Author Topic: Privacy and anonymity  (Read 14176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #175 on: April 07, 2015, 09:56:19 AM »
John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

Did anyone else catch this?  I thought it was fascinating and hilarious and scary (like most of John Oliver's shows).
Haven't seen it, but I read that random passerby didn't recognize his name and that made him sad. That makes me sad. I certainly get that people lose interest quickly, but AFAIC the dude did us a solid and it'd have been nice for people to actually back him up enough to get some meaningful change (as usual, assuming that it's even possible for Americans to demand change).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #176 on: April 08, 2015, 02:25:05 AM »
I think there is a line between "we need to know everything" and "we don't need to be told anything".  I think Snowden crossed that line.  He (and just as importantly, Greenwald) could have handled it much better than they did.

There were tons of whistleblowers 2001-2008.  Obviously, something changed in 2009 that suddenly whistlebloowing required such extreme measures as taking a nuke (trade secrets and intelligence) to a foreign land that is unfriendly to the USA because you feel safer there than in the USA.  Most people don't even know the names of the whistleblowers pre-Snowden, Manning and Assange (although the last one is different than the first two).  So it either means one of two things.  These people are seeking fame and want their name out there, or more likely, it became infinitely more dangerous to become a whistleblower under Obama.

The fact that back channels talking about Obama threatened Israel the US would shoot down Israeli jets traveling through Iraq to level Iran nuclear facilities (like they have in the past for the Middle East), leads me to believe Obama is actually an evil dude.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #177 on: April 08, 2015, 08:00:28 AM »
John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

Did anyone else catch this?  I thought it was fascinating and hilarious and scary (like most of John Oliver's shows).
Haven't seen it, but I read that random passerby didn't recognize his name and that made him sad. That makes me sad. I certainly get that people lose interest quickly, but AFAIC the dude did us a solid and it'd have been nice for people to actually back him up enough to get some meaningful change (as usual, assuming that it's even possible for Americans to demand change).

Yeah, I don't really think Ed Snowden "did us a solid".   I don't know that I want him executed for treason, but while I would support (some) meaningful change - meaning, I'm not suggesting that all was right in Denmark - that doesn't automatically mean what he did was right or laudable.  And I'm far more critical of Assange.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #178 on: April 08, 2015, 08:21:51 AM »
Obama expanded the use of the espionage act to prosecute whistle-blowers. I'd say that certainly ups the ante for potential squealers. At the same time, like much of Obama's suckiness, it's an example of him taking an existing practice and greatly expanding ti rather than reforming it or minimizing its use.

As for Snowden, I think it was a necessary thing for him to act the way he did. While others might have leaked bits and pieces, he provided a big picture of the scope of everything, and he did it in a spectacular enough way that people actually noticed. As Calvin pointed out as another example of Obama's failure, people don't notice little things that pop up from time to time. If each of the PP's that Snowden leaked came out one at a time of 8 years, the only people that would have noticed are people like me that read Wired and Techdirt. Snowden made it world news for a while.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #179 on: April 08, 2015, 08:36:55 AM »
Snowden made it world news for a while.

And what changed?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #180 on: April 08, 2015, 08:38:41 AM »
By the way, el Barto, you may be interested to know that Lawrence Lessig is doing a speaking tour of sorts.  He's speaking at my old law school end of the month.  I will be going.   I find him fascinating.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #181 on: April 08, 2015, 08:41:27 AM »
Snowden made it world news for a while.

And what changed?
The fact that Americans are impotent doesn't lessen what the guy did.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #182 on: April 08, 2015, 01:49:56 PM »
As far as the public release on PRISM and other internal spying on Americans, I do think that needed to come to the awareness of the American people.  I just think it could have been more broadly discussed with mention of sources and details handled by a true oversight committee.  In other words, how things have been done in the past.

Obama's moves weren't really a surprise to those paying attention during the 2008 Presidential run.  He made a big stink about the telephone company immunity and the related FISA associated with the Patriot Act.  But when all the polls showed a very likely win for him as President, he then voted directly against his platform as Senator in Summer 2008.  This wasn't his first 180 degree concerning what he said and what he actually did.  His Presidential run was full of them.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #183 on: April 08, 2015, 02:00:37 PM »
As far as the public release on PRISM and other internal spying on Americans, I do think that needed to come to the awareness of the American people.  I just think it could have been more broadly discussed with mention of sources and details handled by a true oversight committee.  In other words, how things have been done in the past.
Are you honestly suggesting that would have happened under Bush/Cheney?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #184 on: April 08, 2015, 02:15:56 PM »
Lots of things were openly discussed under Bush/Cheney.  Not because Bush/Cheney were releasing it, but because sources like the NYT would release the stories with lots of "sources close to" ... and then there would be a debate on it.  I believe quite a bit of it became the 2008 primary and general election debate discussion.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #185 on: April 08, 2015, 02:19:43 PM »
So it's OK when a media outlet does it with vague, easily deniable information, but wrong when somebody publicly named, vetted and wielding power point slides does it?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #186 on: April 08, 2015, 09:14:00 PM »
So it's OK when a media outlet does it with vague, easily deniable information, but wrong when somebody publicly named, vetted and wielding power point slides does it?

