GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   NSA was domistic spying before 9/11 (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1115556)

crockett 07-16-2013 04:23 AM
NSA was domistic spying before 9/11
 
So how many people picked up on this little under reported tidbit?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/352455

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abIV0cO64zJE

The NSA was already setting up and pressuring the telecoms in the US for access to their call centers months before 9/11.


This shows that once again the govt is lying about this program. They used 9/11 as the excuse that they needed it, yet they were already setting it up well before 9/11.

Meaning 9/11 or not, they intended to spy on Americans with out warrants.

Bush/Cheney were already pushing the FISA court angle well before 9/11 to create a warrentless wiretap network for domestic spying.

Gotta love how this has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.

crockett 07-16-2013 04:48 AM
Domestic.. Edit for the title..

seeandsee 07-16-2013 05:16 AM
No way they let them do attack so they can later control the world

rowan 07-16-2013 05:26 AM
It's not a surprise really. Australia was already brewing potential data tap laws in the late 1990s. I bet other countries were too.

So when is GFY going to go SSL?

crockett 07-16-2013 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan (Post 19719366)
It's not a surprise really. Australia was already brewing potential data tap laws in the late 1990s. I bet other countries were too.

So when is GFY going to go SSL?
Does SSL really matter? If you read those articles the NSA has access to stuff like outlook.com before it gets encrypted.

I'd suspect that they long ago gained backdoor access to the worlds most used forum software, considering they have everyone else's.

Joshua G 07-16-2013 07:18 AM
i think the NSA was snooping when the telegraph was invented. everything about it is so secret its impossible to really analyze what it does.

crockett 07-16-2013 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh (Post 19719543)
i think the NSA was snooping when the telegraph was invented. everything about it is so secret its impossible to really analyze what it does.
Yet everyone focuses on the leaker instead of what he leaked. Pretty sad people are so dumb as to fall for such a simple distraction rather than be outraged at what the govt is doing and lying about.

Side note, I don't think we needed the NSA for the telegraph. It wasn't the most secure connection in the first place. LoL

sperbonzo 07-16-2013 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19719561)
Yet everyone focuses on the leaker instead of what he leaked. Pretty sad people are so dumb as to fall for such a simple distraction rather than be outraged at what the govt is doing and lying about.
BINGO!!!! total violations of our 4th amendment rights, and all they worry about is what Snowden did...



.:disgust:Oh crap:mad:





.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 07:51 AM
thing is, when this story broke, it broke first in 2006. There was a big back and forth on new york times, yada yada yada, and nada.

can someone explain to me what has changed?

Rochard 07-16-2013 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719614)
thing is, when this story broke, it broke first in 2006. There was a big back and forth on new york times, yada yada yada, and nada.

can someone explain to me what has changed?
No longer living in fear after 9/11.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19719619)
No longer living in fear after 9/11.
fair enough :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

good point, thank you

dyna mo 07-16-2013 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19719561)
Yet everyone focuses on the leaker instead of what he leaked. Pretty sad people are so dumb as to fall for such a simple distraction rather than be outraged at what the govt is doing and lying about.

Side note, I don't think we needed the NSA for the telegraph. It wasn't the most secure connection in the first place. LoL
you won't get far here with this. i tried this here when the snowden shit 1st hit the fan. based on the craziness of zimmerman around here, i've concluded most peeps get their sense of direction on what the most important news stories are based on television broadcasts.

and the simple fact is that the tele is focusing on snowden. not on the documents.

now, you won't like this part, but snowden is giving the media the fodder to keep the story about him active. asylum, etc. the fact that he is actually trying to blackmail the usa with the documents he still has but not revealed, etc.

release the fukcing documents snowden, don't use them as a bargaining chip to get to your chosen final country.

if we want the media to stay focused on the documents and what they reveal, then snowden should release the fucking documents.


