that so many others in our society are just as ignorant about this as you are.

Quote:
So you're now against "show me your papers" and "stop and frisk?" That's great news! As I keep saying. You fail to differentiate passive vs active. Reacting to specific actions is completely different from targeting specific individuals.


And again you show that you don't understand the difference between actions taken in a public space versus those in a private space.


Which, again, is scary. The problem is that you fight the wrong battles for the wrong reasons. The result of this is a muddying of the waters, and more confusion among an already confused public. If you don't understand the difference between a public space and a private space, you can't determine what *is* public (and not protected) and what *is* private (and is protected), and cannot ever make an intelligent decision about privacy rights. Ever. You just can't. You don't have the basic foundation to make that determination. And, lacking that, your angry emotional protestations about all the wrong things will only serve to further erode our actual rights regarding privacy.

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 5:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Jul 13 2016 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government.
Assuming you really believe this to be true: on what do you base this statement? I actually, truly want to know.


Because a person who doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved in say providing broadcast TV and radio is pretty unlikely to go work for NPR or PBS, right? A person who doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved in providing health care is unlikely to go work for medicare. A person who believes that taxation is a violation of his rights is unlikely to go work for the IRS. Etc, etc , etc. Is this really a surprising or strange point to make? I would assume that if I said that people who believe that animals should never be locked up in cages are unlikely to seek employment at a zoo, you wouldn't bat an eye, right? Same deal here. Conservatives believe that there are a small number of things our federal government should be involved in, and that's it. Military? check. Foreign policy and all that's involved in that? check. International and interstate trade? check. Some interstate standards setting? sure. Maybe even banking, currency management, etc. Um.. Housing and Urban development? No. Health care? No. Education? No. And the list goes on. Ergo, while they may certainly seek out positions in government where they can curb such things (ie: elected and other high profile positions), rank and file conservatives are not generally going to seek employment working for those agencies.

The result is that those agencies will tend over time to become full of people who believe in the mission off the agency itself and that it's role is a proper and perhaps even necessary function of the federal government. In other words, liberals (or, at the very least, not conservatives). Which means that decisions made on a day to day basis by the employees within those agencies will tend to lean leftward. In some cases, to a great degree. The result is things like the IRS delaying applications by conservative groups for tax exempt status. No one at the top of the chain had to tell a room full of liberals who have the power to easily delay applications via any of a number of actions that wont ever result in termination from their government jobs that they should delay those applications. They just did it. Because they are "fans" of liberal ideology and opponents of conservative ideology. And just like fans will do, they will act in whatever ways they can, large or small, to help out their "team".

Put those same sorts of agencies in a position to decide what actions (perhaps even private actions) may result in someone getting put on a "list", which may then be used to restrict that person or group in some way, and it's not unreasonable to assume that such power will be used (abused) to at least some degree to restrict conservative speech and actions far far more than liberal ones. Because we already see that sort of bias now with the power currently held. It can only get worse if that power is increased. Do you think the programming at PBS and NPR is unbiased in terms of liberal vs conservative? You think someone commanded them to be biased from on high? Or that the bulk of people who work there are liberal, and their programming just reflects that fact?

Take that same thinking and put them in charge of deciding who goes on a "list". Think about it. Now imagine that the political positions you hold are the ones that the people working in these agencies honestly believe are "evil" and need to be stamped out in an "ends justify the means" manner. You'd be concerned about that sort of power as well, wouldn't you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Jul 13 2016 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Well, less interesting and more predictable.

Says the guy who is crying about a one-line joke. Stay Gbaji, gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Jul 13 2016 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Do you think jilted bankers, doctors, lawyers have such access? No
?? Are you serious? You don't think those people have useful information on you? You are really confused...
#119 Jul 13 2016 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Flying on a commercial airliner is not an enumerated right in our constitution.
Which doesn't change the fact that the concern is not the accuracy of the list, as people say.

Gbaji wrote:
Only so long as people like me actively speak out against it. When the other "side" constantly bashes us for this, what exactly are they fighting for? I assume you don't actually want an oppressive authoritarian government, so why so consistently attack those who work hard to prevent it from happening?
"Police officers can't have firearms, because they may unite and over throw the federal government and enslave all of the citizens". That's how stupid your #5 sounds. That's far from a legitimate basis for not doing something.

Gbaji wrote:
You do have privacy with regard to data on your own computer at home though. Even if that computer is attached to a network. Hence, my repeated mention of the government hacking into your computer and collecting data there. A point you keep ignoring. I'm not arguing that things you do online are private. What websites you visit is not private, in the same way that what restaurant you go out to eat at tonight is not. You are in a "public space" the second you interact with someone else's computer on the internet and thus have little or no expectation of privacy.

Your own files, stored on your own computer at home *are* private. The government can't just hack in an look at that stuff without a warrant.


Gbaji wrote:
Because I'm talking about files stored solely on someone's own computer located in their own home. Files which the government can *only* obtain by hacking into that computer and retrieving them. I'm saying that it's really important that we understand that this *is* private, while stuff you do online is *not* private. The concern is that people (like yourself apparently) will confuse the two, conclude that we don't have any expectation of privacy on the network, and thus not raise the alarm when privacy in our own homes is infringed. And frankly, your response more or less confirms that concern.


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? These are totally different situations. Again though, this is part of the problem. You honestly don't seem to understand what privacy rights we have, much less what might infringe them. You don't possess the tools to make a distinction between the FBi wanting to hack into a phone that they already possess, and have a warrant to search, versus the FBI secretly hacking into people's home computers with out any warrant at all to look to see if they are engaged in criminal behavior.

Which is scary. Well, not in your case, but in the fact that so many others in our society are just as ignorant about this as you are.


Gbaji wrote:
And again you show that you don't understand the difference between actions taken in a public space versus those in a private space.


Which, again, is scary. The problem is that you fight the wrong battles for the wrong reasons. The result of this is a muddying of the waters, and more confusion among an already confused public. If you don't understand the difference between a public space and a private space, you can't determine what *is* public (and not protected) and what *is* private (and is protected), and cannot ever make an intelligent decision about privacy rights. Ever. You just can't. You don't have the basic foundation to make that determination. And, lacking that, your angry emotional protestations about all the wrong things will only serve to further erode our actual rights regarding privacy.

You say that I "keep ignoring" the hacking part when I keep saying that you are misusing the word. Out of the millions of people in the US, why would the Government "hack" your "my Documents" without a lead? Once again, you're creating a scenario that would never happen as a reason not to do something. "Let's ignore all of the people who follow terrorist groups on the Internet and let's randomly hack into someone's computer and read their diary".


Gbaji wrote:
Or on your own computer, in your room. Legally, something you write in a text file on your computer (ie: not posted online) is just as protected by the 4th amendment as something you write in your diary. How do you not get this?
Learn2read?

#120 Jul 13 2016 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Do you think jilted bankers, doctors, lawyers have such access? No
?? Are you serious? You don't think those people have useful information on you? You are really confused...


Useful public information. They aren't the ones who'll have access to the secret stores of information the government has obtained via mass hacking into people's computers and reading of their files. In this hypothetical world where we've abandoned the idea of an expectation of privacy in our own homes and our own computers from government search, it will be government agencies alone who will have access to this private information and may use it in any of a variety of ways.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Jul 13 2016 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Flying on a commercial airliner is not an enumerated right in our constitution.
Which doesn't change the fact that the concern is not the accuracy of the list, as people say.


It's only not a concern now because it only affects flying on a commercial airliner, which I just said is not an enumerated right in our constitution. If we were to expand the impact of that list to include restricting someone's 2nd amendment rights as the "no fly, no guns" crowd was demanding, then at that point the accuracy of the list becomes a problem. Because it's being used for something different.

I'm examining a potential course of action and arguing why it's a bad idea. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Quote:
You say that I "keep ignoring" the hacking part when I keep saying that you are misusing the word.


You've not once said I am misusing the word. Now, you're just spinning.

Quote:
Out of the millions of people in the US, why would the Government "hack" your "my Documents" without a lead? Once again, you're creating a scenario that would never happen as a reason not to do something. "Let's ignore all of the people who follow terrorist groups on the Internet and let's randomly hack into someone's computer and read their diary".