Did you miss the part about proper oversight?  And yes.  We don't need to make everything public to such high detail.  The public just needs to be made aware of what is going on so they push their political leaders to correct it (and possibly pursue criminal charges).  Once again.  Republic or limited democracy, but not a democracy where everything is decided with a vote by the entire population.  I believe in national security.  I believe in constitutional rights.  There is a middle ground that can guarantee both.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #187 on: April 08, 2015, 10:39:01 PM »
By and large I agree with you. Where we differ is your stance that everything was working just as it should right up until 1-29-09 when civil liberties up and vanished, presumably in a cloud of dope smoke from a joint Obama lit with the bill of rights. Honestly, it seems that more often than not where I disagree with you is your apparent belief that all things bad begin with Obama. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #188 on: April 08, 2015, 10:46:58 PM »
Where we differ is your stance that everything was working just as it should right up until 1-29-09 when civil liberties up and vanished
That's just you projecting.  I didn't say everything was working perfectly.  I said it became infinitely worse for whistleblowers.  And you agreed with that part.  And I'm talking about media's role in a lot of this.

Quote
presumably in a cloud of dope smoke from a joint Obama lit with the bill of rights. Honestly, it seems that more often than not where I disagree with you is your apparent belief that all things bad begin with Obama.
And I give very specific examples, whereas you try to group it in with the "dat der Obama am da Muzlam" crowd.  Every time I talk about Obama, it is very specific.  And like I said, he's the CURRENT President.  So he will get the focus, as he should.  I held on to a lot of Romney's (and McCain's) platforms (and Kerry's before that) because those in charge try to pull the "I never said that" BS.  I will do the same for the 2016 frontrunners.

If anything, you tend to be more derogative with the "Dumbass" play on Dubya.

The funny part was I disagreed with pulling the telephone immunity (the big 07-08 talk) because even though I would love to see AT&T (and the like) squirm, I feel they did it under duress.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #189 on: April 08, 2015, 11:20:23 PM »
For a while I called Obama Dickhead, but I honestly thought it was dull and uninspired, as did others who let me know. I just never found something to call the guy that was as apt as Bush's Dumbass moniker. It's certainly not for any greater amount of respect or anything.

And from my perspective it seems that all things you speak of come back to Obama sucks. I don't necessarily disagree with them individually or the premise in general, but when I have the sense that it's the end goal you're working toward, as opposed to a conclusion reached, I certainly have to question it. You seem to have little to say about Bush, unless it's to point out something that he was doing better. I started paying a good deal of attention to politics about 20 years ago, and my experience has been that they're both miserable failures and that both of those guys have a great many commonalities; enough that I consider them 16 years of the same failed presidency. When I get the sense that someone considers one greatly superior to the other it really makes me rather suspect.

And my recollection of that whole telco affair was that ATT never offered any resistance to necessitate duress. Some of the telcos requested warrants and backed down when they were told no, but AT&T just opened the door right up to them and said come on in and help yourself. I mean, at least ask for a warrant, even if you're going to fold up immediately.  Hell, I asked FBI goons for a warrant even though they were raiding a company that I genuinely despised. "We don't need to show it to you!" Yeah, OK, fine. Go right on in. It's just the minimum amount of effort to not be a door mat.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #190 on: April 08, 2015, 11:59:00 PM »
You seem to have little to say about Bush
Because he is 7 years removed from office?  I talk about him about as much as Bill Clinton, except when I'm talking about them in relation to Hillary and Jeb (or George HW).  Talking about Bush as much as Obama at this point in time seems kind of deranged to me.

Quote
unless it's to point out something that he was doing better.

.....

And my recollection of that whole telco affair was that ATT never offered any resistance to necessitate duress.

Considering I posted these things in this thread, recently, in a single post; doesn't that kind of mean I'm talking about the Bush administration putting undue duress on the telephone company?

So ....
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2017, 10:15:12 AM »
This has kind of been my outlet for search and seizure discussion, so I'll bump it here.