:)

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19719636)
you won't get far here with this. i tried this here when the snowden shit 1st hit the fan. based on the craziness of zimmerman around here, i've concluded most peeps get their sense of direction on what the most important news stories are based on television broadcasts.

and the simple fact is that the tele is focusing on snowden. not on the documents.

now, you won't like this part, but snowden is giving the media the fodder to keep the story about him active. asylum, etc. the fact that he is actually trying to blackmail the usa with the documents he still has but not revealed, etc.

release the fukcing documents snowden, don't use them as a bargaining chip to get to your chosen final country.

if we want the media to stay focused on the documents and what they reveal, then snowden should release the fucking documents.


:)
what did you try?

dyna mo 07-16-2013 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719640)
what did you try?
pointing out here that the media is focusing on snowden and not on the information he revealed.

Rochard 07-16-2013 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719635)
fair enough :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

good point, thank you
After 9/11 we feared our own shadows, and the general population demanded our government protect us. They gave Bush wide sweeping powers, the Patriot Act, etc. Now that the fears from 9/11 have subsided we are demanding our rights back again.

dyna mo 07-16-2013 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719640)
what did you try?
sincere question-

what is your view on the remaining documents snowden has? he is currently saying they are completely damaging to the usa so he will not release them as long as the usa does not get in the way of his seeking asylum.


do you agree with how he is handling this or do you think he should release the docs? or perhaps another outcome?

imo, he should release the documents. i don't agree with his offer to keep things hidden in return for his safe passage to venezuela/whereever.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19719669)
sincere question-

what is your view on the remaining documents snowden has? he is currently saying they are completely damaging to the usa so he will not release them as long as the usa does not get in the way of his seeking asylum.


do you agree with how he is handling this or do you think he should release the docs? or perhaps another outcome?

imo, he should release the documents. i don't agree with his offer to keep things hidden in return for his safe passage to venezuela/whereever.
i don't fault the choices he is making to keep himself safe.

Do you think there should be at least one member of US government that vocally supports Snowden? Interesting how the dialogue is unilateral on the subject

rowan 07-16-2013 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19719538)
Does SSL really matter? If you read those articles the NSA has access to stuff like outlook.com before it gets encrypted.
If I understand correctly, that's because of their agreement with MS.

There's no way (as far as we know) that SSL can be broken, but that doesn't stop the NSA being able to intercept and store encrypted data for a future date when it CAN be read (either through some magical new method of codebreaking, or something less fancy like acquiring the SSL certificate for that host...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19719538)
I'd suspect that they long ago gained backdoor access to the worlds most used forum software, considering they have everyone else's.
FWIW, VBulletin is in cleartext PHP. Any backdoors would be noticed pretty quickly.

dyna mo 07-16-2013 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719693)
i don't fault the choices he is making to keep himself safe.

Do you think there should be at least one member of US government that vocally supports Snowden? Interesting how the dialogue is unilateral on the subject

yes.
specifically,

someone in government should be trying to communicate with him directly and get him guaranteed safe passage back to usa, he/she can accompany snowden on that passage and ensure safety, etc. television support, etc.

someone in government should also be supporting snowden on releasing the remaining documents.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19719719)
yes.
specifically,

someone in government should be trying to communicate with him directly and get him guaranteed safe passage back to usa, he/she can accompany snowden on that passage and ensure safety, etc. television support, etc.

someone in government should also be supporting snowden on releasing the remaining documents.
and there is no one.

my understanding is the first major leakers tried to go to the press lol

bet they were surprised :1orglaugh

poncabare 07-16-2013 08:41 AM
if it keeps us safe, what does it matter? unless you have something to hide...

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poncabare (Post 19719728)
if it keeps us safe, what does it matter? unless you have something to hide...
constitution matters.. unless you are against the constitution..

Barry-xlovecam 07-16-2013 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan (Post 19719701)
There's no way (as far as we know) that SSL can be broken, but that doesn't stop the NSA being able to intercept and store encrypted data for a future date when it CAN be read (either through some magical new method of codebreaking, or something less fancy like acquiring the SSL certificate for that host...)
Ever install a SSL Key? If you bought your SSL certificate from Verisign, Thawt, Komodo, or other public vendors there is a record of your encrypt/decrypt key on file. All they need is a subpoena -- if the SSL Cert issuer is in the US the "governmental agency" can get that key -- YOUR ENCRYPTION IS TRASHED.

