Letters to the Editor
-
@ sysprog
I haven't been able to read this reference from within your cite but it looks like a good reference. One thing I think hasn't been explored yet is the "illegal" listening to US persons from a wiretap on a foreign person. From what I've been able to tell, anyone contacting a legal wiretap in the US is legally listened to as well. If it's legal here, it should certainly be legal there.
http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf
-
Matt Blaze et. al.
http://www.crypto.com/blog/wiretap_risks
24 January 2008
Warrantless wiretaps, redux
They've got computers.
They're tapping phone lines.
They know that may be allowed.A recurring theme in this blog over the last year has been how the sweeping surveillance technology envisioned by the 2007 US Protect America Act introduces fundamental technical vulnerabilities into the nation's communications infrastructure. These risks should worry law enforcement and the national security community at least as much as they worry civil liberties advocates. A post last October mentioned an analysis that I was writing with Steve Bellovin, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann and Jennifer Rexford.
The final version of our paper, "Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act," will be published in the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy, which hits the stands in a few weeks. But you can download a preprint of our article today at
http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf [PDF].
This week the Senate takes up whether to make the warrantless wiretapping act permanent, so the subject is extremely timely. The technical risks created by unsupervised wiretapping on this scale are enormously serious (and reason enough to urge Congress to let this misguided law expire).
- - Matt Blaze
-
@ future prison visit...
shooters 242's looser crews try to sneak knish under the prison sneezes bar window at visitation hours.
The jailed telecoms CEO's have permanent troll guest to bunk with and eat rotten knishes now. snitches. rats. gutter possums. River snakes.
O, 'um have oil and talcum powder babies rashes from the war-support of blood-lies. The devotion to oil-blood GOPS has them holding onto each other's groin area. They all got back-crude-oiled groins with venereal diseased crotch itch-conditions-
blotches. Stay clear away as one can...
'um very contagious deadly tadpoles.
go and read penile growth e-mails?
gads these creeps are sleazeballs.
-
Alternate Location for article by Matt Blaze et. al.
http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_security/security/2008/n1/24-33.pdf
(PDF file)
-
Does your mommy know you're playing on the computer?
If you could be honest for just one sentence, maybe you would give us something to reply to. But nope, you continue to just makes sh*t up, followed by your trademark Bush level smirk of "heh".-- Kitt
I thought I'd throw in an insult this morning, just to let you know I'll be out all day looking at depressed real estate in order to take advantage of the misery of others. Why not spend the time looking for something that adds to our collective knowledge rather than indulging in juvenile jibes? Be different for a change, we'd all appreciate it. Heh.
-
Shooter
I thought I'd throw in an insult this morning, just to let you know I'll be out all day looking at depressed real estate in order to take advantage of the misery of others. Why not spend the time looking for something that adds to our collective knowledge rather than indulging in juvenile jibes? Be different for a change, we'd all appreciate it. Heh.
-- shooter242
I was just stating a fact. Nothing "juvenile" about stating a fact. What would really be appreciated would be if you could state a fact now and again. You could at least stop pretending not to understanding the simplest of concepts about subjects put forth on this board over and over again.
-
adds to our collective knowledge
This coming from the first and foremost negative knowlege vortex. The one person guaranteed to raise the IQ of any room by leaving it. The one who has raised overgeneralization AND mischaracterization to an art form.
Enjoy your bargain hunting. Here's a clue. An item is only worth what you can get someone to pay for it. And the quantity of idiots in any given market is a wildly fluctuating qty.
But in your particular market, we can count at least one.....
-
@ -- Aycharaych
The average American is far, far, far more likely to die in an automobile accident than in a terrorist attack, and yet the government spends far, far, far less time warning us of the dangers of dying in an auto accident and far, far, far less money in trying to protect us from auto accident deaths.
I would disagree with the part about government leaving us to our own devices when driving and the cost. It has mandated ....
* Seatbelts and their use with "click it or ticket" campaigns.
* mandated airbags.
* crash standards,
* air pollution standards
* traffic studies
* highway design studies
* costs of law enforcement....I have absolutely no doubt that if the total cost of automobile safety expenditures were totaled up, it would dwarf that of homeland security et al. The difference is that auto deaths are accepted as inevitable, while things like 9/11 aren't.
-
British Bugs
"Some 800 organisations, including the police, the revenue, local and central government, demanded (and almost always got) 253,000 intrusions on citizen privacy in the last recorded year, 2006."
Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian, today cites these government figures to argue that Great Britain is "slithering" toward a police state.
Jenkins says recent reports that a member of Parliament was bugged by police opens a dark curtain into what is going on.
Jenkins reports the MP, described by police as a "civil rights lawyer" and a "nuisance," was bugged as he interviewed a constituent who was being held in prison. The police claim, according to Jenkins, that the inmate was the target of the bug.
Jenkins says this incident has destroyed the so-called Wilson doctrine (named after former prime minister Harold Wilson) that "MPs can't be bugged," and overturns former prime minister Tony Blair's claim, post 9/11, that "ministers are in control" of the country's domestic spying apparatus.
"The grim reality of the past week alone," says Jenkins, " is that it has seen a substantial section of the British establishment allowing itself to believe that private dealings between lawyer and client, and between MP and constituent, should no longer be considered immune from state surveillance. A cardinal principle of a free democracy is coolly abandoned. It is not a victory for national security. It is a victory for terrorism."
Source: The Guardian