I don't reckon many will find this interesting, but I certainly do. It's a fascinating question, and I'm sick and fucking tired of discussing Grabby.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38583351 (not a very good article, but I usually try to grab something from a legitimate source)

Long story short, some idiot took his computer to Geek Squad because it wouldn't boot. Geek Squad turned up a picture of a naked, prepubescent blond girl and dropped a dime on him, as is their legal responsibility. As it turns out the FBI pays Geek Squad members $500 for this service and the idiot perv is seeking to have his case dismissed. The interesting component in this is that effectively the FBI is paying a private entity to circumvent its own search warrant requirements. In this instance the offending image was in allocated space on the HDD. That means the Geek had to decide to go scrounging (not uncommon in their field, but that's a different matter).

This happens quite a bit. UPS and utility meter-readers (to the extent the latter still exists) have been offered rewards for turning in dopers. Johnny Law can't come onto my property to sniff around for a grow. He can't open the package shipped to me from Oregon to see if dope is in it.  He can't search my computer to see if there's a naughty image somewhere on it. All of these things require a lawful warrant supported by probable cause. Yet he can pay others to do it for him?

It doesn't seem right at all to me. As we all know I'm a big fan of the 4th amendment, which I feel is continually watered down (and this is all pre-Grabby). Circumventing warrant requirements doesn't sit well with me.  Yet it's problematic because variations on this are so prevalent. Paid informants are an integral part of law enforcement.

Anybody have any thoughts?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #192 on: January 12, 2017, 10:25:41 AM »
Agreed, I read that article earlier this week and I thought the same thing.  I don't like it one bit.  I already didn't like the Geek Squad so this just adds more hatred towards it from me.  I would hope the parent companys (best buy, utilities) would add clauses to their worker's contracts that they cannot be informants.  I feel like it hurts their business, well best buy at least, pretty hard to hurt the utility companies and I would hope the evidence can be admissible in court since it definitely appears to be discovered in a border illegal way.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #193 on: January 12, 2017, 10:34:35 AM »
Well, they're already required by law to be snitches. What BB needs to do is to institute guidelines about the degree of searching can be done. Obviously this is something they needed to do years ago, and will likely cost them a ton of employees once that entertaining perk of the job is removed, but such is life. Moreover, the courts need to suppress evidence obtained outside of the scope of acceptable practices. If it had been his wallpaper or something there would be no problem. If it's in a folder on a slave drive then you've got a problem, for example.

On a more philosophical level, I think the problem with this, and I suppose UPS, is that they're incentivizing searching. If they're looking through deleted files then the Geeks are certainly motivated outside the norms of their job. At the same time if a UPS guy can make $500 by finding a bag of KB, then why wouldn't he open random packages during his free time? Hell, I used to read confidential psych files on my downtime just out of intellectual curiosity.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #194 on: January 12, 2017, 11:54:39 AM »
I'm no expert here, but the problem for me is the $500.   If there is a duty to report child porn, independent of who, what, why, where, that's one thing.  There's no requirement then for the search and seizure rules; you put it out there (i.e. giving it to the Geek Squad), you have no expectation of privacy.   BUT, I believe that by giving the $500 - even if it a "reward" after the fact - I think an argument can be made that now the GS is acting as an agent for the Feds, and I think that is problematic.  Now, I suppose the counter is the same argument that is made when snitches go under cover in jail cells and what not, but I think you have to separate Good Samaritans doing their civic duty with something more pro-active. 

This is also why I don't give my computer to the GS.  I have no child porn (that I know of) on my machine, but I have no faith that the dimestore flunky doesn't confuse machines and I get labeled a sex offender for the rest of my days on this planet.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #195 on: January 12, 2017, 12:28:52 PM »
I'm no expert here, but the problem for me is the $500.   If there is a duty to report child porn, independent of who, what, why, where, that's one thing.  There's no requirement then for the search and seizure rules; you put it out there (i.e. giving it to the Geek Squad), you have no expectation of privacy.  BUT, I believe that by giving the $500 - even if it a "reward" after the fact - I think an argument can be made that now the GS is acting as an agent for the Feds, and I think that is problematic.  Now, I suppose the counter is the same argument that is made when snitches go under cover in jail cells and what not, but I think you have to separate Good Samaritans doing their civic duty with something more pro-active. 

