Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12345»»»

The Loss of Trust Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 4:39 PM
Points: 33,155, Visits: 15,291
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Loss of Trust






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1492540
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:02 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:14 AM
Points: 8,679, Visits: 9,205
This is going to damage the US economy. Already people over here are recommending that no company should put any sensitive data into the cloud without a contractual guarantee from the cloud provider that the data will never be stored on a computer in US territory or on any computer owned or administered by a company with American management or with a majority of its stock held by Americans or any subsidiary of any such company. There's some concern that similar recommendations may be made about the UK. It's pretty clear that the US is in violation of its international obligations (safe harbour agreement) and it's therefor possible that the European Commission will as a result of the NSA's activities produce a directive banning the placing of personally identifiable data on American computers (American in the above sense) by companies in the EU, since the existing requirement to do so only within the terms of the safe harbour agreement clearly does not protect that data. That could be extended to banning transmission of such data via networks owned or operated by American companies.
The results would not be nice, for any of us.

There are too many irresponsible fools in government and government directed agencies in both the USA and the UK who don't understand that to destroy all chance of privacy is to emulate the hated communist regimes of Eastern Europe - should we be asking if Obama is the new Khruschev and Cameron the new Ulbricht?


Tom
Post #1492564
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 9:12 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:57 PM
Points: 2, Visits: 10
We didn't just lose our privacy when Snowden leaked information about NSA activities. We lost it way before that. Ubiquitous security cameras already track us within an ever-increasing surveillance area. Satellites have already zeroed in on us. Financial institutions, search engines, and online stores already know our viewing and shopping habits. Homeowner associations already have more power over us than most governments dare to. Yet somehow, we only feel depressed and protest when the government invades our privacy.

Wanna feel even more depressed? Check this out: the whole point of clandestine monitoring of the kind that the NSA specializes in is that such monitoring must remain secret. Right? In other words, we are not supposed to know it's happening. So the NSA got caught red-handed. Does this mean that we know everything? Far from it. For all we know (or don't know), every government is doing the same thing. Heck, the British and Israelis, let alone the Russians and Chinese, probably already know more about us than our own government does. Privacy and confidentiality? Ain't no such thing, brothers. At least not in the absolute sense.

So there is no reason why we should lament today more than yesterday. Strengthen our security as much as we can, with the full knowledge that no matter how clever we think that we are, hackers can still break in, because that's what hackers do, whether they are government hackers or the other kind. By the way, the same goes for our homes, our cars, and anything else that we deem valuable. If someone wants in badly enough, they'll get in no matter what we do.

So cheer up! The world still goes round, not everything is falling apart (until it does). Do everything in our power to affect the systems under our control. But know that not everything is under our control. And sleep soundly; leave the worrying to some other poor soul.
Post #1492574
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 9:34 PM


SSChasing Mays

SSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing Mays

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:01 PM
Points: 624, Visits: 2,144
avo (9/7/2013)
We didn't just lose our privacy when Snowden leaked information about NSA activities. We lost it way before that. Ubiquitous security cameras already track us within an ever-increasing surveillance area.


The tracking of us in the public square is questionable but allowable to an extent. But there is a reason that the fourth and fifth amendments were written.

The text of the Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The text of the Fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The British would come into an area and search everybody and everything looking for those who disagreed the with the Crown. Blindly trusting the government to have your interests at heart is worse than foolish. The government is made of humans with all the same fallibility and failures you have. Do you really trust them to have your interests at the center of their heart?




----------------
Jim P.

A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
Post #1492576
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:57 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:57 PM
Points: 2, Visits: 10
You mean to tell me that you have trusted our government all this time, until you suddenly found out that the NSA was snooping on us? How shocking!

No government ought to be trusted, least of all in a democracy, when we can at least act on our distrust. Personally, I trust government as far as I can throw it.

What I'm saying is that we ought to worry about things that we can have an effect on. Everything else, be it NSA spying, plane crashes, earthquakes, or getting robbed at the ATM, is more or less out of our control, and is happening no matter what. So I don't believe in lamenting things that I have no control over. If I can do something about it, I will. Otherwise, I add it to the list of things about this world that I know about, and leave it at that.

As for the 4th and 5th amendments, you can believe that our rights are absolutely sacrosanct if you want to. As far as I am concerned, they've stopped being inviolable a long time ago. So again, I'm not going to lose sleep over that now.

On the other hand, there is no need to over-react. "Monitoring" is not the same as "searching and seizing". Also, I haven't heard of a single case where a person was charged with anything based on NSA snooping. If you have, please enlighten me. Quoting these amendments is the same thing as dropping names. It's an easy way to attempt to gain legitimacy in your argument. It doesn't really work unless you can back up your argument, though.
Post #1492577
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:50 PM


SSChasing Mays

SSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing Mays

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:01 PM
Points: 624, Visits: 2,144
avo (9/7/2013)
As for the 4th and 5th amendments, you can believe that our rights are absolutely sacrosanct if you want to. As far as I am concerned, they've stopped being inviolable a long time ago. So again, I'm not going to lose sleep over that now.


