FBI May Get Easier Access To Internet Activity 276
olsmeister writes "It appears the White House would like to make it easier for the FBI to obtain records of a person's internet activities without a court order to do so, via the use of an NSL. While they have been able to do this for a long time, it may expand the type of information able to be gathered without a court order to include things like web browsing histories."
And another disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And another disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a liberal, but I have to agree. Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether. I realize it's a dangerous world, but if the end result turns the U.S. into something just as bad as that which we are trying to protect ourselves from, what's the use?
The end does not justify the means...
Re:And another disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I am so against some of the deep packet inspection coupled with Ads some ISP's have been looking at. When charter was looking at it, you could get a cookie that would prevent the targeted ads from displaying in your browser, however, they are still tracking your every move, just don't show you the ads. (its easier to scan everything than scan selectively).
Some people are okay with that, but a few years later, and now, without a warrant, the FBI can see what you were looking at.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether.
Because it's not a matter of conservative vs liberal, or or Democrat vs Republican, or of right vs left. It's a matter of courage vs cowardice, and the people at the top are cowards regardless of politics or at the top to begin with.
Only the power-hungry obtain power, and only the money-hungry obtain great wealth.
Re:And another disappointment (Score:5, Interesting)
"Avarice and ambition will break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." -- Benjamin Franklin. Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects." - Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy, 1787
I wish people would start listening to these guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah I've verified these quotes. I also maintain a list of quotes that are often attributed to the Founders, but were actually said by other people, in order to correct mis-attributed quotes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can read the writings of men such as John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc... online. A great deal of their writings available through different organizations, some public, some private, but regardless of organization type they make the material available at no cost.
Read the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist papers, Democracy in America, and old books, pre 1900, on our founding fathers. Much that is written today(since 1900 when progressives first came into real power: Woodrow Wilson) i
Re: (Score:2)
"the people at the top are cowards regardless of politics "
Spot on. Almost everyone old enough to have in interest in Slashdot should remember the hysteria in Washington after 9/11. Invade Afghanistan (which I agreed with) invade Iraq (did not agree with) Kill Osama, he's mailing us anthrax, pass the Patriotic Gestapo Bill quickly - etc ad nauseum. Mass frigging hysteria. "If you're not with us, you're against us." In effect, telling the whole world to choose sides, because we're headed for Armageddon.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>pass the Patriotic Gestapo Bill quickly - etc ad nauseum. Mass frigging hysteria
I saw the same thing in late 2008 and through most of 2009. "We gotta pass these Bailout and Stimulus Bills quickly, without even bothering to read them!" The Republicans almost all voted these bills down, but since the Democrats had the majority they rammed them through anyway. Hysteria.
I hate them all. I wish the Congress was run by Libertarians or constitutionalists. People who obey the 9th and 10th amendment
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Invade Afghanistan (which I agreed with)
I don't. Going to war over a few deaths (~3000) is ridiculous and juvenile. Since 9/11 approximately 420,000 people have died on the highway. If we're going to spend billions of dollars trying to prevent death, let's spend it on the thing that kills the most people - cars. Not terrorists.
Re:And another disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that these same folks you vote in tomorrow will become the same people you despise in a few years? Your solution doesn't address root cause, it only sticks a band-aid on the problem.
The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician. It should not take money to get an idea into congress. That's why we have representatives.
Take away the fundraising drives, "donations", and institute term limits and you remove the things that allow so much corruption and the drive to go into politics just to make money. Force them into public funding, where every candidate gets equal air time to express their beliefs, and leave money out of the equation. Do all of those things, and the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. Government can not and will not remain limited. Before the ink was even dry on the US constitution the federal government was using it's new taxing power to bail our bankers and bond speculators [wikipedia.org] on the backs of farmers.
If you have a government then you will be ruled by an oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician
It isn't the "only" way. Another alternative is to have no government, except the bare minimum. "It is only to protect our rights, that we have any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat Party. Let's return to a government that only exercises the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and all other powers be reserved t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We had one of those [wikipedia.org] but the banksters found that it limited their access to OPM too much so it was scrapped in favor of the current government.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.
Yeah. Like Christians and other moralists. Oh horror.