Use your own email servers and use private keys -- there is no central depository of the key but this is difficult for the consumer web. However, for your own internal company apps you can use private keys that you just generate on your servers and store them in your browser. THis is referred to by browsers as an untrusted key (LOL not NSA Approved and Trappable).

I can't imagine terrorists or dangerous criminals using plain text or public keys that are decryptable but then most are not rocket scientists and their independent cells are probably mainly knuckle-draggers. Boston Marathon Bombers with Twitter pages? Possible but sort of lame ....

Rochard 07-16-2013 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19719719)
yes.
specifically,

someone in government should be trying to communicate with him directly and get him guaranteed safe passage back to usa, he/she can accompany snowden on that passage and ensure safety, etc. television support, etc.

someone in government should also be supporting snowden on releasing the remaining documents.
Well, why hasn't Snowden released these documents?

So far Snowden is nothing but talk. He claims the NSA does illegal things, but has yet to offer up any proof. The warrants are pretty easy to get - they seem to be rubber stamping them - but yet Snowden has yet to provide an exact example of wrong doing.

The only person to break the law here is Snowden himself.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19719751)
Well, why hasn't Snowden released these documents?

So far Snowden is nothing but talk. He claims the NSA does illegal things, but has yet to offer up any proof. The warrants are pretty easy to get - they seem to be rubber stamping them - but yet Snowden has yet to provide an exact example of wrong doing.

The only person to break the law here is Snowden himself.
do your government order presidential planes grounded over 'nothing but talk'?

just a punk 07-16-2013 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19719333)
NSA was domistic spying before 9/11
Are you surprised? Sincerely.

dyna mo 07-16-2013 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19719751)
Well, why hasn't Snowden released these documents?

So far Snowden is nothing but talk. He claims the NSA does illegal things, but has yet to offer up any proof. The warrants are pretty easy to get - they seem to be rubber stamping them - but yet Snowden has yet to provide an exact example of wrong doing.

The only person to break the law here is Snowden himself.

i mentioned it earlier in the thread, snowden is using the remaining documents as a bargaining tool for his travel to where he is seeking asylum.

and snowden has provided plenty of data revealing wrong-doing. not illegal, per se. wrong, very.

crockett 07-16-2013 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19719693)
i don't fault the choices he is making to keep himself safe.

Do you think there should be at least one member of US government that vocally supports Snowden? Interesting how the dialogue is unilateral on the subject
The sad part is any member of congress could leak the documents with out facing jail. They can legally disclose top secrect information if they feel the public has a right to know about it.

Yet not a single one of them will risk their next election over it.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19720359)
The sad part is any member of congress could leak the documents with out facing jail. They can legally disclose top secrecy information if they feel the published c has a right to know about it.

Yet not a single one of them will risk their next election over it.
risk an election? highly doubt that's what they're concerned of

id be way more concerned about my brand new mercedes 'catching fire'

dyna mo 07-16-2013 03:04 PM
i tell ya what, i would move to the area and vote for the congressperson or senator or candidate that had the balls to try and get snoden sorted out for the benefit of all of us.

which is, imo, release all the fucking docs, every ducking one, that's what manning did, he didn't hold shit back. that's what the other nsa dude did too, dump em all out. let's get this shit sorted out. obviously whatever plan snwoden had of enacting change is not happening, washington and media are both moving on. his *mission* has not produced any change, release the docs.

theking 07-16-2013 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19720359)
The sad part is any member of congress could leak the documents with out facing jail. They can legally disclose top secrect information if they feel the public has a right to know about it.

Yet not a single one of them will risk their next election over it.
Pigshit.

crockett 07-16-2013 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19720385)
i tell ya what, i would move to the area and vote for the congressperson or senator or candidate that had the balls to try and get snoden sorted out for the benefit of all of us.

which is, imo, release all the fucking docs, every ducking one, that's what manning did, he didn't hold shit back. that's what the other nsa dude did too, dump em all out. let's get this shit sorted out. obviously whatever plan snwoden had of enacting change is not happening, washington and media are both moving on. his *mission* has not produced any change, release the docs.
I think manning/wiki leaks did hold back as well as edited docs that could put anyone specifically at risk.

crockett 07-16-2013 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 19720403)
Pigshit.
Looks like your brains are leaking out your ass again.

_Richard_ 07-16-2013 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19720549)
Looks like your brains are leaking out your ass again.
http://replygif.net/i/476.gif

theking 07-16-2013 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19720549)
Looks like your brains are leaking out your ass again.
What you posted was and is pigshit...now wasn't/isn't it...sport?

Rochard 07-16-2013 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19719831)
i mentioned it earlier in the thread, snowden is using the remaining documents as a bargaining tool for his travel to where he is seeking asylum.

and snowden has provided plenty of data revealing wrong-doing. not illegal, per se. wrong, very.
Well, we need to clarify what is "wrong doing" vs what is illegal. If the NSA is reading the email of US citizens without a warrant, that might be illegal. If the NSA is hacking China, I don't give a rat's ass.

rowan 07-16-2013 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19719750)
Ever install a SSL Key? If you bought your SSL certificate from Verisign, Thawt, Komodo, or other public vendors there is a record of your encrypt/decrypt key on file. All they need is a subpoena -- if the SSL Cert issuer is in the US the "governmental agency" can get that key -- YOUR ENCRYPTION IS TRASHED.
Yep, that was my point. Hoovering encrypted data is really no different to cleartext, since if the NSA finds anything pointing to the encrypted data that suggests it has relevance, they can "legally" acquire the SSL key and decrypt the data they've already stored.

There's something called (I think) forward security which uses a one-time encryption key for SSL, but it's not widely supported. I don't really understand how it works, since two hosts negotiating the random encryption key could be captured by a third party. Seems a little like yelling out your password across the room... but I'm not a cryptographer, so I presume there's some magic way it works. :)

PhoneSexKing 07-16-2013 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19719750)
[INDENT]Ever install a SSL Key? If you bought your SSL certificate from Verisign, Thawt, Komodo, or other public vendors there is a record of your encrypt/decrypt key on file. All they need is a subpoena -- if the SSL Cert issuer is in the US the "governmental agency" can get that key -- YOUR ENCRYPTION IS TRASHED.
Horseshit.

You obviously don't understand how PKI works.

You send a CSR (Certificate Signing Request) to the CA (Certificate Authority). The CSR is basically your public key with some additional information. You always retain your private key on your server/local machine.

The real threat is the the trust structure with the CAs. Every browser ships with a list of trusted CAs and some of them have been hacked or they are flat out owned by DHS or the government of China.

A rogue/hacked CAs can sign keys for popular websites such as paypal/facebook/twitter and MITM (man-in-the-middle) the connections.

Essentially they sit in the middle between you and the target site and pretend to be the endpoint.

The only way to guard against that is to use certificate pinning. There is a good plugin for firefox called "certificate patrol", and chrome/chromium has pinning for popular websites already.

I completely agree that you should run your own mail servers.

PhoneSexKing 07-16-2013 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan (Post 19720679)
There's something called (I think) forward security which uses a one-time encryption key for SSL, but it's not widely supported. I don't really understand how it works, since two hosts negotiating the random encryption key could be captured by a third party. Seems a little like yelling out your password across the room... but I'm not a cryptographer, so I presume there's some magic way it works. :)
SSL does have forward secrecy support, and it is supported by basically everything except for IIS and IE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy

In some instances it is impossible to mitigate the SSL BEAST attack while having forward secrecy enabled. ugh.

For an example of well-implemented forward secrecy look at OTR and Tor.

Vendzilla 07-16-2013 08:49 PM
The predecessor of the National Security Agency was the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), created on May 20, 1949, so this shit has been going on for a long time


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123