Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can the FBI turn on the web cams of linux users?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    personal life persecution begets riots and resistance

    Originally posted by zester View Post
    If you were in any Muslim dominated country, things like "Homosexuality", "Sodomy" creating "Porn" or just taking "Nude Pictures" of your self are all-things that are highly illegal and in many cases are punishable by death.

    In none Muslim dominated country's there are many situations where the above things could be used against you in one way or another.

    So is the NSA interested in your "Private Intimate Life", yes ... yes they are. There isn't any part of your life that there not interested in.
    In any country with a significant secular population, regardless of the state religion, busting down doors with arrest warrants for "sodomy," "porn," "prostitution," etc can lead to violent, even armed resistance. In the US, the Gay community celebrates Pride in June, remembering the Stonewall Riots of 1969. On June 28, 1969, the NY vice squad, the ATF, and eventually the riot squad attempted to raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich village. All were defeated as a huge crowd poured into the streets and resisted them with overwhelming force. Eventually the pigs barricaded themselves inside the emptied bar, only to have the door smashed down with an uprooted parking meter used as a battering ram. The pigs drew their guns in response to lighter fluid and a tossed match (that missed), and bought enough time to be rescued by a riot squad unit that simply picked them up and ran. The next two nights saw more fighting with draq queens and hustlers clearly dominant over the cops.

    Now, about the Muslim countries: I can promise you the Christian Taliban's interest in the Middle East is based on Crusade and on oil, not on freedom they don't want here either. Why else have religious laws about sex and women's rights in Afghanistan changed so little under a decade of US occupation? So long as those laws do exist, one of the goals of both free software and Internet security tools like Tor should be to protect people from the religious police and help people defy oppressive regime. Example: the Tor project puts a lot of energy into helping their Persian users resist censorship and policing in Iran. Tor is very popular in Iran, showing public contempt for a fundamentalist government.

    Thanks for reminding everyone here that just because you don't fight against tar sands or gas fracking does not mean the NSA does not want your webcam take! Hell, state and local police in places like the US "Bible Belt" probably want it even more than the NSA does. In those places, I advise the use of Tor for online cruising and making sure you can defend yourself against any surprises.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by zester View Post
      You do realize that "Sodomy" is still illegal, in some parts of the country.

      No seriously if I worked for the NSA and your "Wife/Girlfriend?" was "Short, Pale Skinned and Curvy" I would be totally interested in your "intimate relations"!!!!!! lol
      You don't get the point. NSA as an organization is only interested in individuals who threaten the national security. If you don't belong to that group you have nothing to fear from them, actually quite the opposite. They're trying to keep you safe. If you (as an NSA worker) would get caught watching people have sex at work you'd probably lose your job unless you could show solid proof that you needed to do that for your task.

      Sodomy, homosexuality, nudity etc. are all perfectly legal in the country I live so I have nothing to fear from my government lol even though I don't practice any of the said treats with the exception of offline nudity. Any people taking nude shots of themselves and spreading them on the net can only blame themselves if they get into trouble, its generally speaking a horrible idea unless you're aiming for a career in porn industry.
      Last edited by ACiD; 12-23-2013, 07:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by zester View Post
        If you were in any Muslim dominated country, things like "Homosexuality", "Sodomy" creating "Porn" or just taking "Nude Pictures" of your self are all-things that are highly illegal and in many cases are punishable by death.

        In none Muslim dominated country's there are many situations where the above things could be used against you in one way or another.

        So is the NSA interested in your "Private Intimate Life", yes ... yes they are. There isn't any part of your life that there not interested in.
        The only time I can see the NSA, or any other three lettered government agency, would even be remotely interested in your sexual peccadilloes, is if it was material to a case they were investigating, in a larger context other than wanting to know your sexual preferences and/or viewing pleasures. Without this context, purely peering into your or my sexual life/preferences without probable cause and/or a warrant would be illegal and the NSA would do well to reign in employees who abuse the governments resources for the purposes of feeding their own sex addictions. In other words, internal abuse and dereliction of duty are the hardest thing to snuff out.

        What's it to you anyway? Are you into some kinky stuff you don't want anyone to know about or what?
        Last edited by MartinN; 12-23-2013, 08:23 PM.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by MartinN View Post
          What's it to you anyway? Are you into some kinky stuff you don't want anyone to know about or what?
          In my experience the same people who rage about privacy, Tor etc. are the same ones who later casually comment 'they had entered puberty' as an excuse lol. Not to mention that Tor was infiltrated so that in reality all traffic was monitored real time on all the fools who thought they were safe.

          Pedophiles and criminals are the largest 'security' advocates on the net probably as they have the most to hide.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by ACiD View Post
            In my experience the same people who rage about privacy, Tor etc. are the same ones who later casually comment 'they had entered puberty' as an excuse lol. Not to mention that Tor was infiltrated so that in reality all traffic was monitored real time on all the fools who thought they were safe.

