http://www.physorg.com/news107442632.html
"Intel AMT allows for inventory and repair PCs "out of band" – meaning even if the OS has crashed or the PC is turned off."
I wondered how long it would take, and the pretext on which it would be based; but, now it seem there is a "back door" for the gov"t to snoop on our systems even while the system is turned off.
Being independent of operating systems and even with the system off, this allows access without any awareness on the part of the owner/operator of the system/network. And, if the gov't can do it, it's just a matter of time for some bright young hacker to discover the key.
The gov"t seems to be working hard to render the word "privacy" meaningless. And, of course, it is being done in the name of "security" and "convenience"...
Welcome to our Brave New World...
Okay, so AMD can boot/work from network. That's been done for years now, mostly on motherboards. You (and so many others) forget that you DON'T have a constitutional right to privacy. Yeah, it's nice, and it's a courtesy, but you have no right to it unless the gov't gives it to you. Anything given can be taken back.
That being said, you've blown this well outside of rational proportions. Geez, I spend all day running down CT people on the hardOCP forums and now it's here?
There's no way they can use your system if it's unplugged. There. I just solved your problem.
That being said, you've blown this well outside of rational proportions. Geez, I spend all day running down CT people on the hardOCP forums and now it's here?
There's no way they can use your system if it's unplugged. There. I just solved your problem.
I agree that this doesn't necessarily cause problems and doesn't mean there's necessarily unwarranted government intrusions being allowed but you made a couple statements that disturbed me.
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+Aug 28 2007, 06:46 PM)
Okay, so AMD can boot/work from network. That's been done for years now, mostly on motherboards. You (and so many others) forget that you DON'T have a constitutional right to privacy. Yeah, it's nice, and it's a courtesy, but you have no right to it unless the gov't gives it to you. Anything given can be taken back.
Do I have a right to pick my nose? Does the government grant me rights? Bullsh$t.
Don't tell me I have no right to privacy. Where did you get that from? Have you read the Constitution? Do you know what powers the Federal government was limited to using?
The U.S. Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
Not only do we already have explicit rights to privacy but even if they weren't already explicit and we were to look at what powers the Federal government is granted, there is no such power in the Constitution anyway.
Of course people would have a right to privacy (otherwise why bother to even support the government, if something as obviously desirable as that isn't a part of the deal?)
We have a right to be free in our persons and private artifacts to not be harrassed by various searches and seizures of those.
We have a right to be free in our persons and private artifacts to not be harrassed by various searches and seizures of those.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
To the extent that information on a computer is just information and not a crime, then there's no crime to be monitored.
It would only be a later collection of evidence regarding some crime that could justify collecting such information, but because the Constitution doesn't allow mass collection of information regarding crimes but instead requires specifics be stated up front before searches are performed, then there's no need for any continuous legal hook be present into a computer as such "hooks" can just be established once a criminal accusation is made and specific legal charges are made and the specific person or place and classes of evidence to be searched are satisfactorily described.
No, it's not a soldier but I doubt the intent of this was to allow government to modify various appliances into become eavesdropping devices either.
No, it's not a soldier but I doubt the intent of this was to allow government to modify various appliances into become eavesdropping devices either.
Amendment V
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.
In other words, private property isn't public and noone shall be compelled to be a witness against themself.
Let's say hypothetically we had a way to perform some sort of brain scan have a decent idea whether or not someone committed a crime in this manner. Can we use this? Why not use torture and/or fraud to convict people?
The FBI has already created a virus that retains key strokes for the PC. Initially the virus detection companies were detecting and removing it but the government said it's illegal to do this. (God, wouldn't it be great to be a tyrannt and just tell everyone they have to wear monitoring devices and be eavesdropped on)
What was the point of creating the U.S. Federal government if it's just going to turn into another corrupt group of tyrrants?
What specific districts would this apply to and who would be the witnesses? Is it your own computer that's a witness now?
There doesn't have to be an explicit Constitutional right to privacy. The question would be whether or not the government was granted such a power. I've never seen any such federal power in the Constitution.
In truth there are many things in the Constitution that specifically oppose such attempts at intrusive observation and enforcement based upon them.
Read the Constitution and especially Amendments 9 and 10.
What specific districts would this apply to and who would be the witnesses? Is it your own computer that's a witness now?
There doesn't have to be an explicit Constitutional right to privacy. The question would be whether or not the government was granted such a power. I've never seen any such federal power in the Constitution.
In truth there are many things in the Constitution that specifically oppose such attempts at intrusive observation and enforcement based upon them.
Read the Constitution and especially Amendments 9 and 10.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So it's explicitly recognized that are a plethora of other basic abilities and freedoms people inherently possess that the Federal government is explicitly denied in intruding upon.
We set the system up hoping it would be a benefit. If it turns into a liability and the people running it can't follow the rules then they should be canned.
This is no different than if some people hire a security guard to watch the place. The guy has to stick to the terms of the employment agreement or he's gone. No ifs ands or buts. If he starts cruising around peeping into everyones homes or invading needlessly into private issues, then he should either be sent back to the guard post and wait for someone to ask for assistance or be fired. The government is suppose to be composed of public servants and not public rulers. We pay them enough already and give them enough priveledges that they should respect this and not abuse it.
Do I have a right to pick my nose? Does the government grant me rights? Bullsh$t.
Don't tell me I have no right to privacy. Where did you get that from? Have you read the Constitution? Do you know what powers the Federal government was limited to using?
The U.S. Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
Not only do we already have explicit rights to privacy but even if they weren't already explicit and we were to look at what powers the Federal government is granted, there is no such power in the Constitution anyway.
Of course people would have a right to privacy (otherwise why bother to even support the government, if something as obviously desirable as that isn't a part of the deal?)
QUOTE
Amendment IV
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 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.
We have a right to be free in our persons and private artifacts to not be harrassed by various searches and seizures of those.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Amendment IV 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. |
We have a right to be free in our persons and private artifacts to not be harrassed by various searches and seizures of those.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
To the extent that information on a computer is just information and not a crime, then there's no crime to be monitored.
It would only be a later collection of evidence regarding some crime that could justify collecting such information, but because the Constitution doesn't allow mass collection of information regarding crimes but instead requires specifics be stated up front before searches are performed, then there's no need for any continuous legal hook be present into a computer as such "hooks" can just be established once a criminal accusation is made and specific legal charges are made and the specific person or place and classes of evidence to be searched are satisfactorily described.
QUOTE
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No, it's not a soldier but I doubt the intent of this was to allow government to modify various appliances into become eavesdropping devices either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. |
No, it's not a soldier but I doubt the intent of this was to allow government to modify various appliances into become eavesdropping devices either.
Amendment V
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.
In other words, private property isn't public and noone shall be compelled to be a witness against themself.
Let's say hypothetically we had a way to perform some sort of brain scan have a decent idea whether or not someone committed a crime in this manner. Can we use this? Why not use torture and/or fraud to convict people?
The FBI has already created a virus that retains key strokes for the PC. Initially the virus detection companies were detecting and removing it but the government said it's illegal to do this. (God, wouldn't it be great to be a tyrannt and just tell everyone they have to wear monitoring devices and be eavesdropped on)
What was the point of creating the U.S. Federal government if it's just going to turn into another corrupt group of tyrrants?
QUOTE
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
What specific districts would this apply to and who would be the witnesses? Is it your own computer that's a witness now?
There doesn't have to be an explicit Constitutional right to privacy. The question would be whether or not the government was granted such a power. I've never seen any such federal power in the Constitution.
In truth there are many things in the Constitution that specifically oppose such attempts at intrusive observation and enforcement based upon them.
Read the Constitution and especially Amendments 9 and 10.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. |
What specific districts would this apply to and who would be the witnesses? Is it your own computer that's a witness now?
There doesn't have to be an explicit Constitutional right to privacy. The question would be whether or not the government was granted such a power. I've never seen any such federal power in the Constitution.
In truth there are many things in the Constitution that specifically oppose such attempts at intrusive observation and enforcement based upon them.
Read the Constitution and especially Amendments 9 and 10.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So it's explicitly recognized that are a plethora of other basic abilities and freedoms people inherently possess that the Federal government is explicitly denied in intruding upon.
We set the system up hoping it would be a benefit. If it turns into a liability and the people running it can't follow the rules then they should be canned.
This is no different than if some people hire a security guard to watch the place. The guy has to stick to the terms of the employment agreement or he's gone. No ifs ands or buts. If he starts cruising around peeping into everyones homes or invading needlessly into private issues, then he should either be sent back to the guard post and wait for someone to ask for assistance or be fired. The government is suppose to be composed of public servants and not public rulers. We pay them enough already and give them enough priveledges that they should respect this and not abuse it.
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+Aug 28 2007, 06:46 PM)
Geez, I spend all day running down CT people on the hardOCP forums and now it's here?
