Private Browsing

[TheGreatGatsby]

Today the Guardian revealed that:

However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;

I think that the second item answers the questions I raised a bit earlier.

The term, 'encyrpted' is what makes that ruling a total farce. Virtually all electronic communication is encrypted.

 

[Cowman]

Why don't you traverse the dark internet.

I can't believe conservative assholes fought against Net Neutrality, and now they're up in arms about one of the things Net Neutrality was about preventing.

It's the TSA all over again.

Conservatives never fought against net neutrality. Just stop with your revisionist history. You're making a sham out of yourself as usual.

Are you ******* joking?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...r-socialists-progressives-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/146947-republicans-create-rider-to-stop-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/141787-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...rty-is-helping-get-rid-of-net-neutrality.html

I could go on and on for years. Not just on this forum, but every forum that has conservatives posting on it.

Net Neutrality was a big "liberal government boogeyman" to conservatives, who were playing Net Neutrality as everything it wasn't.

Sorry, but you're wrong and you're a ******* idiot.

 

[OnePercenter]

I continue to find the paranoid a fascinating watch.

You do know that Mark Levin is in the business of keeping the paranoids, paranoid. That's how he makes the big bucks!

DuckDuckGo, protecting the woodies of pedophiles since 2010.

Nice absurdio reductio. You don't have to be engaged in illegal activities to value privacy. Anyhow, you constantly make these lame posts. So, whatever....

NO, but you don't put private information out for everyone to see.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm a lot more concerned about companies(telemarketers, list sellers) and private individuals(identity thieves, phishers) spying on me, than the government. Also, I can't help but notice that many of the same people that applauded actions taken under the Patriot Act are now doing an about face. I hardly think it's a sudden change of heart over spying, but simply who's doing it.

Cracks me up that some people didn't mind when Bush/Cheney was recording their every move but now, suddenly, the sky is falling.

They'll give private info for their phone apps or for the ridiculous little plastic cards at various stores but they're afraid the government is watching them.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why don't you traverse the dark internet.

I can't believe conservative assholes fought against Net Neutrality, and now they're up in arms about one of the things Net Neutrality was about preventing.

It's the TSA all over again.

Conservatives never fought against net neutrality. Just stop with your revisionist history. You're making a sham out of yourself as usual.

Are you ******* joking?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...r-socialists-progressives-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/146947-republicans-create-rider-to-stop-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/141787-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...rty-is-helping-get-rid-of-net-neutrality.html

I could go on and on for years. Not just on this forum, but every forum that has conservatives posting on it.

Net Neutrality was a big "liberal government boogeyman" to conservatives, who were playing Net Neutrality as everything it wasn't.

Sorry, but you're wrong and you're a ******* idiot.

I think I was a bit confused on what net neutrality is. It accordingly is defined as a company having to charge the same prices for bandwidth. I'm fine with that and in fact Google has sweetheart deals that allow it much lower prices on bandwidth due to government intervention.

But what you're doing is taking someone like Michelle Bachmann and saying that anything and everything she represents stands for what conservatives generally want. I'm sorry, but that's not true. I'm guessing that Bachmann is as bought and paid for as any other politician.

But as it is, I wasn't arguing net neutrality matters, so that makes me wonder if you thought it was something else too.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm a lot more concerned about companies(telemarketers, list sellers) and private individuals(identity thieves, phishers) spying on me, than the government. Also, I can't help but notice that many of the same people that applauded actions taken under the Patriot Act are now doing an about face. I hardly think it's a sudden change of heart over spying, but simply who's doing it.

Cracks me up that some people didn't mind when Bush/Cheney was recording their every move but now, suddenly, the sky is falling.

They'll give private info for their phone apps or for the ridiculous little plastic cards at various stores but they're afraid the government is watching them.

PRISM started in 09....

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm a lot more concerned about companies(telemarketers, list sellers) and private individuals(identity thieves, phishers) spying on me, than the government. Also, I can't help but notice that many of the same people that applauded actions taken under the Patriot Act are now doing an about face. I hardly think it's a sudden change of heart over spying, but simply who's doing it.

Cracks me up that some people didn't mind when Bush/Cheney was recording their every move but now, suddenly, the sky is falling.

They'll give private info for their phone apps or for the ridiculous little plastic cards at various stores but they're afraid the government is watching them.

PRISM started in 09....

2007

PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Cracks me up that some people didn't mind when Bush/Cheney was recording their every move but now, suddenly, the sky is falling.

They'll give private info for their phone apps or for the ridiculous little plastic cards at various stores but they're afraid the government is watching them.

PRISM started in 09....

