RemoveRowdy
http://removerowdy.com/forum/

For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive
http://removerowdy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3313
Page 2 of 5

Author:  jim jack [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Let us know what you find out. I am interested in this.

Author:  Ichabod [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

In case nobody has noticed.....

Congress will be holding hearings this week to extend expiring provisions of the "Patriot Act."

Battle Looms Over the Patriot Act

Chief considerations are:

The first such provision allows investigators to get “roving wiretap” court orders authorizing them to follow a target who switches phone numbers or phone companies, rather than having to apply for a new warrant each time.

The second such provision allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to seize “any tangible things” deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation — like a business’s customer records, a diary or a computer.

The final provision set to expire is called the “lone wolf” provision. It allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to wiretap a terrorism suspect who is not connected to any foreign terrorist group or foreign government.

Obama's administration has recommended extending the provisions. :mad:

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

I don't like the sounds of this at all, Ich.

Author:  Stu [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

You lie!

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

You bore.

Author:  Sagger Pance [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

and did you hear about all of the Czars?????

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Well if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.



:scared:

Author:  Tit Whistle [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Sagger Pance wrote:
and did you hear about all of the Czars?????

As in AIDSBloodCzarsPoop?

Author:  TerdFerguson [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Don't waste posts like that here. Wait until RF is resurrected.

Author:  Ichabod [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

NYPD tracking cell phone owners, but foes aren't sure practice is legal

I'll confirm it for them: IT"S NOT F'N LEGAL! :mad:

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Time to stir Uncle Ich up some more...

New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life.

I'll go ahead and paste the story, below:

New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life.

The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.

In preparation, technicians have been installing specialist spying devices and software inside all telephone exchanges, internet companies and even fibre-optic data networks between cities and towns, providing police and spy agencies with the capability to monitor almost all communications.

Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet activity.

It can even monitor a person's location by detecting their mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.

Police say in the year to June 2009, there were 68 interception warrant applications granted and 157 people prosecuted as a result of those interceptions.

Police association vice-president Stuart Mills said the new capabilities are required because criminals were using new technologies to communicate, and that people who weren't committing criminal offences had little to fear.

However, civil liberties council spokesman Michael Bott said the new surveillance capabilities are part of a step-by-step erosion of civil rights in New Zealand.

Police Minister Judith Collins responded to questions from the Sunday Star-Times about the new surveillance capabilities, saying: "I support the rule of law." In last year's budget she approved extra police funds to subsidise companies wiring surveillance devices into their telecommunications networks.

The measures are the consequence of a law, the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, which gave internet and network companies until last year to install devices allowing automated access to internet and cellphone data.

Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear had earlier 2005 deadlines, and new cellphone provider 2degrees installed the interception equipment before launching last year.

Official papers obtained by the Star-Times show that, despite government claims that it was done for domestic reasons, the new New Zealand spying capabilities are part of a push by United States agencies to have standardised surveillance capabilities available for their use from governments worldwide.

While US civil liberties groups unsuccessfully fought these surveillance capabilities being used on US citizens, the FBI was lobbying other governments to adopt them. FBI Director Robert Mueller III told a senate committee in March last year that the FBI needs "global reach" to fight cyber-crime and terrorism and that co-operation with "law enforcement partners" gives it "the means to leverage the collective resources of many countries".

Auckland lawyer Tim McBride, author of the forthcoming New Zealand Civil Rights Handbook, says our politicians had let down New Zealanders when they yielded to the foreign pressure and imported US-style surveillance into New Zealand.

He said "monitoring email, internet chatting and Facebook is like the police and SIS planting bugs in every cafe and park. It would probably help solve a few crimes, but the cost is just too great".

The 2004 New Zealand law, which mirrors laws overseas, requires the content of any communication plus "call associated data", such as times, phone numbers, IP addresses and mobile phone locations, to be able to be copied and sent to the police, SIS or Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) at the time of transmission or "as close as practicable" to that time.

In practice, a specialist said, this means someone's email can be "at the agency within one or two minutes of it actually being on the wires".

When the police and SIS were pushing for the interception capability law they argued repeatedly that it would not "change or extend in any way the existing powers".

But civil libertarians say that the invisibility of electronic surveillance reduces the opportunity to challenge it.

A technician familiar with the developments said the previous surveillance technology dated from the early 1980s when the Telecom phone system went digital. Police bugged individual phones and could request suspects' call logs.

More recently police had taken a warrant to telcos and gone away with printed emails, but did it rarely as there were problems using the evidence in court.

"This is the first big jump from there," said the technician.

"They've never had the powers to force ISPs to build in spying capabilities before now. I imagine law enforcement is very excited about this."

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Well if you're not doing anything wrong then it shouldn't matter who's watching you.