Wouldn't worry about it.
Wouldn't worry about it.
Not a single one of those amendments make a single mention of privacy. It's all in the deluded minds of law "professionals" who read between the lines to make the founding fathers say stuff that was never there. I don't care what the sodding law professor at Cornell says, read the ACTUAL THING. Show me the word privacy (personal or otherwise) in the Constitution, and we'll go somewhere. There is NO document guaranteeing it. Not in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration.
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+)
Not a single one of those amendments make a single mention of privacy.
Did you even read them?
The 4th Amendments specifically regards this. The 9th and 10th Amendments also create an explicit recognition of a broad range of rights as well. The 1st Amendment almost specifically regards actions of a purely communicative nature, which could be easily interpreted as extending to electronic comunication and not just speech. The 3rd Amendment, though not as explicit, similarly implies a recognized right to privacy in ones home. The 5th Amendment also specifically denies coercive means of self-incrimination as well as denies using private property for public purposes, without just compensation.
So just read, think and understand.
This is how things have run for a long time. If you want to create a new country somewhere else, or even declare your home to be a new country, I have no problems with that but don't try to misrepresent the United States.
This is how things have run for a long time. If you want to create a new country somewhere else, or even declare your home to be a new country, I have no problems with that but don't try to misrepresent the United States.
It's all in the deluded minds of law "professionals" who read between the lines to make the founding fathers say stuff that was never there.
Are you trying to say that because they didn't specifically use the word "privacy" that somehow this doesn't apply to privacy?
What does the phrase "persons, houses, papers, and effects" mean to you? I think they did better in this phrasing than if they had just said "privacy" as it's even more descriptive of it.
You're the one being the lawyer and trying to twist things into some different meaning. Where did you hear that people in the United States have no right to privacy unless the government somehow grants it? I'm curious as to the source of the propoganda you're being fed.
Did you even read them?
The 4th Amendments specifically regards this. The 9th and 10th Amendments also create an explicit recognition of a broad range of rights as well. The 1st Amendment almost specifically regards actions of a purely communicative nature, which could be easily interpreted as extending to electronic comunication and not just speech. The 3rd Amendment, though not as explicit, similarly implies a recognized right to privacy in ones home. The 5th Amendment also specifically denies coercive means of self-incrimination as well as denies using private property for public purposes, without just compensation.
So just read, think and understand.
QUOTE
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, (Simply because they didn't mention computers doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them also) against unreasonable searches (such as mass information collection) and seizures, (which would include having a law forcefully modifying such) shall not be violated (or these actions no longer are representive of a U.S. Constitutional form of government), and no warrants shall issue (you can't arrest someone for retaining this form of privacy), but upon probable cause (unless some criminal action is already assumed to have occured), supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (and this doesn't include everyone in the U.S. as it must be limited in application to collecting evidence regarding some prior evidence of a crime including a way to record who's declaring whom to be guilty of what and specifics regarding the crime and expected evidence).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, (Simply because they didn't mention computers doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them also) against unreasonable searches (such as mass information collection) and seizures, (which would include having a law forcefully modifying such) shall not be violated (or these actions no longer are representive of a U.S. Constitutional form of government), and no warrants shall issue (you can't arrest someone for retaining this form of privacy), but upon probable cause (unless some criminal action is already assumed to have occured), supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (and this doesn't include everyone in the U.S. as it must be limited in application to collecting evidence regarding some prior evidence of a crime including a way to record who's declaring whom to be guilty of what and specifics regarding the crime and expected evidence).
This is how things have run for a long time. If you want to create a new country somewhere else, or even declare your home to be a new country, I have no problems with that but don't try to misrepresent the United States.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, (Simply because they didn't mention computers doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them also) against unreasonable searches (such as mass information collection) and seizures, (which would include having a law forcefully modifying such) shall not be violated (or these actions no longer are representive of a U.S. Constitutional form of government), and no warrants shall issue (you can't arrest someone for retaining this form of privacy), but upon probable cause (unless some criminal action is already assumed to have occured), supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (and this doesn't include everyone in the U.S. as it must be limited in application to collecting evidence regarding some prior evidence of a crime including a way to record who's declaring whom to be guilty of what and specifics regarding the crime and expected evidence). |
This is how things have run for a long time. If you want to create a new country somewhere else, or even declare your home to be a new country, I have no problems with that but don't try to misrepresent the United States.