This is also why I don't give my computer to the GS.  I have no child porn (that I know of) on my machine, but I have no faith that the dimestore flunky doesn't confuse machines and I get labeled a sex offender for the rest of my days on this planet.
In the abstract that's not exactly true. You have no expectation of privacy where the Geek is reasonably expected to be. You don't forfeit privacy to the other areas. A slave drive. A 200GB encrypted file. Unallocated space. These are all places he would generally have no business being he's just trying to get your computer to boot.  If Johnny pulls me over and sees the dead hooker in my back seat then he's got me dead to rights. If he finds her in the locked trunk, sans PC or consent, then he's SOL/JWF.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #196 on: August 24, 2017, 09:15:38 PM »
So the government is wanting to seize all information on 1.3 million visitors to a website based on the possibility that they might have committed some crime. Not any specific persons and not any specific crime.  Seems to me that a key component is that you have to be searching for something in particular, rather than snooping. If there's something in particular that The Man is looking for, why does he need the entire database?  Am I the only person that has a problem with this? I'm not entirely clear on how something this broad fits in with the 4th amendment, and I'm very clear on what the implications are for the 1st.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-justice-department-dreamhost-20170824-story.html
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25059
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #197 on: August 24, 2017, 09:25:56 PM »
Will it keep me safe from the evil-doers?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19228
  • Gender: Male
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #198 on: August 25, 2017, 06:02:43 AM »
Will it keep me safe from the evil-doers?

Nope

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #199 on: August 25, 2017, 08:11:16 AM »
It appears to be about getting supporting evidence to convict the people arrested from the protests.  That doesn't sound so bad, but to do that, it seems they need to collect all the data, not just the data of the people arrested.  I guess that is where it seems fuzzy.  I'm guessing if the courts are allowing this to happen, that it's not breaking any laws or amendments, but it does seem to be a bit much of an invasion to the many other innocent people.  Not sure what you can do about that.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #200 on: August 25, 2017, 08:37:27 AM »
It appears to be about getting supporting evidence to convict the people arrested from the protests.  That doesn't sound so bad, but to do that, it seems they need to collect all the data, not just the data of the people arrested.  I guess that is where it seems fuzzy.  I'm guessing if the courts are allowing this to happen, that it's not breaking any laws or amendments, but it does seem to be a bit much of an invasion to the many other innocent people.  Not sure what you can do about that.
Seems to me that if they're trying to get supporting evidence for specific convictions then they should have specific things they're looking for. Or, at the very least, specific places to search. If their suspect attended a Redskins preseason game, do they also get to include the 35k people also in attendance at that game? Also, just because a court is allowing this to happen doesn't mean that it's legal or constitutional. That's why we have a layered court system. Lastly, balancing privacy concerns vs the need to investigate crimes is the reason we have judicial oversight of these things. A judge who says "eh, take whatever you want on whoever you want" isn't doing his job.

I'll also point out that thanks to a different ruling that I also take exception to, a warrant can be expanded to include anybody a suspect has had contact with. We discussed that here a while back. This means that a warrant for one person can wrap up thousands of people he had contact with. In this case it's wrapping up everybody he might or might not have had contact with. Seems pretty easy to take the online activity of Suspects A, B, and C, find out who they were chatting with, and then grab the data of conversees 1-927.

Say the FBI is investigating Stadler for his overt communist leanings. They exercise a search warrant for DTF. Do they need all the data for Deslock, who's only made 42 posts all in the DT side? He's not under investigation. When they get Comrade Stadler's info they'll know who he's been spreading his seditious propaganda to and then they can separately investigate only those individuals. It's really not all that hard and avoids subjecting Deslock to undue police scrutiny just for being a Dream Theater fan.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #201 on: August 25, 2017, 08:58:07 AM »
Yea, I was thinking of a DTF analogy as well.  I don't really like the idea of having to expand and then have the ability to search people who have maybe one thing in common with the person in question, but at the same time, how do you proceed with a criminal investigation if you can't expand your search beyond just that person?  It just seems like a scenario where you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18873
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #202 on: August 25, 2017, 09:23:47 AM »
Yea, I was thinking of a DTF analogy as well.  I don't really like the idea of having to expand and then have the ability to search people who have maybe one thing in common with the person in question, but at the same time, how do you proceed with a criminal investigation if you can't expand your search beyond just that person?  It just seems like a scenario where you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
There's nothing stopping you from expanding your investigation. And in this case there are no exigent circumstances so there's nothing stopping you from getting another search warrant for the new subjects. Time doesn't seem to be very important here. Though that's not even necessary anymore. When they find out that Stadler was sending PMs to Bosk about blowing up a courthouse, then they include Bosk in the investigation. That includes seeing who Bosk has been communicating with. That can continue until the trail ends. The investigation expands as necessary. The problem here is that they started at the broadest level, rather than the smallest level with the ability to expand as needed. The latter is how you fulfill the two-pronged duty to further an investigation while doing what you can to protect the rights to privacy of everybody involved.

And I'd just like to point out how very disappointed I am to learn just how subversive this forum has become.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson