Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Ok, is it just me or are there just more than necessary threads for the subject at hand?

Plus, why are people quoting Ben Franklin all of the sudden, especially since the quote mostly has nothing to do with the NSA or anything like that?

I just thought, "fuck that wall of text, let's debate the Ben Franklin quote". And it is pretty relevant; the idea is that we trade our liberty to live a private life without state intrusion by allowing the government to snoop on everything, and that allegedly provides better security. And as Franklin said, "fuck that shit".

We have sacrificed way more of our privacy in the name of convenience than we have in the name of security.

Furthermore with the ubiquity of technology we have openly allowed third parties who have little duty to our privacy outside that which they promise to us into our lives and allowed them to become privy to all but our closest secrets.

On top of that so few of us actually know what privacy means, seeing as there are huge movements calling traffic light cameras an invsion of privacy.

Privacy faces a far bigger threat of being made obsolete than it does by being eroded for security's sake.

Not to mention we are making the biggest security threat ever by storing all that info in one big data center.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al l/

Also, hopefully this will get somewhere:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/11/4418794/stopwatchingus-int ernet-orgs-ask-congress-to-stop-surveillance

Privacy doesn't involve protecting yourself from gossip.

If I didn't want people to see me at the theaters. I would wear a baseball cap and sunglasses. Maybe a trenchcoat...with long collars that go over a good portion of the face. Hell, why leave the house at all!

At 6/11/13 02:46 PM, CaptainPrichard wrote: A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

The logic is hard to follow, the analogies don't fit the arguement. So the conclusion doesn't follow.

....All I can say is it's silly to think people become master spies from discovering how to avoid detection from talking less on the phone. Pretty sure there is at least a few other James Bond qualties necessary to do the mission.

At 6/11/13 07:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

On top of that so few of us actually know what privacy means, seeing as there are huge movements calling traffic light cameras an invasion of privacy.

;;;
Yeah CamaroH & those people are assholes IMO !
Having a camera in a public place, where no one should expect privacy is completely different than say in your bathroom.
Or in your backyard.
WHen we are in our homes , on our phones, in our work places, we expect a level of privacy ... sure another worker may come to your office, interact with you at a moments notice, but complete strangers are not privy to company information.

The so called 'security measures' now being abused by state agencies , that break the law, go against the rules of the State's Charter (aka Constitution) in the name of safety is sickening.
IF the state has to break the laws to uphold the laws , the system is broken.

I don't expect privacy walking down the street, driving my car, in a shopping mall or any public area. The rules were made & are expected to be adhered to by both the citizens & the authorities. Once the authorities are given the right to break the rules, those who are suppose to respect the rules lose their respect for them as well...that's the road to anarchy.

That's the road to dictator/facist regimes . And the USA as well as Canada are well on their way down that road.
So let us say this way keeps us safe from the terrorists (which it obviously hasn't) ...what's going to keep us safe from the authorities ?

At 6/11/13 03:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Politics is show business for ugly people.
- Gerald Celente

At 6/11/13 03:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Politics is show business for ugly people.
- Gerald Celente

At 6/11/13 03:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

*essential. Big asterisk there. I mean the NSA was legally allowed to collect call records, all this means is that they know who you called and how long your conversation was. Is that "essential liberty"? Considering the Right to Privacy was not one of the rights specified by the Founding Fathers then I'm not sure they'd care too much.

What I find funny is that most of the legislation that's being used for these seizures of call records weren't protested by the internet at all.

At 6/11/13 02:46 PM, CaptainPrichard wrote: A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

Was going to chop up the wall but it would be a lot of work. So...here goes:

- Confidentiality (Assuming level of importance), Integrity and Accessibility are rightfully the biggest factor in the value of information, some people would add context since some information might be useless to some people but that rarely kicks in.

- I am a firm believer that there exists however small a chance politicians who know exactly what their next move will entail and manipulate others to do the dirty work. Show me a politician who promotes security over freedom and I bet if you dig enough you can find someone who wanted that move to happen for self-gain. Of course they will not outright say that. I hope that is not too conspiracy heavy...then again when you think of recent events...I think Jon Stewart promptly put it best. ( Go about 2:30 in unless you like some humor :3 ) Either way, there is some sinister shit going on...