It's all in the deluded minds of law "professionals" who read between the lines to make the founding fathers say stuff that was never there.
Are you trying to say that because they didn't specifically use the word "privacy" that somehow this doesn't apply to privacy?
What does the phrase "persons, houses, papers, and effects" mean to you? I think they did better in this phrasing than if they had just said "privacy" as it's even more descriptive of it.
You're the one being the lawyer and trying to twist things into some different meaning. Where did you hear that people in the United States have no right to privacy unless the government somehow grants it? I'm curious as to the source of the propoganda you're being fed.
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+)
I don't care what the sodding law professor at Cornell says, read the ACTUAL THING.
I not only did that, I specifically brought it into the discussion. I don't see you providing any quotes from the Constitution.
You made a vague claim that entirely misrepresents what rights are in the United States and I'm just calling your bluff.
Show me someplace where the Federal government was given any power resembling a general power to intrude upon private property just to make random observations and otherwise invade upon such privacy?
I not only did that, I specifically brought it into the discussion. I don't see you providing any quotes from the Constitution.
You made a vague claim that entirely misrepresents what rights are in the United States and I'm just calling your bluff.
Show me someplace where the Federal government was given any power resembling a general power to intrude upon private property just to make random observations and otherwise invade upon such privacy?
QUOTE (LeTOUtter+)
Show me the word privacy (personal or otherwise) in the Constitution, and we'll go somewhere.
Now you're obviously the one being the lawyer and trying to twist things into non-sense.
Does the fact that nothing in the Constitution mention churches or clothing that people have no natural right to go to a church or wear clothes etc.?
Ok, if you want to be technical, then show me where a right to intrude upon 'privacy' is a federal power? Obviously the Constitution wasn't written with the intention to create a tyrannous system. If you read the Constitution and understand the context of it, it was intended to describe the specific "enumerated" powers that the Federal government was allowed to use and Amendments 9 and 10 provide explicit recognition to this fact as well.
So don't try to twist the intentions of the people who worked to built this system into something it wasn't intended to be.
Now you're obviously the one being the lawyer and trying to twist things into non-sense.
Does the fact that nothing in the Constitution mention churches or clothing that people have no natural right to go to a church or wear clothes etc.?
Ok, if you want to be technical, then show me where a right to intrude upon 'privacy' is a federal power? Obviously the Constitution wasn't written with the intention to create a tyrannous system. If you read the Constitution and understand the context of it, it was intended to describe the specific "enumerated" powers that the Federal government was allowed to use and Amendments 9 and 10 provide explicit recognition to this fact as well.
So don't try to twist the intentions of the people who worked to built this system into something it wasn't intended to be.
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+)
There is NO document guaranteeing it.
I agree, though the Constitution at least restricts the U.S. Federal government from arbitrary intrusions into persons and their privacy, though we currently appear to have little support for the Constitution in Washington D.C. so it's up to people to decide what they feel is worth defending or not.
Truly, as Bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper (ok, he called it a g*ddamned piece of paper) and it's not going to be of much of any use if people don't understand it and defend their rights (though truly even the Constitution didn't create rights.)
I agree, though the Constitution at least restricts the U.S. Federal government from arbitrary intrusions into persons and their privacy, though we currently appear to have little support for the Constitution in Washington D.C. so it's up to people to decide what they feel is worth defending or not.
Truly, as Bush said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper (ok, he called it a g*ddamned piece of paper) and it's not going to be of much of any use if people don't understand it and defend their rights (though truly even the Constitution didn't create rights.)
QUOTE (LeTOUtter+)
Not in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration.
Again, if privacy wasn't the word used then, then show me what equivalent wording is used that grants the Federal government to ignore various Constitutional Amendments regarding privacy.
Just read the Constitution and keep track of the areas in which it was given legal powers and then read the Amendments, especially the Bill of Rights to find additional limitations (and a couple expansions) of those powers.
Until you can describe where the Constitution grants the federal government such a power, you're simply blowing smoke.
Thankfully this is why a right to trial by jury is present, so that it takes a unanimous veridict by 12 people to convict someone of a crime and criminality isn't determined by individual delusions.
Again, if privacy wasn't the word used then, then show me what equivalent wording is used that grants the Federal government to ignore various Constitutional Amendments regarding privacy.
Just read the Constitution and keep track of the areas in which it was given legal powers and then read the Amendments, especially the Bill of Rights to find additional limitations (and a couple expansions) of those powers.
Until you can describe where the Constitution grants the federal government such a power, you're simply blowing smoke.
Thankfully this is why a right to trial by jury is present, so that it takes a unanimous veridict by 12 people to convict someone of a crime and criminality isn't determined by individual delusions.
Oh wait, here you go also:
Big Brother was here from the beginning of computer networks. Did computer science not know this?
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+)
Show me the word privacy (personal or otherwise) in the Constitution, and we'll go somewhere
If you want to live in a country without a general respect for rights regarding privacy, I'm certain we can hook you up with a good communist/socialist one.
Again, there are probably 5 other Amendments that regard this same subject matter the way and tons of historical precidence etc.
If you're indirectly complaining about the Row vs. Wade decision, that's a different issue and doesn't regard a right to privacy. It should be overturned as it imposes federal control on a private or state issue. So Row vs. Wade was a needless invasion of privacy as states, individuals and communities are more than able to decide abortion issues for themselves and need no single national law imposed upon them regarding it.
QUOTE
Amendment V
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.
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.
If you want to live in a country without a general respect for rights regarding privacy, I'm certain we can hook you up with a good communist/socialist one.
Again, there are probably 5 other Amendments that regard this same subject matter the way and tons of historical precidence etc.
If you're indirectly complaining about the Row vs. Wade decision, that's a different issue and doesn't regard a right to privacy. It should be overturned as it imposes federal control on a private or state issue. So Row vs. Wade was a needless invasion of privacy as states, individuals and communities are more than able to decide abortion issues for themselves and need no single national law imposed upon them regarding it.
Nixon was impeached for ''illegal wiretapping'' which could probably somewhere be classified as a munition as is extreme crypto... so for sure using weapons on one's own citizenry is unconstitutional... it is as if humankind did not learn a damn thing from the history of the 20 century and that the justice system has failed miserably in protecting the rights and freedoms of the people...yada yada yada 
Ya know what? This exact same debate has been going on pointlessly for about a month on the hardOCP forums. If I've learned anything from that, it's that the people who are wound too tight won't ever see reason, and neither will the other side. I cede by default. Go read everyone else's arguments and see why I'm so PO'd about this.
If you wanna be paranoid about the Man coming to get you through your ethernet, go for it. I don't imagine I'll be seeing you outside anytime soon.
If you wanna be paranoid about the Man coming to get you through your ethernet, go for it. I don't imagine I'll be seeing you outside anytime soon.
QUOTE (Argiod+Aug 27 2007, 07:47 PM)
I wondered how long it would take, and the pretext on which it would be based; but, now it seem there is a "back door" for the gov"t to snoop on our systems even while the system is turned off.
Are there no LIMITS to paranoia?
Arthur
Are there no LIMITS to paranoia?
Arthur
QUOTE
Finally, Big Brother can now access our systems when they"re turned off...
Big Brother was here from the beginning of computer networks. Did computer science not know this?
In case you hadn't noticed, the internet is a very public place. The network has to be able to get information that you've requested back to you. As a result, programs have been written to track things down. If you want privacy - unplug.
QUOTE (gmilam+Aug 31 2007, 02:53 PM)
In case you hadn't noticed, the internet is a very public place. The network has to be able to get information that you've requested back to you. As a result, programs have been written to track things down. If you want privacy - unplug.
The internet is a collection of a lot of private networks and computers. Little of the resources comprising the internet are owned by the government and that definitely excludes personal computers.
There's a difference between trying to hack into a computer and using police/laws to force back doors into one. Of course this article didn't regard that specifically but at least my replies were over the statement that LeTUOtter made claiming people had no right to privacy when in fact half the Bill of Rights was written regarding it.
The internet is a collection of a lot of private networks and computers. Little of the resources comprising the internet are owned by the government and that definitely excludes personal computers.
There's a difference between trying to hack into a computer and using police/laws to force back doors into one. Of course this article didn't regard that specifically but at least my replies were over the statement that LeTUOtter made claiming people had no right to privacy when in fact half the Bill of Rights was written regarding it.
That's true, but from my observations, we have more to fear from marketing departments than we do from the government.
How much spam did you receive this week? How much time and energy do we spend fighting spyware?
Of course I'm sure some will argue that marketing departments and the government are just two of big brother's arms... For all I know, they may be right.
How much spam did you receive this week? How much time and energy do we spend fighting spyware?
Of course I'm sure some will argue that marketing departments and the government are just two of big brother's arms... For all I know, they may be right.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.