Given that this thread is about the privacy concerns of the government hacking into people's home computers without warrants, I'm not sure what the point of arguing "they would never do that" is.

As to the value? You're kidding right? Do you understand that most hacking is done automatically, right? It's not like in the movies where some kid in a hoodie with cool glowing LEDs on his laptop rapidly clicky clacks his keyboard and "hacks in" somewhere. It's more like you run a tool which scan networks for ports which may be vulnerable to a list of hacks you have, and try dozens of different hacks on thousands of different systems all at once. If you're even a little bit clever, you don't do that from your computer. You automate your hacks so that they compromise hosts on the internet, which in turn are used as sources for next generation hacks you upload. Over time, you can gain control of a very large number of systems which you can use as you wish. Usually, the initial "hack" isn't a hack at all so much as some variation of phishing (email or web based typically). And if you write your code to be sophisticated enough, you can have it automatically open ports on infected hosts to allow other hacks to be installed. You can have those automatically detect services running on the systems (like say ftp or http), and utilize those to spread the hack. Once you have enough systems, you use them to attack others (how do you think DDoS attacks work?).

Most hackers are just goofing around and use their hacks to inconvenience others (like leaving triggerable and targetable DDoS tools on a large number of systems to be used at a later date). But a government, freed from restrictions with regard to citizens privacy, could develop some *very* sophisticated hacks which could automatically spread and infect very large numbers of system (especially people's home systems), scan files on the systems for any of a number of triggers, and then upload relevant data to a server somewhere. This data could then be searched for any of a number of things based on later need. Once you have such a system in place, there's no "effort" required. It ceases to be a matter of "why would the government spend the time hacking my system to look through my files?". It's already done that. Automatically. Now, it's just a matter of scanning through it for whatever pattern of information they want to look for.

This is already a fact with regard to public information (social media mostly). This is the stuff everyone was so alarmed about and Snowden went off over. But that's public data. We don't actually have an expectation of privacy with that information. It's a bit spooky for it to be collected so broadly and into a format that can be searched so easily, but that's not actually a violation of our rights (Snowden's idiocy aside).

The concern is that people will look at something like that, fail to see the key distinction between public and private spaces, and just toss their hands up, call the idea of privacy "quaint", and just give up on the issue. And I believe that when people like Snowden fail to make a distinction between public and private spaces, and make such a huge public display of fighting against what is really the wrong thing, they hasten the day when our actual private spaces will be open to inspection and analysis. They get so caught up on the collection of data and use of the data collected, that they forget that the 4th amendment is all about the location where the data is obtained from.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Or on your own computer, in your room. Legally, something you write in a text file on your computer (ie: not posted online) is just as protected by the 4th amendment as something you write in your diary. How do you not get this?
Learn2read?


Huh? That's what this topic is about. Someone's data, stored on their home computer, being accessed without a warrant by law enforcement. Maybe you should take your own advice? I don't know what topic you are arguing, but it's not the one I'm talking about. I'm talking about one thing, and you respond to something else. That's just... weird.

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 8:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Jul 14 2016 at 6:02 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Useful public information. They aren't the ones who'll have access to the secret stores of information the government has obtained via mass hacking into people's computers and reading of their files. In this hypothetical world where we've abandoned the idea of an expectation of privacy in our own homes and our own computers from government search, it will be government agencies alone who will have access to this private information and may use it in any of a variety of ways.
?? Are you serious? You don't think those people have PRIVATE information on you? You are really confused...

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 2:02pm by Almalieque
#123 Jul 14 2016 at 6:33 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's only not a concern now because it only affects flying on a commercial airliner, which I just said is not an enumerated right in our constitution. If we were to expand the impact of that list to include restricting someone's 2nd amendment rights as the "no fly, no guns" crowd was demanding, then at that point the accuracy of the list becomes a problem. Because it's being used for something different.

I'm examining a potential course of action and arguing why it's a bad idea. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Saying that the list is inaccurate, implies that the process would be ok if the list were accurate. As you admitted, the issue is not the list, but infringing on the right of bearing arms. If conservatives felt the same way about other constitutional rights (voting, abortion, etc.), then that would be a solid argument.

Gbaji wrote:

You've not once said I am misusing the word. Now, you're just spinning.

Gbaji wrote:

Given that this thread is about the privacy concerns of the government hacking into people's home computers without warrants, I'm not sure what the point of arguing "they would never do that" is.
You are confused on the topic, especially from the view of Angrymnk. RANDOMLY hacking computers will not happen. It's a waste of resources.


Gbaji wrote:
As to the value? You're kidding right? Do you understand that most hacking is done automatically, right? It's not like in the movies where some kid in a hoodie with cool glowing LEDs on his laptop rapidly clicky clacks his keyboard and "hacks in" somewhere. It's more like you run a tool which scan networks for ports which may be vulnerable to a list of hacks you have, and try dozens of different hacks on thousands of different systems all at once. If you're even a little bit clever, you don't do that from your computer. You automate your hacks so that they compromise hosts on the internet, which in turn are used as sources for next generation hacks you upload. Over time, you can gain control of a very large number of systems which you can use as you wish. Usually, the initial "hack" isn't a hack at all so much as some variation of phishing (email or web based typically). And if you write your code to be sophisticated enough, you can have it automatically open ports on infected hosts to allow other hacks to be installed. You can have those automatically detect services running on the systems (like say ftp or http), and utilize those to spread the hack. Once you have enough systems, you use them to attack others (how do you think DDoS attacks work?).

Smiley: lol I'll give you credit for your boldness to BS a response to a person that you KNOW is more informative on the subject at hand. Maybe you think I'm lying about what I do? Else, why even waste the time writing stuff that you know that I know is BS?

Gbaji wrote:
Most hackers are just goofing around and use their hacks to inconvenience others (like leaving triggerable and targetable DDoS tools on a large number of systems to be used at a later date). But a government, freed from restrictions with regard to citizens privacy, could develop some *very* sophisticated hacks which could automatically spread and infect very large numbers of system (especially people's home systems), scan files on the systems for any of a number of triggers, and then upload relevant data to a server somewhere. This data could then be searched for any of a number of things based on later need. Once you have such a system in place, there's no "effort" required. It ceases to be a matter of "why would the government spend the time hacking my system to look through my files?". It's already done that. Automatically. Now, it's just a matter of scanning through it for whatever pattern of information they want to look for.

This is already a fact with regard to public information (social media mostly). This is the stuff everyone was so alarmed about and Snowden went off over. But that's public data. We don't actually have an expectation of privacy with that information. It's a bit spooky for it to be collected so broadly and into a format that can be searched so easily, but that's not actually a violation of our rights (Snowden's idiocy aside).

The concern is that people will look at something like that, fail to see the key distinction between public and private spaces, and just toss their hands up, call the idea of privacy "quaint", and just give up on the issue. And I believe that when people like Snowden fail to make a distinction between public and private spaces, and make such a huge public display of fighting against what is really the wrong thing, they hasten the day when our actual private spaces will be open to inspection and analysis. They get so caught up on the collection of data and use of the data collected, that they forget that the 4th amendment is all about the location where the data is obtained from.
You just said above that everything is automatic, so now you're saying it's a possibility. Just stop.


#124 Jul 14 2016 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Indiscriminately hacking hundreds of millions of computers "just because" seems like a foolish way to go about things since you're vastly expanding your chance of being discovered while you're collecting baby photos and Adele CD rips.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Jul 14 2016 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Assuming you really believe this to be true: on what do you base this statement? I actually, truly want to know.
Because they're either perfect or they conveniently weren't actually conservatives all along! No true Scotsman, etc etc.
gbaji wrote:
I assume you don't actually want an oppressive authoritarian government, so why so consistently attack those who work hard to prevent it from happening?
The American Empire is held at bay by your tireless exploits on a dying forum. Thank you citizen, you and your yellow ribbon car magnet save the day once again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Jul 14 2016 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Indiscriminately hacking hundreds of millions of computers "just because" seems like a foolish way to go about things since you're vastly expanding your chance of being discovered while you're collecting baby photos and Adele CD rips.
If you add in the fact serious terrorists seem to do things like forgo technology and use disposable cell phones then it makes even less sense. The people you most want to catch are probably not going to be found by getting access to their facebook page.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 252 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (252)