Thank you for not giving a crap. There is a reason that we get strip searched getting onto a plane. There is a reason we have to show I.D. to buy a beer. There is a reason that cops think stop and frisk is proper. It's because people believe that our rights stopped being inviolable a long time ago. Thank you for giving up.

On the other hand, there is no need to over-react. "Monitoring" is not the same as "searching and seizing". Also, I haven't heard of a single case where a person was charged with anything based on NSA snooping. If you have, please enlighten me. Quoting these amendments is the same thing as dropping names. It's an easy way to attempt to gain legitimacy in your argument. It doesn't really work unless you can back up your argument, though.


When the government is "Monitoring" e-mail, phone calls, location data and the rest it is "searching and seizing". What gives the government the right to monitor you? Will you give me the passwords to all your e-mail accounts and websites? What about the login to your bank account? What is your response --"not a chance in he**!" Then why do you trust the government more than me?




----------------
Jim P.

A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
Post #1492579
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:49 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:14 AM
Points: 8,679, Visits: 9,205
avo (9/7/2013)
On the other hand, there is no need to over-react. "Monitoring" is not the same as "searching and seizing". Also, I haven't heard of a single case where a person was charged with anything based on NSA snooping. If you have, please enlighten me.

Interesting interpretation of the 4th amendment; you appear to be saying that an unreasonable and unwarranted search is not a violation, neither is an unreasonable and unwarranted seizure a violation, any violation is something which is which simultaneously an unreasonable and unwarranted search and an unreasonable and unwarranted search. Not at all the normal meaning if the words in the ordinary English of 1789-91. I wonder if you have any case law to support that interpretation?

Or are you suggesting that the monitoring is properly warranted, with a warrant issued on oath or affirmation and based on probable cause?

I agree with you that your constitution is not worth the paper it was written on. In Britain until very recently we were much better off, because even without a written constitution governments and government controlled agencies didn't dare act like yours. Of course now we have that written European Convention of Human Rights imported into our law, and the government of busily over-interpreting some bits of it in such a way as to make it pretty near illegal for an ordinary citizen to walk the street while over-interpreting other bits to allow itself to do whatever it likes: it seems that having the rights firmly documented in writing is the first step on the path to losing them.


Tom
Post #1492587
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2013 6:57 AM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:06 AM
Points: 1,655, Visits: 1,086
I'm going to say I'm probably edging towards Tom's perspective on this one.

As worrying as anything is a lack of concern on the part of journalists and ordinary folk to even be interested in a debate about where the end of these powers should be.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/07/britons-privacy-not-important
Post #1492593
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2013 8:10 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:14 AM
Points: 8,679, Visits: 9,205
call.copse (9/8/2013)
I'm going to say I'm probably edging towards Tom's perspective on this one.

As worrying as anything is a lack of concern on the part of journalists and ordinary folk to even be interested in a debate about where the end of these powers should be.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/07/britons-privacy-not-important

That Guardian article gets one thing horribly wrong. The BBC didn't follow the public into acceptance of the destruction of our freedoms, it went over to supporting everything government did and suppressing as much as it dared of the controversy caused by outrageous legislation and the ever-increasing transfer of power from parliament to government as soon as Tony Blair entered no 10. It (together with newspaper media in the pockets of totalitarians, or believers that the security-related services could never do wrong) led the public into apathy and complacency, not followed it.

The security establishment effectively has the leadership of the current coalition bamboozled into believing anything they are told about the necessity for yet more erosion of privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance (they succeeded doing that almost as soon as Cameron became PM) which means yet more power for the state-owned agencies and less effective freedom for ordinary citizens, the BBC is happy to provide the same service for as it did for Blair. After all, he too is heading for the ideal left wing statist situation, which the BBC's editorial and reporting staff and their management see as ideal, and his coalition is bringing forward legislation to stifle not only protest and civil disobedience but also discussion of controversial policies (the lobbying bill currently before parliament). Isn't it odd how both leftist and rightist forms of totalitarianisms have the same objectives? The whole left-right dichotomy is just a smoke-screen, with both main parties in the USA and all three main parties in the UK heading for the same totalitarian statist ideals in which the existing political establishment and those they favour will be the only ones who can get elected to any legislative body (we haven't quite got there yet over here, as evidenced by a small number of MPs who are prepared to disagree with their party leaders, but under the direction of our current politicians intelligence services we are certainly heading that way).


Tom
Post #1492597
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:03 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:14 AM
Points: 8,679, Visits: 9,205
Peter Fairbrother has just produced an interesting story about NSA's trawling of the web. You can read it here.

Of course it isn't true. Or at least it probably isn't true. Well, anyway, there is maybe a possibility that it isn't true.


Tom
Post #1492615
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse