Obama/Administration just became worse than Hitler

[bedub1]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369735,00.asp

U.S. Looking to Ease Internet Wiretap Laws, Report Says

The Obama administration is reportedly prepping new Internet regulations that would allow online service providers to comply with wiretap orders.

These new regulations could include sites like Facebook, mobile providers like Research in Motion, and software like Skype "to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order," according to a report in The New York Times. "The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."

The Obama administration would reportedly submit the new regulations in the form of a bill next year.

Voice communications services and broadband networks are already required to provide such assistance under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. That law does not apply to data communications services and this effort attempts to hold them to the same standard.

The Times identified the likely requirements:

* Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
* Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
* Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.

It's possible that some services are not capable, in their current designs, of meeting these requirements. It's also hard to see how this requirement would be enforced against open-source protocols like BitTorrent protocol encryption. The Times quoted computer science and law enforcement experts as saying that implementation would be difficult, expensive for providers, and likely to be exploited by hackers for illicit purposes.

President Obama and/or his Administration is trying to require backdoors into all software in the US to allow them to eavesdrop. The Patriot Act was nothing. It gave them the right to, but not the ability. So now they want to cripple the foundations of security and privacy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not sure if you noticed, but this has been going on for awhile, but now this will just streamline the process.

[Woodruff]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369735,00.asp

Not only have you apparently just woken up from a long nap under a rock somewhere, but you would also appear to be a far more disgusting thing than those others that might have been found by your side under that rock (based on the title you gave this thread).

[PLAYER57832]

If you think the internet has EVER been private.. you are dreaming. Corporations have always had this ability. So have foreign governments. I am not convinced the US hasn't had the ability prior. This just seems to be perhaps making it official.

[bedub1]

Perhaps this title is better: Obama Wants to Wiretap the Internet
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Obama ... et-841145/

[AndyDufresne]

Why do you think our Off Topic Regulars sometimes disappear in the night? They certainly aren't really multis/trolls/what-have-you--- they get spirited away by the Government for posting their FACTS about the Government, the economy, history, etc.


--Andy

[bedub1]

Why do you think our Off Topic Regulars sometimes disappear in the night? They certainly aren't really multis/trolls/what-have-you--- they get spirited away by the Government for posting their FACTS about the Government, the economy, history, etc.


--Andy

I got told if I talked about my absence it would become permanent. I'm not not afraid of the government. I'm not not licking toads.

[the.killing.44]

HOLY f*ck IT'S LIKE HE'S TRYING TO KILL 9 MILLION PEOPLE RITE

[saxitoxin]

EXCUSE ME, I have already established - through process of exhaustive effort - that I have the monopoly for outrage on this forum. I would appreciate being given opportunity of first refusal before any posts of this type be made.

See here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127452&start=30#p2796269

Thanks, bedub1!
- Uncle Saxi
Unofficial CC Outrage Ombudsman
Unofficial CC iPhones Advisor
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman
Alternate Dispute Adjudicator

[darvlay]

Man, that hyperbole you used in the title is worse than Hitler.

[bedub1]

Man, that hyperbole you used in the title is worse than Hitler.

lol...it is kinda a joke. I like "I Disagree With You, But I'm Pretty Sure You're Not Hitler". which made me laugh.

[BigBallinStalin]

EXCUSE ME, I have already established - through process of exhaustive effort - that I have the monopoly for outrage on this forum. I would appreciate being given opportunity of first refusal before any posts of this type be made.

See here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127452&start=30#p2796269

Thanks, bedub1!
- Uncle Saxi
Unofficial CC Outrage Ombudsman
Unofficial CC iPhones Advisor
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman
Alternate Dispute Adjudicator

I am outraged over your outrageous statement that you hold a monopoly for outrage on this forum.

[jonesthecurl]

Outrageous.
Also, plagiarism.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is another take on the subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =130162215
The law enforcement community is beginning to press an effort to amend communications law to cover their access to conversations on new technologies -- like Skype, BlackBerry and Facebook -- to keep pace with the way criminal and terrorism suspects are talking to each other. The initiative, in its early stages, is sure to face strong head winds from privacy advocates.

(not that I am happy about the changes, but ... )

[Woodruff]

Here is another take on the subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =130162215
The law enforcement community is beginning to press an effort to amend communications law to cover their access to conversations on new technologies -- like Skype, BlackBerry and Facebook -- to keep pace with the way criminal and terrorism suspects are talking to each other. The initiative, in its early stages, is sure to face strong head winds from privacy advocates.
(not that I am happy about the changes, but ... )

Yeah, those damn warrants are pretty difficult to get when you need them.

[bedub1]

Outrageous.
Also, plagiarism.

I did quote the website and the entire thing is in quotes.....how is that plagiarism again?