Say goodbye to internet porn, or beer, or sex before marriage, or.....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You think they're answerable now? How would that be any different? Politicians are never really answerable to the vote, except in extraordinary circumstances. Like cockroaches, they just keep popping up. Even when they don't, they live out the rest of their lives living comfortably on public largess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm OK with them getting money from special interest groups. With the caveat that like NASCAR drivers the elected officials have to wear sponsorship stickers on their suits so we know who has paid them off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called Bureaucracy. An organisation that works to keep itself up, not for the ends it was created for.
I guess all organisations, given enough time and money, will eventually evolve into bureaucracies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Please refrain from using vulgar terms such as f@#k, s$!t, and lib$@l.
No. I am Anglo-Saxon and proud of using these words. The imported French terms like "intercourse" and "poo" are a lousy substitute. Oh and I'm not eating "la beef" or "la pork" for dinner. It's fresh-fried COW and PIG dammit. Don't sit there and label my Anglo-Saxon language as "vulgar".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said part of that for a long, long time now (as in, back into high school). Anyone who wants a political position should never ever be allowed to hold one. Honestly, working it like jury duty might even be a better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Had you instead written "It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is worse than Bush" -- IOW, the truth -- you would've been modded "Troll," not "Insightful," for sure.
Damn right I'm posting this A.C.!
Re: (Score:2)
Obama isn't exactly worse.
He hasn't repealed the gross violations implemented by the previous administration.
But the violations he has implemented are much less horrific in comparison to what Bush/Cheney put into effect.
To put it in perspective, things are still going down hill, but we are not jumping off another cliff at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that He is not making things better, but that he's not making them worse as quickly as he might?
Does the phrase "damn him with faint praise" mean anything to you?
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."
He just gave the people who sanctioned the torture a free pass [nytimes.com], instead.
I've said it before, Obama is the New Bush [tumblr.com]!
Re:And another disappointment (Score:5, Interesting)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like on civil liberties issues Obama is being almost as bad as Bush
Almost as bad? Try worse and just continuing what was done by Dems under Clinton. You didn't really think Dems have less love of power and ability to intrude and control than those big bad Republicans did you? Maybe by 2012 you won't be so naive and eat the sugar coated campaign slogans.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."
You think the CIA isn't doing that in black camps across Eurasia? Was there an executive order to that effect?
To top it off, Obama has ordered the execution of Americans overseas suspected of participating in terrorism, without even a trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you have to admit, Obama did promise more openness and transparancy. You just didn't realize he meant yours.
Re:No torture? (Score:5, Funny)
I believe Obama when he said there'll be no more torture in the U.S. I took that as an indicator that all torture will be carried out offshore from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
There is much emotional reaction against using torture, but there is also zero inherent reason that (properly) applied stress cannot be used to (in conjunction with other information and other methods of information extraction) to produce useful intel.
When one fights cultural enemies who don't play by the rules, it becomes reasonable to abandon the rules which only exist for ones own benefit (expectation of reciprocity).
Re:No torture? (Score:4, Insightful)
false, the reason we don't torture has absolutely nothing to do with non-expectation of reciprocity. we should not torture because it is evil.
besides, who is the real "cultural enemy", who has mass-murdered the most innocents in this fake "war on terror". It isn't any muslim nation, and the "Taliban" being fought now is not the one that hosted bin Laden. We of the U.S. are creating more "Taliban" (disgruntled Afghans who resent foreign occupier and who are thus taking up arms). This "War on Terror" is about money and and having a rallying point for an ideology and an excuse to remove our liberties. It is not in any way about fighting those who attacked us nor is it making us more secure. It is a lie, a treason committed against We the People.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. More outsourcing. Why pay American torturers when third world countries will do it for much less?
Proxies, https, SSH (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Proxies, https, SSH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh SSH etc can protect you from three letter agencies (unless you piss someone off so much that they're willing to prove that they can crack RSA.... assuming they can)but only if you can't trust third parties like signing authorities, you can swap keys with a friend personally and you're as safe as the OS's you're using.
(ignoring Van Eck phreaking of course but if you're that scared just build shielding into your home and sleep with the server and your guns)
But as long as you trust a third party who can hav
Re: (Score:2)
First, MitM-vulnerable encryption does protect you, just not completely. Yes, if they're concentrating on you because they're specifically interested in you, then they will MitM. But they're not going to MitM everyone to fish (if they do that, they'll eventually be detected). It's easy for you to do and possibly a slight pain in the ass for them to defeat. When your force you opponent to MitM instead of having the luxury of passively trawling, you gain an advantage you otherwise wouldn't have, even if
Said it before, I'll say it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Always treat every single thing you do online as if anyone could see what you are doing. If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them. If you don't want people to know your opinion about something, don't write it on Facebook.
Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy. That way, in case something goes screwy, you have no surprises waiting for you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have said it before, why not save us all the trouble and just keep your mouth shut then?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Storage is so cheap anymore that it is quite reasonable that any agency (or entity for that matter) that had the desire to monitor the complete transaction history of any particular individual on the internet could do so easily and very cheaply assuming they had the proper access. Mind you, ISPs and phone companies could already be doing such things, I don't think that there is a particular law against doing so. If that is the case, then true privacy is, since telephones have been around forever, and has be
If I can't have privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy.
If I can't have privacy, I'd at least like anonymity. That's what we are really after anyhow. Privacy relies on your identity being known, but your activities remaining unknown.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, except for what is implied by what you aren't saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I want to make it clear that this is something you appear to be inferring, and is obviously what others have seen as well given prior responses to your post).
Your statement sounds like the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" meaning you appear to be OK with things going, as you say, screwy, because it won't affect you due to your discretion.
First, your sense of discretion is pro
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I agree that I should not PUBLICLY voice my opinion in matters that I don't want people to know about, but everything else is my goddamned business
Re: (Score:2)
Hi sheep!
I'm a sheep because I use discretion in what personal information I put on the Internet? How do you figure?
Re:Said it before, I'll say it again (Score:4, Insightful)
The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.
Only if your creative limitation are within the boundary of the current social moral.
For everyone thinking outside of the box, it's a tragedy.
The world is a dynamic environment, where we always have to question our moral and knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>>Treat everything you do online as if you have zero privacy. That way, in case something goes screwy, you have no surprises waiting for you.
>>>>
>>>>Hi sheep! - Krneki
>>
>>The opposite of sheep, I'd say. This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and careful.
>
>Only if your creative limitation are within the boundary of the current social moral. For everyone thinking outside of the box, it's a tragedy. The world is a dynamic environment
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is entirely tangential to the issue being discussed.
Sheep carry on oblivious to the dangers around them as they are led to the slaughter. That includes underestimating the power and danger of a society acting under the influence of the "current social moral" [sic]. Blatantly thinking outside the box in such an environment is just as stupid as waving a sandwich in the face of a grizzly bear and expecting him to respect your right to your property. Good luck with that. Thinking outside the bo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do explain what vaguely expressed "tragedy" you are babbling about?
That post is as incoherent as Nickleback lyrics.
So screw our Privacy right? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry but I have a sense of Privacy in my life and the thought of some bureaucrat being able to snoop on my traffic or anything they want without a warrant is to damn Orwellian for my taste.
We have laws to protect our rights, among those are the rights to Privacy. Why the hell then do we allow the Executive Branch of government trounce on those rights because of National Security? Just because
I use technology to communicate doesn't mean I subrogate my rights to keeping those communications confidential unless I decide to make them public. Yes, the Internet is public but what I have on my computer
is private. If they have a suspicion of illegal activity, get a warrant, make the case in front of a judge and then and only then can they do these things.
Frankly, I think I'll be like Johnny Depp and get my own Fuck Off Island if these damn so-called security experts keep pushing our Privacy into the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your overall message, if you have sensitive stuff you don't want the government (or anyone else, for that matter) finding out, keep it on a system that doesn't have access to the Internet. Transfer stuff to it via external hard drives, an ad-hoc connection, or flash drives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I can do that and use sneaker net. But let's say I send a GMail to my wife and we're having marital problems. We're not, but let's just pretend.
GMail is using HTTPS but some nice guy at the FBI says "Humm, I wanna look at this he may be a terrorist!"
He then intercepts the traffic from My PC to the GMail servers. Then he leverages those nice big computers at the NSA and decrypts my message. Where does it go? Does it go into a file on me? My Wife? When does it disappear? When I'm 90 is somebody
Re: (Score:2)
He'd need a wiretap to intercept it, not an NSL. At that rate, it'd be easier to obtain a subpoena to get the information directly from GMail. That way it won't tie up the imaginary computers at the NSA that can decrypt everything.
Re: (Score:2)
people seem to think that the NSA needs supercomputers to crack your encrypted connections.
Why bother when they can just sent a nice polite letter to google(or any other company) telling them to hand over their private key(and also forbidding google from telling anyone about it).
then they can intercept and snoop anything they like.
Or use the tried and true (Score:2)
eat it, burn it, or flush it after memorizing it
oh wait, I forgot, they will soon be able to read your thoughts by analysing neuro-electric activity,
at least enough to be sure you're hiding something, at which point, it's the rubber mallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's apparently not difficult to get your browser to reveal your browsing history. Most browsers are going to fix that in the next major release, but it's still no guarantee there won't be another way.
Also, logging DNS isn't good enough anyway - that doesn't really reveal history, only sites, and then only that something referenced them - could have been an embedded ad or anything. What they'd have to log would be HTTP requests.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, as TFAs clearly cover, this applies only to obtaining records from your ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't snoop on your traffic with an NSL unless your ISP is recording your network traffic. Nor can they access what is on your computer. An NSL only enables them to obtain records from your ISP (subscriber information, toll billing records, ISP login records, and electronic communication transaction records). It's not a wiretap, nor is it a warrant that gives them access to information stored on your property.
Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (Score:4, Insightful)
Power cannot and will not be compartmentalized. A government that has the ability to give you everything you ever wanted also, by the simple reality of power, has the ability to take everything you ever had.
Do not ignore the big picture. A government should not only be measured by individual laws and mandates, but as a single entity in reference to its power over the people. In other words, the reason the FBI is able to enact this form of oppression is because government is big enough.
Re:Lesson for big-government cheerleaders (Score:4, Insightful)
Trouble is the small-government cheerleaders voted some of the worst oppressors of civil liberties, Reagan and Bush2, into office.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have exactly two choices for how to organize society: oligarchy or anarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a Republic. (The laws rule, even above the government.)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be great if that were ever to happen in practice.
In reality every form of government that has ever been tried always reverts to oligarchy. It's just a matter of how fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is just oligarchy in different clothing.
There's a reason for warrants (Score:5, Insightful)
Things that can be abused, will be abused.
This is especially true when people working for law enforcement agencies have a sense of entitlement and no real accountability for their actions. There's a reason for warrants.
I'm all for catching the bad guys.... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... but this, along with a lot of changes made with the last few adminstrations is getting ridiculous. Why must those of us who are law abiding put up with our civil liberties being stripped away piece by layered piece until we are truly in Orwell's "1984". I know that the reason that is being touted is to help the FBI and other agencies catch those would mean to cause harm upon us, but this is not the right way to go about this.
To counter the arguement "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide", I have done nothing wrong and I simply would like to continue to have my privacy that is part of my civil liberties. Just because someone does no wrong doesn't mean they wish to be an open book.
I prefer my habits via driving, phoning, texting, or web surfing to be my business, not yours or anyone else's.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
Re:I'm all for catching the bad guys.... (Score:4, Informative)
I seriously doubt that you've done nothing wrong. The USC has over a million pages of laws: it's gotten to the point where our law-makers and law-enforcers themselves are no longer aware of all of the possible ways to break the law. And it's because of this volume that it has become impossible to live a day-to-day existence in the US without breaking some law or another.
Here's a great example:
That's a quick summary of the Lacey Act, for those who aren't already familiar with this very broad federal regulation.
There are many such overbroad laws like these in the USC, this just happens to be one of the most famous. With laws like these on the books, it's hard to avoid breaking the law. According the Lacey Act, it's at least a $10,000 fine to possess a lobster under 10.5 inches anywhere in the US; coupled with the Conspiracy Act, it's a federal felony to plan possession of a lobster under 10.5 inches with at least one other person. I don't know if you've ever had a small lobster, but there's a good chance you've managed to break the law somewhere in the world with regards to animals or plants, and that's all it takes.
My point here is that the intention of the authorities isn't to "catch the bad guys", it's to manufacture them. Everyone is guilty of something, the feds just need broader, more invasive access to discover what that something is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem with "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is that those who seek to employ it WON'T let it be applied to them as well.
It's ok. This is government... (Score:5, Insightful)
...not vile corporations. They have your best interests at heart. The infallible, incorruptible regulators must have information to do their job of protecting you from the evil businessmen (and, of course, from yourself). Just cooperate and no one will get hurt.
Musing about encryption and privacy rights (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some awkward related questions:
1. What do you think the US government's encryption-breaking capability REALLY is these days? e.g. for example,
are common encryption protocols and key-lengths used in, say, online banking and e-commerce readily crackable by the Feds?
2. Do security agencies of the federal government automatically flag for further investigation all people who use "an excess
amount of encrypted traffic"?
3. Does the FBI, a "domestic" intelligence agency, have the right to spy on foreign residents whose net transactions
traverse the US border? If they don't have the right, are they doing it anyway, or is that some other agency?
Re: (Score:2)
1. No comment.
2. No comment.
3. No comment.
Re: (Score:2)
1. What do you think the US government's encryption-breaking capability REALLY is these days? e.g. for example,
are common encryption protocols and key-lengths used in, say, online banking and e-commerce readily crackable by the Feds?
Well considering the number of poorly-configured servers that still negotiate RC4, probably a good bit. (Tip: get CipherFox or otherwise remove that cipher from the list of acceptable ones.)
As far as block ciphers go: AES-128 is probably well past the point where it's easier to just torture the person than it is to break the key. 3DES I'm not so sure, as it is a much older cipher, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for it.
For public key: Do security agencies of the federal government automa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are now on the list. I can't tell you what list. Enjoy your stay.
Politicians say whatever it takes to get your vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians say whatever it takes to get into power, then they do what they wanted to do all along - until 6 months before the next election when they change tune just long enough to get a forgetful electorate to vote them in for another four years. And you fall for it every time. Sucker.
It doesn't matter whether you vote Republican, Democrat, Labour or Conservative (in the UK), you will get much the same thing.
If you want change, vote for another party or become a politician yourself. Failing that, you are wasting your time.
Good for them, but... (Score:2)
Who's internet identity will they get?
Suspicion (Score:2)
Slashdot User Tip Of The Day +2, Helpful (Score:3, Informative)
EVERYTHING is intercepted [wikipedia.org].
Yours In Akademgorodok,
Kilgore Trout
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
In the post 9/11 world, the National Security Letter is an indispensable tool and building block of an investigation that contributes significantly to the FBI’s ability to carry out its national security responsibilities by directly supporting the furtherance of the counterterrorism, counterintelligence and intelligence missions.
Don't you just love that "In the post 9/11 world" bit? They use that qualifier for everything that infringes on privacy. Its the "Think of the children" of the Military Industrial Complex. Yes there are bad people. Yes there are folks that want to do bad things. But again, trading privacy, and hence freedom, for security, well you know the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this post-Reichstag world... (Soviet Russia secures YOU?)
Re: (Score:2)
Various law enforcement agencies have a history of doing what they want until they get caught at it. You don't really hear about that in school. You don't hear a lot about the assorted shenanigans of the past in school, really. It can be somewhat jarring when you get out and you realize that our ideals aren't as clear cut in practice as they are in theory. Problem is the government and the law enfo
Obligatory Office quote (Score:2)
Terrorists! (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that this is just moving further in the FBI's renewed interest under Obama to go after file-sharers without the need of the courts prove their need. Everybody knows file-sharers are terrorists in disguise, anyway.
ACTA is failing on a worldwide scale, so why not make sure they can move forward in other - easier - ways?
Do Something About It (Score:5, Insightful)
Hooray!!! (Score:2)
I feel safer already!
Privacy.io (Score:2)
What the hell has soccer got to do with terror? (Score:2)
Or in this Obama world I'd like to think that his misdirections could be less obvious
They Need A Warrant (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just a cynical person...well, there's no maybe about that...but I never thought the FBI or any arm of the government would stop to get a warrant for anything if they wanted it badly enough. I don't think 'little pieces of paper' will be a prevention when somebody on the inside needs something badly enough, and I think if people think otherwise they are being naive.
I once spoke to an IRS employee who worked with the bureau in the 80's and he said the IRS could get anything it wanted, and that part
/dev/null vms and darknet (Score:3, Informative)
they wouldn't get much from my isp. i run linux from scratch on a vm with darknet because i don't like how my isp tries to dictate the dns server i use. a clear and obvious sign they glean info from user habits to sell to marketing firms. as far as data security goes the file system is loop-aes. i guess if i wanted to be paranoid i could point my cache to /dev/null. there is a howto for a tor based vm on encrypted file system that is a lot like my environment here: https://svn.torproject.org/svn/torvm/trunk/doc/design.html [torproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As the old song says... ..."meet the new boss; same as the old boss"
Re: (Score:2)
Two quarters, Three dimes, a nickel and four pennies. That's 89 cents of change I can believe in. I like it just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Enjoy your fascist state, the rest of the world is laughing. "
They prefer laughter at others to doing something about their own problems.