'A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all'

SmarterthanYou said:
maybe you need to read the law a bit more before looking like an idiot. ANY commmercial encryption program MUST provide the feds with the key. If I were to write my own and market it, I would have to provide the feds with the key.
Click to expand...

GNuPG is open source and subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
 
Damocles said:
Translation:

We can't bother to try to get the government to stay within the powers granted it by the constitution, just get used to infringement and stuff your complaints! Big Government is only looking out for you!

Now can you say that into this flower on my lapel?
Click to expand...


where did I say that damo?


fuck you very much for lying about me
 
evince said:
here is a fact of life for all of you.


When you are on the internets and crawling around in that series of tubes you are in public.


the logical fact will someday seep into your brains.

there is NO WAY to make any of it completely secure.
Click to expand...



hmmmm I didn't say it in this post huh
 
evince said:
talking points?


bite my ass.

Go find that sentiment ANYWHERE?

I have never heard anyone but me say it clown.


This new world of personal media is like standing on the street corner and talking.


BTW Im not defending the spying.

I wish it were capable of being just personal.



The facts are that it will NEVER be secure and people need to act accordingly.
Click to expand...



gee I guess you just flat out lied about me huh damo
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What??? Yes, it's a crime. But if we lock the door we consider our home secured. Secure does not mean it absolutely impenetrable.
Click to expand...

just having a door at one time was considered a security device huh.


It was NOT anyones talking point and you fucking just keep pretending it is.

that make you a liar
 
SmarterthanYou said:
actually, it could be if we weren't required by law to provide a decryption key to the government for any encryption program we use. If someone smart enough were to write a new encryption program, they must provide the code and key to the feds. otherwise, the internet could be very secure.
Click to expand...

Or how about a law saying that they would need a warrant to actively gather information on us?
 
If the NSA program prevents terrorism, how did the Boston bombing occur? Or Fort Hood? Or any of these school shootings? All involved these electronic communications that they NSA is collecting. Why didn't they stop them? And if they couldn't stop them, how are we safer for it?
 
To anyone with 25% of a brain, snowden should simply be looked upon as a narcissistic idiot. He might as well have asked for asylum then held a press conference to announce that the sky was blue, and has been blue for a long time. If you want privacy, learn to write(on a piece of paper, with a pen or even a pencil!)and then sit back and revel in your privacy! There ain't no Santa Claus, there ain't no Easter Bunny and the federal intelligence agencies operate inside the borders of the U.S. despite the inconvenience of it being illegal. Anyone who was surprised at Snowden's "revelations" has their head in the sand.
 
Desh and the other neocon idiots need to realize that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is not surrendered simply because no one is ever absolutely secure. That's a really stupid argument. Madison was a small man so one could have forcefully disrupted his persons and effects, done so through stealth (pickpocket) or could have broken into his house. But the fourth was there to stop the government from invading his privacy under the cover of law without a warrant.

The NSA controversy and revelations from Snowden are not simply about online forums.
 
Damocles said:
Translation:

We can't bother to try to get the government to stay within the powers granted it by the constitution, just get used to infringement and stuff your complaints! Big Government is only looking out for you!

Now can you say that into this flower on my lapel?
Click to expand...

Translation: "I am blissfully ignorant of the fact that no search & seizure cases reached the US Supreme Court until 1913, and that any searches done by law enforcement prior to that point were considered legal. I am a liberal, and endorse liberal activist judges, who distort the US Constitution to achieve their own ends. I masquerade as a Constitutionalist, but in reality I'm no different than any other hippy with poor personal hygiene."
 
evince said:
here is a fact of life for all of you.


When you are on the internets and crawling around in that series of tubes you are in public.


the logical fact will someday seep into your brains.

there is NO WAY to make any of it completely secure.
Click to expand...
Yes...I'm amused at those who think kids expect any privacy right now. Don't clear your cookies for a day or two, and see what kinds of ads you are bombarded with as you browse the net.
 
Althea said:
Yes...I'm amused at those who think kids expect any privacy right now. Don't clear your cookies for a day or two, and see what kinds of ads you are bombarded with as you browse the net.
Click to expand...

And your email? Your phone conversations? Your bank transactions? Those are supposedly public too?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
maybe you need to read the law a bit more before looking like an idiot. ANY commmercial encryption program MUST provide the feds with the key. If I were to write my own and market it, I would have to provide the feds with the key.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to provide a link supporting your paranoia?
 
GLaDOS said:
If the NSA program prevents terrorism, how did the Boston bombing occur? Or Fort Hood? Or any of these school shootings? All involved these electronic communications that they NSA is collecting. Why didn't they stop them? And if they couldn't stop them, how are we safer for it?
Click to expand...

There are many stories of efforts that were prevented. If you think that Goverments can prevent attacks with a 100% accuracy rate, you live in a fantasy land. If you think they can prevent ANY future attacks by not having any of tese tools, you're a fool.

Like I stated earlier; if the American sheeple would rather live in paranoia of their own Government limited by Constitutional protections and make it easier for terrorists who are not handicapped by such restrictions, and pretend that 9-11 never happened, then the American sheeple can force their representatives to eliminate these programs. There's no law against being stupid or paranoid.

Our enemies laugh at the American sheeple and our naïveté.
 
callinectes said:
To anyone with 25% of a brain, snowden should simply be looked upon as a narcissistic idiot. He might as well have asked for asylum then held a press conference to announce that the sky was blue, and has been blue for a long time. If you want privacy, learn to write(on a piece of paper, with a pen or even a pencil!)and then sit back and revel in your privacy! There ain't no Santa Claus, there ain't no Easter Bunny and the federal intelligence agencies operate inside the borders of the U.S. despite the inconvenience of it being illegal. Anyone who was surprised at Snowden's "revelations" has their head in the sand.
Click to expand...

It is rather amusing that the media acted like this was news.

The paranoid dimwits groaned you stating the obvious; dumbasses.
 
It's easy to recongize when you're dealing with faux Constitutionalists on issues like this.

The IRS collects all kinds of information about your life; your income, your investments, your mortgage, your debt, etc., from which they can estimate your net wealth. This has been going on for years. Where are the complaints? Is this what the Founders intended?

Deafening silence.

But when it comes down to a legtimate matter of public interest... the public safety.... then they're all up in arms.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Desh and the other neocon idiots need to realize that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is not surrendered simply because no one is ever absolutely secure. That's a really stupid argument. Madison was a small man so one could have forcefully disrupted his persons and effects, done so through stealth (pickpocket) or could have broken into his house. But the fourth was there to stop the government from invading his privacy under the cover of law without a warrant.

The NSA controversy and revelations from Snowden are not simply about online forums.
Click to expand...

The paranoid dullards need to stop pretending that 9-11 never occurred or can't happen again and comprehend that no ones privacy has been surrendered by these programs.

I've asked it a thousand times from the paranoid dunces; please provide ONE case where an American citizen had their Constitutional rights abused by these programs; just one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top