[PLAYER57832]

Here is another take on the subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =130162215
The law enforcement community is beginning to press an effort to amend communications law to cover their access to conversations on new technologies -- like Skype, BlackBerry and Facebook -- to keep pace with the way criminal and terrorism suspects are talking to each other. The initiative, in its early stages, is sure to face strong head winds from privacy advocates.
(not that I am happy about the changes, but ... )

Yeah, those damn warrants are pretty difficult to get when you need them.

Uh... listen to the interview. The problem is technology, not warrants.

[Woodruff]

Here is another take on the subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =130162215
The law enforcement community is beginning to press an effort to amend communications law to cover their access to conversations on new technologies -- like Skype, BlackBerry and Facebook -- to keep pace with the way criminal and terrorism suspects are talking to each other. The initiative, in its early stages, is sure to face strong head winds from privacy advocates.
(not that I am happy about the changes, but ... )

Yeah, those damn warrants are pretty difficult to get when you need them.

Uh... listen to the interview. The problem is technology, not warrants.

I listened to the interview. The problem absolutely is NOT technology. You forget, until 2007, I was immersed in some of the highest technology in the world with the United States Air Force. The technology is not at all the problem.

Though you're right...getting the warrants has never been the problem...that much is true (thus my sarcasm above).

But if they keep making that claim about the technology, then they can get their way. And that's all they want.

[saxitoxin]

Hate to admit it ( ) but Woodruff is right. The technology available to the U.S. military and, to a far lesser extent the U.S. secret police (the FBI and those other alphabeticals both known and un-), is beyond anything the scope of imagination the mind of a dull NPR assignment editor could ever conceive or imagine. If you've seen it in Star Trek the U.S. either already has it or determined, conclusively, the technology is not feasible.

Further, the U.S. operates the singularly most brutally efficient police state in the history of the world. Anyone who even, for a moment, attempts to argue this is - frankly - a bootlicking apologist with their tongue firmly up the taint of a police detective giggling in ecstasy.

Only the most Machiavelian of police states could imagine to control both the police and the opposition. If you don't think that's the case in the U.S. you were, in a past life, one of the poor dupes caught waiting at the Bologna train station in the summer of '80.

[jonesthecurl]

Outrageous.
Also, plagiarism.

I did quote the website and the entire thing is in quotes.....how is that plagiarism again?

Um..check your ego at the door. wasn't talkin to you. Not that I ignore you, but i was responding to someone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

Now that's outrageous.

[bedub1]

If I encrypt a file with TrueCrypt there is no way anybody is going to break into it if a good password is used. It's possible to break, it just takes too much computer time that it's not worth it.

[PLAYER57832]

I listened to the interview. The problem absolutely is NOT technology. You forget, until 2007, I was immersed in some of the highest technology in the world with the United States Air Force. The technology is not at all the problem.

Though you're right...getting the warrants has never been the problem...that much is true (thus my sarcasm above).

But if they keep making that claim about the technology, then they can get their way. And that's all they want.

You almost certainly know more about the technology than I. However, that was the main argument in the interview, not warrants. That was my point.

Essentially they were saying that when warrants were issued, many of the US branches, (never mind even more local segments) of many companies had no way to quickly get the information requested, so the government has to hire its own technitians to decrypt, dig up information, etc...

I have no way of knowing if their arguments are real or not. I am interested in your take on that. It just sounded like you were addressing something else.

For the record, I think its ALL pretty much smoke screen. I think the genie of privacy invasion is out and I am not sure its possible to ever put it back.

[bedub1]

No, I do not want to "friend" the NSA and FBI

[Woodruff]

If I encrypt a file with TrueCrypt there is no way anybody is going to break into it if a good password is used. It's possible to break, it just takes too much computer time that it's not worth it.

There is no such thing as an undecryptable file. There is no such thing as an uncrackable password. Period.

I listened to the interview. The problem absolutely is NOT technology. You forget, until 2007, I was immersed in some of the highest technology in the world with the United States Air Force. The technology is not at all the problem.
Though you're right...getting the warrants has never been the problem...that much is true (thus my sarcasm above).
But if they keep making that claim about the technology, then they can get their way. And that's all they want.

You almost certainly know more about the technology than I. However, that was the main argument in the interview, not warrants. That was my point.
Essentially they were saying that when warrants were issued, many of the US branches, (never mind even more local segments) of many companies had no way to quickly get the information requested, so the government has to hire its own technitians to decrypt, dig up information, etc...

So? Tough shit for the government, I say.

I have no way of knowing if their arguments are real or not. I am interested in your take on that. It just sounded like you were addressing something else.

Perhaps we're talking at odds. What I'm saying is that there is NO good excuse for these laws to be necessary. None.

For the record, I think its ALL pretty much smoke screen. I think the genie of privacy invasion is out and I am not sure its possible to ever put it back.

It was gone in the 80s. I'm not kidding. Why do you think I get so uptight about the subject.