            Pedophiles and criminals are the largest 'security' advocates on the net probably as they have the most to hide.
            As I'm a die hard believer of nothing ever happens for no reason (i.e. "I WANT PRIVACY FOR THE SAKE OF PRIVACY" - yeah right!), I am very inclined to agree with your assertion. We all lie to cover up our wrongdoing, and hopefully one day our moral conscience wakes up and we cease to engage in self-destructive behaviors - on what basis this happens, I have no idea other than to attribute it to God's will.

            And if anyone deals in, views or promotes and/or distributes child porn, immediately stop and get medical/psychiatric/spiritual help soon before you are caught. If you get caught, your life as you know it - is over, for good.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by MartinN View Post
              As I'm a die hard believer of nothing ever happens for no reason (i.e. "I WANT PRIVACY FOR THE SAKE OF PRIVACY" - yeah right!), I am very inclined to agree with your assertion. We all lie to cover up our wrongdoing, and hopefully one day our moral conscience wakes up and we cease to engage in self-destructive behaviors - on what basis this happens, I have no idea other than to attribute it to God's will.

              And if anyone deals in, views or promotes and/or distributes child porn, immediately stop and get medical/psychiatric/spiritual help soon before you are caught. If you get caught, your life as you know it - is over, for good.
              The only scenario where security would be necessary is if you can't trust the powers that be in your country. Even then the issue is problematic because no matter how bad and morally wrong your government is, you acting against it is also kind of problematic. Its a line drawn to water where your actions remain justifiable and where you're simply breaking the law. Basically if you disagree with the way your government is doing things you should move somewhere else that works your way. If your government lets you that is, which is where things get real tricky.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by ACiD View Post
                The only scenario where security would be necessary is if you can't trust the powers that be in your country. Even then the issue is problematic because no matter how bad and morally wrong your government is, you acting against it is also kind of problematic. Its a line drawn to water where your actions remain justifiable and where you're simply breaking the law. Basically if you disagree with the way your government is doing things you should move somewhere else that works your way. If your government lets you that is, which is where things get real tricky.
                I would really like to know if you are really so retarded, or you just behave so for a reason. Where did you get that sick rules, about moving elsewhere, and that retarded trust in people (Government is made of same good, old corrupted, selfish people.)? It looks like you have just entered puberty, or you have another reason(s) to act like that. Well just spare your time. Homer Simpson doesn't need that brainwashing, and we others do not buy that shit. Now go and get really sick.

                PS

                Oh, I just noticed your nickname. That could explain everything.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by MartinN View Post
                  As I'm a die hard believer of nothing ever happens for no reason (i.e. "I WANT PRIVACY FOR THE SAKE OF PRIVACY" - yeah right!), I am very inclined to agree with your assertion.
                  How nice of you to imply people who care about privacy = criminals.

                  I do care about privacy for the sake of privacy. It's because I've seen what happens when you don't have privacy. Humans are one of the few animals who can learn by example - seeing other people get burned is enough to learn the stove is hot, you don't need to get burned yourself.

                  In other words, having privacy means limiting the power of others over me. That power may be used just because they are evil, even if I had done nothing wrong. It would be extremely foolish of me to leave that option out there, just waiting until someone decides to use it. In fact, I would compare it to openly waving around wads of cash when walking around, painting you a target.

                  But if classifying me as a pedo makes you sleep better at night, please do. BTW I also worship Satan, regularly sacrifice first-born children, deal drugs to kids, and I did 9/11.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    How nice of you to imply people who care about privacy = criminals.
                    I don't know if you are playing dumb or just wanna be right or maybe you aren't willing to consider both sides of this argument without my painfully being explicit, but since I love Phoronix and respect geeks worldwide, I'll bite.

                    Criminals is most definitely a category for whom privacy is a requirement. I did NOT equate people who care about privacy with criminals - YOU said that. My argument piled on what Acid said, which is that pedophiles and criminals are probably the most ardent and zealous supporters of privacy, albeit for all the wrong reasons, to cover up their criminal and/or immoral behaviors.

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    I do care about privacy for the sake of privacy.
                    So does every person who is committed to either moral or immoral ends.

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    It's because I've seen what happens when you don't have privacy.
                    Without you telling us what it is that you've seen happen, without naming names of course, it is very difficult for me to deduce. Privacy doesn't live in isolation - it's related to someone and/or something they did (or failed to do).

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    Humans are one of the few animals who can learn by example - seeing other people get burned is enough to learn the stove is hot, you don't need to get burned yourself.
                    And whom, pray tell, do you see anyone disagreeing with that statement here? You can learn from the bad examples, i.e. burned by a stove, seeing what happens when one cheats on a spouse, as well as good ones, like donating to charitywater.com and seeing the impact of your donations, or volunteering in a soup kitchen for the homeless. BTW, did you notice that both types of examples need to have their veil of privacy removed so that we can learn ?