2007

PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alright. Looks like Bush's fingerprints are all over it. Am I supposed to now say it's okay? I don't worship politicians or their nonsense.

 

[Moonglow]

If they are spying on me, I am sure they are bored to death.

 

[Cowman]

Conservatives never fought against net neutrality. Just stop with your revisionist history. You're making a sham out of yourself as usual.

Are you ******* joking?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...r-socialists-progressives-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/146947-republicans-create-rider-to-stop-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/141787-net-neutrality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...rty-is-helping-get-rid-of-net-neutrality.html

I could go on and on for years. Not just on this forum, but every forum that has conservatives posting on it.

Net Neutrality was a big "liberal government boogeyman" to conservatives, who were playing Net Neutrality as everything it wasn't.

Sorry, but you're wrong and you're a ******* idiot.

I think I was a bit confused on what net neutrality is. It accordingly is defined as a company having to charge the same prices for bandwidth. I'm fine with that and in fact Google has sweetheart deals that allow it much lower prices on bandwidth due to government intervention.

But what you're doing is taking someone like Michelle Bachmann and saying that anything and everything she represents stands for what conservatives generally want. I'm sorry, but that's not true. I'm guessing that Bachmann is as bought and paid for as any other politician.

But as it is, I wasn't arguing net neutrality matters, so that makes me wonder if you thought it was something else too.

Sorry, but I know what Net Neutrality is... because I've been passionate about it for many YEARS. Well before the big hubbub that started over it when conservatives finally caught wind and twisted it into an idea that it wasn't.

Net Neutrality has many facets. The main one being equal opportunity for content, without gate keepers(ISPS) being able to charge premiums and limit bandwidth to sites that don't play their game and provide them the money they want.

Other facets however concern privacy and invasion of privacy issues.

Network Neutrality 101 - Why the Government Must Act to Preserve the Free And Open Internet | American Civil Liberties Union

OH NO IT'S THE ACLU BOOGEYMAN SUPPORTING NET NEUTRALITY! THAT MEANS NET NEUTRALITY IS EVIL!

You know... evil things such as wanting to prevent breaches of privacy for users of the internet... like this.

ISPs have the technological ability to interfere with Internet traffic

Internet traffic is nothing but a stream of ones and zeroes, and the computers that run the Internet can be programmed to manipulate that data in an infinite number of ways. As a technological matter, the administrator of a broadband system has many ways of interfering with online activities—and those possibilities are expanding year by year.

In particular, the growing availability of a technology called “deep packet inspection” (DPI) has greatly expanded the potential for fine-tuned control over Internet communications by ISPs. When data is sent across the Internet, it is divided up into “packets.” Each packet contains certain “header” information that is used to route the packet to its destination. However, in the past few years, technology has given ISPs the ability to scan not only the headers, but the content or “payload” data of each packet—and quickly enough to make real-time routing decisions based on that content. This is the equivalent of delivering mail “not based on the address or type of stamp on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein” (as the FCC put it when Comcast was caught doing this).10 That kind of “inspection” constitutes not only an invasion of privacy, but also opens up an entire world of possibilities for messing with Internet traffic, limited only by the imagination of the company and its programmers.

In fact, ISPs have the potential for an all-seeing, all-controlling power over the activities of customers on their network—often in ways that are invisible to their customers:

Those god damn commies!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

 

[Cowman]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

Stop trying to protect other conservatives that obviously do have everything against Net Neutrality. It's cool that you don't, but so many conservatives are misguided and do. They're not even educated on what Net Neutrality is and think of it as a big government Boogeyman, when in fact it's a desire for preservation of the ideals of earlier internet freedoms.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-group-takes-aim-at-net-neutrality-2011-03-09

They're clueless pawns in a larger game.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

Stop trying to protect other conservatives that obviously do have everything against Net Neutrality. It's cool that you don't, but so many conservatives are misguided and do. They're not even educated on what Net Neutrality is and think of it as a big government Boogeyman, when in fact it's a desire for preservation of the ideals of earlier internet freedoms.

I think you're confusing Republican politicians with conservative causes. I don't come across conservatives who are rallying for intercepting communications as a matter of routine.

 

[Misty]

Check this out: Google has a private browser. Chrome.

chrome - Google Search

I pretty much figure that everything i put on the Internet, or any calls I make, or texts I send, are all accessible to the government and anyone else who knows how to find it.

We are big Brothered to death.

 

[Cowman]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

Stop trying to protect other conservatives that obviously do have everything against Net Neutrality. It's cool that you don't, but so many conservatives are misguided and do. They're not even educated on what Net Neutrality is and think of it as a big government Boogeyman, when in fact it's a desire for preservation of the ideals of earlier internet freedoms.