- I think you are making a presumption of a scenario where you overestimate terrorists and underestimate government intelligence. Certainly the situation could happen, but just as you have said I believe security-risk assessments are always factored into these kinds of situations. If our intelligence was as incompetant as one claims we would absolutely be destroyed in so many ways years ago. No doubt do we have enemies that can do as you say, but we too might have people capable of holding the same power against our foes. Again...tossing the tin foil hat on, it would not surprise me if we were having a Cold War of the Information Age right now online.

- Actually, I got a question: Going off the concept that our enemies are as capable as you entail, what if the security-risk analysis government intelligence determined it would be in the nation's best SECURE interest to take a copy of a company's data? Hypothetically holding information in a single location is a double-edged blade, if even the slightest bit gets breached, the integrity of that information is comprised, THE ORIGINAL gets compromised and we lose an infathomable amount of data, money or power.

So now its a trade between assisting in integrity by creating a duplicate in a secure location like the government, or assisting in accessibility and confidentiality by holding it all in one location.

This sort of security-risk dilemma I believe is fairly popular, I am rather curious what you guys think?

At 6/12/13 11:37 PM, Jackotrades wrote:

At 6/11/13 02:46 PM, CaptainPrichard wrote: A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

Was going to chop up the wall but it would be a lot of work. So...here goes:

- Confidentiality (Assuming level of importance), Integrity and Accessibility are rightfully the biggest factor in the value of information, some people would add context since some information might be useless to some people but that rarely kicks in.

- I am a firm believer that there exists however small a chance politicians who know exactly what their next move will entail and manipulate others to do the dirty work. Show me a politician who promotes security over freedom and I bet if you dig enough you can find someone who wanted that move to happen for self-gain. Of course they will not outright say that. I hope that is not too conspiracy heavy...then again when you think of recent events...I think Jon Stewart promptly put it best. ( Go about 2:30 in unless you like some humor :3 ) Either way, there is some sinister shit going on...

- I think you are making a presumption of a scenario where you overestimate terrorists and underestimate government intelligence. Certainly the situation could happen, but just as you have said I believe security-risk assessments are always factored into these kinds of situations. If our intelligence was as incompetant as one claims we would absolutely be destroyed in so many ways years ago. No doubt do we have enemies that can do as you say, but we too might have people capable of holding the same power against our foes. Again...tossing the tin foil hat on, it would not surprise me if we were having a Cold War of the Information Age right now online.

- Actually, I got a question: Going off the concept that our enemies are as capable as you entail, what if the security-risk analysis government intelligence determined it would be in the nation's best SECURE interest to take a copy of a company's data? Hypothetically holding information in a single location is a double-edged blade, if even the slightest bit gets breached, the integrity of that information is comprised, THE ORIGINAL gets compromised and we lose an infathomable amount of data, money or power.

So now its a trade between assisting in integrity by creating a duplicate in a secure location like the government, or assisting in accessibility and confidentiality by holding it all in one location.

This sort of security-risk dilemma I believe is fairly popular, I am rather curious what you guys think?

If information is compromised in the slightest amount it does not mean we lose the data. If the data is so important the hard drives can be formatted in certain ways to ensure the integrity of data ex. RAID 5 and RAID 10.

I also believe I was not overestimating the ability of terrorist. Most terrorist plots will fail however, there are advanced terrorist groups out there that have resources and funding similar to that of foreign governments. They are called advanced persistent threats and a lot of them are coming from China. It is widely believed that the Chinese and several Arab governments are funding hacker groups to attack the United States telecommunication systems, however the foreign governments deny that they are funding these groups.

Also there are probably several politicians that somewhat know what they are doing, however information systems are too complex for politicians to know in depth about the underlying system unless they devoted a large amount of their time on them, instead of dividing their time among understanding numerous political issues. They need understanding in so many subjects, and a large amount of these subjects require an individual to devote most of their time to studying them to understand them, especially one as complex and frequently changing as information systems.

Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam, 9/11 we all know are guises to create a false cause for taking away people rights and liberties. This is historically proven fact but it means nothing until people recognize that their government is unmoral.

At 6/14/13 01:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam, 9/11 we all know are guises to create a false cause for taking away people rights and liberties. This is historically proven fact but it means nothing until people recognize that their government is unmoral.

The only I've given up since 9/11 (and for which I amstill bitter) is the ability to meet incoming guests at the gate instead of outside security.

At 6/14/13 03:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/14/13 01:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam, 9/11 we all know are guises to create a false cause for taking away people rights and liberties. This is historically proven fact but it means nothing until people recognize that their government is unmoral.

The only I've given up since 9/11 (and for which I amstill bitter) is the ability to meet incoming guests at the gate instead of outside security.

I don't follow what you are trying to communicate. What are you saying exactly ? What does it have to do with Gulf of Tokin incident and 9/11 ?

At 6/14/13 03:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I don't follow what you are trying to communicate. What are you saying exactly ?

I haven't lost any rights since 9/11 except the right to go past security when I am not going on a trip myself. Personally, I think some of the most interesting places around are terminals at airports. It's a shame I can't see them anymore unless I pay to fly.

I totally agree with ever since this shit with the IRS, then Snowden then this I just can't trust the government any more nobody can they won't tell us how the IRS situation is going and the thing yesterday with the FBI director I mean how did America get like this we should be the best most fair country, the government following the constitution instead of breaking it. It just pisses me off because for all this time we thought we could trust the government but we really can't and we never could people need to start a group against the US government, not by attacking them( like that would work)but by doing protests and things like that until they change and if they don't change then we do stuff to hurt them like not paying taxes, it sounds crazy but it would work. The government needs tax-payers money to keep it going on a steady pace and if a lot of people just stop paying their taxes then they would run out of money and have to do what we say if they didn't then they would get no where. But the problem with this is that if people did this that would increase the chances of a terrorist attack so I don't know.

GamerGuy682

At 6/14/13 04:19 PM, GamerGuy682 wrote:

But the problem with this is that if people did this (stopped paying Taxes) that would increase the chances of a terrorist attack so I don't know.

Above is a propaganda inspired post. If people stopped paying taxes in the US then they have places called internment camps where the Government can lock you up indefinitely. If you don't like American policy your only option is to flee the country and file to relinquish your citizenship.

At 6/14/13 07:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Above is a propaganda inspired post.

Is this your response to everything poniboii?

At 6/14/13 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/14/13 07:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Above is a propaganda inspired post.

Is this your response to everything poniboii?

Here's some "conspiracy" for you LOL. Your Government has things called "Internment Camps" (same thing as Concentration Camps albeit America circa 2013)

http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettle ment.pdf

At 6/15/13 02:57 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Until he is the one doing it

I'm pretty sure Biden has never attempted to get anyone to trust or like him.

At 6/15/13 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/15/13 02:57 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Until he is the one doing it

I'm pretty sure Biden has never attempted to get anyone to trust or like him.

So you guy's have nothing to say on the actual OFFICIAL document I linked you guy's to that actually in fact is written into fucking law and striping you rights to privacy away. Seems typical cause you are blind to reality.

At 6/15/13 12:20 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So you guy's have nothing to say on the actual OFFICIAL document I linked you guy's to that actually in fact is written into fucking law and striping you rights to privacy away. Seems typical cause you are blind to reality.

I looked at it. I didn't feel like reading 60 pages. Could you point us to the locations that backup your claims?

At 6/15/13 12:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/15/13 12:20 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So you guy's have nothing to say on the actual OFFICIAL document I linked you guy's to that actually in fact is written into fucking law and striping you rights to privacy away. Seems typical cause you are blind to reality.

I looked at it. I didn't feel like reading 60 pages. Could you point us to the locations that backup your claims?

You have to read the whole document to get a clear and proper understanding of whats going on. I can't fix you own apathy I have got my own shit to deal with man. In that document I linked to check what the Military can define as an Evacuee.