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    In other words, having privacy means limiting the power of others over me.
                    So if I am hearing you right, you believe that without privacy, your power to do X, Y or Z is gone. What is the X, Y or Z that you cannot do without privacy? Do you see the conundrum here? If you can't disclose it, in words, even if vaguely, then is it moral or immoral, legal or illegal? Whatever you do will fit this category. Think about it from a legal perspective - there's no "grey" area in courts, it's very black/white, even though it may appear to you to be a "grey" area. And usually when it's "grey", it's one of those legal but immoral things. You mentioned peddling drugs to children - a pharmacy peddles drug to children. What's the difference? Do you now get the point about the kind of privacy I am against? You will not remove privacy from a value judgment. You may think you can, but you cannot. It's always tied to a person who does -something-, and that something will fit a criteria of good-moral/bad-immoral/legal/illegal. You don't like that? Too bad....


                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    That power may be used just because they are evil, even if I had done nothing wrong.
                    Can you please enlighten me/us with an example of someone - either yours or someone else's you have first hand knowledge of- who has done no wrong and the evil governmental power used it against him somehow? Can you be more precise please, so we can dissect this further?

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    It would be extremely foolish of me to leave that option out there, just waiting until someone decides to use it. In fact, I would compare it to openly waving around wads of cash when walking around, painting you a target.
                    Got it. Waving wads of cash in the open is probably unwise. But again, is your flailing cash wads around wrong? Immoral? Illegal? No. Hiding your wads of cash is the acceptable application of privacy. I am in no way against this kind of privacy. I don't want you peeking inside my home from the street or with a telescope just because you can. I'm not doing anything immoral or illegal inside my home, and I still don't want people peeking in.

                    Anyone, on the other hand, using privacy in his or her own home so that he/she can view or peddle child porn (for example), nullifies the right to privacy.

                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    But if classifying me as a pedo makes you sleep better at night, please do. BTW I also worship Satan, regularly sacrifice first-born children, deal drugs to kids, and I did 9/11.
                    To go back to what I said - I don't know if you just want to play devil's advocate, be right/win, look smart or whatever your motives are - but no one, and by no one, I mean -NO ONE- on this thread or anywhere else said YOU are a pedophile or a ritualistic, Anton LaVey-type satanist.... or a drug peddler to children.

                    My (and Acid's) point was people who are rabidly and zealously interested in privacy, more often than not, aren't the legally abiding ones. It's like with anything else - take for example BitCoin - people bitch about it being a magnet for illegal activities...well so is the dollar or any other currency worldwide. It can be used for both, legal and moral, as well as illegal and immoral things. Privacy is the same way - it can be used legally or illegally, morally or immorally. Those are the contexts within which privacy exists, not the other way around.

                    Let me know if I can be any clearer than this.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by MartinN View Post
                      My argument piled on what Acid said, which is that pedophiles and criminals are probably the most ardent and zealous supporters of privacy, albeit for all the wrong reasons, to cover up their criminal and/or immoral behaviors.
                      Well, in my experience, that doesn't seem to hold true. I don't personally know any paedophiles, but what I know of their methods, the ones who actually do it for profit/business - the real scumbags - are generally pretty careful people, and don't really care much about such things as "privacy" - they work in the dark, in the shadows, so it doesn't really matter to them if regular people get "privacy" or not. Pedophiles most often get busted by informants and former victims. Not because of surveillance.

                      But enough about pedos. Want to talk about criminals?

                      In my country, the corrupt police is collaborating with organized crime. The leaders of our national police force have been making insider deals with a company that is strongly tied to a criminal organization. What does that company do? Well, they manufacture surveillance equipment. Particularly, the kind of equipment used for spying on people, listening people's phone calls, tracking their movements or online communications...

                      So just to hammer this in: the police (by which I mean the leaders of the police, the real higher-ups) are making insider deals and buying surveillance equipment from an organized crime syndicate. Crazy, I know! But that's how things are these days...

                      And now, there are also people, with ties to the police force and/or military, who are campaiging for tighter online surveillance laws. They want to basically imitate the NSA. Because safety! Or something. But it's not hard to see where the real motivation lies - more surveillance, more contracts with surveillance equipment maker => more bribes from organized crime...


                      So ironically, it seems to me, that the very biggest criminals are trying to erode our privacy. Although, so is the police... but if the police are collaborating with the criminals, doesn't that sort of make them into criminals as well?


                      Mostly it seems to me, that people who don't want privacy, are people who have something to gain from eroding people's rights. It maybe a case of criminal corruption like in my example, or something more "lawful" - like a business who profits from data mining, but there's always some kind of vested interest. These are the people who make arguments like "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"...

                      The true criminals don't really need privacy - real big criminals can do their crimes out in the open, they have money and friends in high places... they can just make their problems go away.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X