I think you're confusing Republican politicians with conservative causes. I don't come across conservatives who are rallying for intercepting communications as a matter of routine.

Sorry, but feigning ignorance on this is not helping you. If you have been following Net Neutrality at all, you'd know that there was a big rallying cry for republicans and their conservative bases to fight Net Neutrality.

Stop denying it, because you can just take a quick gander at the wonderful history that the internet preserves to prove yourself wrong.

It WAS conservatives. Conservatives make up a bulk of the republican party. It wasn't just "non conservative republican leaders"

 

[OnePercenter]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

No there isn't. Send an email to yourself at the height of the day. Expand it and look where your email has been. I'm currently enjoying spring in my apartment in NYC and logged into my computer in Vegas. My CPA, who's office is three miles from my Vegas home sent me an email today. It was routed through Canada. I've had email routed through Mexico, England, South America, and Hawaii. How would one expect inherent privacy?

 

[Cowman]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

No there isn't. Send an email to yourself at the height of the day. Expand it and look where your email has been. I'm currently enjoying spring in my apartment in NYC and logged into my computer in Vegas. My CPA, who's office is three miles from my Vegas home sent me an email today. It was routed through Canada. I've had email routed through Mexico, England, South America, and Hawaii. How would one expect inherent privacy?

I think you need to study packet security. Your information is ALWAYS going to routed. Packet hops are a fact of the internet.

That has nothing to do with security. All of your bank transactions make the same hops, and yet you have privacy with those.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Stop trying to protect other conservatives that obviously do have everything against Net Neutrality. It's cool that you don't, but so many conservatives are misguided and do. They're not even educated on what Net Neutrality is and think of it as a big government Boogeyman, when in fact it's a desire for preservation of the ideals of earlier internet freedoms.

I think you're confusing Republican politicians with conservative causes. I don't come across conservatives who are rallying for intercepting communications as a matter of routine.

Sorry, but feigning ignorance on this is not helping you. If you have been following Net Neutrality at all, you'd know that there was a big rallying cry for republicans and their conservative bases to fight Net Neutrality.

Stop denying it, because you can just take a quick gander at the wonderful history that the internet preserves to prove yourself wrong.

It WAS conservatives. Conservatives make up a bulk of the republican party. It wasn't just "non conservative republican leaders"

I know about the issue. I just hadn't immediately recalled the term. I've followed it. But putting your condescension aside, can you tell me that Democrats are not behind the spying and intrusions? Of course, they are. So does that mean it's a 'liberal' and 'conservative' cause. As we see, your logic is bunk.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay. I have nothing against net neutrality. And I believe that there is an inherent privacy expectation when sending private messages. The government knows that too. It's common sense.

No there isn't. Send an email to yourself at the height of the day. Expand it and look where your email has been. I'm currently enjoying spring in my apartment in NYC and logged into my computer in Vegas. My CPA, who's office is three miles from my Vegas home sent me an email today. It was routed through Canada. I've had email routed through Mexico, England, South America, and Hawaii. How would one expect inherent privacy?

I think you need to study packet security. Your information is ALWAYS going to routed. Packet hops are a fact of the internet.

That has nothing to do with security. All of your bank transactions make the same hops, and yet you have privacy with those.

I understand many of the general ways that information is sent. I also understand the many ways that government has been trying to undermine encryption. I know that Obama wanted to pass a law that made all electronic communications to be cracked by the FBI. I think that's nonsense. Citizens should not have to cater their communications to the government intrusions. AND THAT'S THE OBAMA. SO GET OFF YOUR ******* HIGH HORSE, JACK ASS.

 

[OnePercenter]

No there isn't. Send an email to yourself at the height of the day. Expand it and look where your email has been. I'm currently enjoying spring in my apartment in NYC and logged into my computer in Vegas. My CPA, who's office is three miles from my Vegas home sent me an email today. It was routed through Canada. I've had email routed through Mexico, England, South America, and Hawaii. How would one expect inherent privacy?

I think you need to study packet security. Your information is ALWAYS going to routed. Packet hops are a fact of the internet.

That has nothing to do with security. All of your bank transactions make the same hops, and yet you have privacy with those.

I understand many of the general ways that information is sent. I also understand the many ways that government has been trying to undermine encryption. I know that Obama wanted to pass a law that made all electronic communications to be cracked by the FBI. I think that's nonsense. Citizens should not have to cater their communications to the government intrusions. AND THAT'S THE OBAMA. SO GET OFF YOUR ******* HIGH HORSE, JACK ASS.

Seems I've pissed-off another sociopath! Good for me!