Author:  Ichabod [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Read this New Zeland :fu:

Nineteen Eighty-Four (also 1984), by George Orwell, published in 1949, is a dystopian novel about the totalitarian regime of the Party, an oligarchical collectivist society where life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, public mind control, and the voiding of citizens' rights.

Author:  Ichabod [ Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

The 2010 Census

A pretty good read....

As for me, I'm not filling out the survey. I'm only reporting that 2 people live in my house.... Pray for the Census worker they send my way.

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Well if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

Author:  jim jack [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
The 2010 Census

A pretty good read....

As for me, I'm not filling out the survey. I'm only reporting that 2 people live in my house.... Pray for the Census worker they send my way.


:D

Without looking at the author of this piece, I'm reading along and after awhile I said to myself, "This thing sounds like Walter Williams." It was him.

Hoob.

Author:  Ichabod [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

jim jack wrote:
Ichabod wrote:
The 2010 Census

A pretty good read....

As for me, I'm not filling out the survey. I'm only reporting that 2 people live in my house.... Pray for the Census worker they send my way.


:D

Without looking at the author of this piece, I'm reading along and after awhile I said to myself, "This thing sounds like Walter Williams." It was him.

Hoob.


I want to have Walter William's baby. :soppy:

Author:  Ichabod [ Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Radio chip coming soon to your driver's license?

Imagine, she said, going to a First Amendment-protected event, a church or a mosque, or even a gun show or a peace rally.

"What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event?" she asked. "They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them."

Participants could find themselves on "watch" lists or their attendance at protests or rallies added to their government "dossier."


The absurdity of this proposal is so tremendous that, at first blush, one would say, "There is no f'n way this would ever happen." However, in the era of Post 9/11 and the "Patriot Act" "Public Safety" jargon of the day, I'd say it's just a matter of time. :dep:

Sweet Greggo, you may post your standard reply now.

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Probably something like modulated backscatter stuff

Tolltag type stuff. I know back around '97 or so, when I worked at that company, the technology was already in place to be able to read those tags at a high speed, at a decent distance. I'm fairly certain that's gotten far better.

Author:  Stu [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Tell it again.

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

I don't see the reason for that shit AT ALL. You should be able to travel with some amount of anonymity, whether you are doing something wrong or not.

Even if they implement this, you can bet within hours someone will be selling an interference sleeve you can put your ID in so it can't be read by anyone just "scanning around".

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

or disable it.
or hack it and have it report as the President or some shit.

Author:  jim jack [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

rowdyhatinwalt wrote:
or disable it.
or hack it and have it report as the President or some shit.


Mine's gonna broadcast me as Bigfoot.

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

jim jack wrote:
rowdyhatinwalt wrote:
or disable it.
or hack it and have it report as the President or some shit.


Mine's gonna broadcast me as Bigfoot.

I call Amelia Earhart!!

Author:  Tit Whistle [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

rowdyhatinwalt wrote:
jim jack wrote:
rowdyhatinwalt wrote:
or disable it.
or hack it and have it report as the President or some shit.


Mine's gonna broadcast me as Bigfoot.

I call Amelia Earhart!!

<----Walter Kimbrough.

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

then you'd go on a kid diddling binge. Fucker. :mad:

Author:  Ichabod [ Wed May 19, 2010 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Welp, it's just around the corner.

Where’s Jimmy? Just Google His Bar Code

Why, we can implant these when we're infants because it's important that we be able to track our kids and protect them from kidnapping or worse. We can promise that you get them removed when you become a legal adult..... unless, you've been a troublesome teen, then it may require that you leave them in for a couple of more years for the sake of the public's safety....... Am I missing anything?


Image

Author:  Tit Whistle [ Wed May 19, 2010 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

If you're not doing anything, you don't have anything to worry about.

Author:  cap [ Wed May 19, 2010 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Tit Whistle wrote:
If you're not doing anything, you don't have anything to worry about.

:babyarm: unless it can monitor you jacking off.

Author:  jim jack [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

cap wrote:
Tit Whistle wrote:
If you're not doing anything, you don't have anything to worry about.

:babyarm: unless it can monitor you jacking off.


One of my biggest fears.

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
Welp, it's just around the corner.

Where’s Jimmy? Just Google His Bar Code

Why, we can implant these when we're infants because it's important that we be able to track our kids and protect them from kidnapping or worse. We can promise that you get them removed when you become a legal adult..... unless, you've been a troublesome teen, then it may require that you leave them in for a couple of more years for the sake of the public's safety....... Am I missing anything?


Image

yeh, your kids if you don't tag 'em.

Author:  Ichabod [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

It Doesn't Get Anymore Blatant Than This!

:shock: :shock: :shock:

GPS in their product so they can come to your house and personally congratulate you. Why, how charming!

Author:  Ichabod [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
The 2010 Census

A pretty good read....

As for me, I'm not filling out the survey. I'm only reporting that 2 people live in my house.... Pray for the Census worker they send my way.


I ran off the 3rd Census worker tonight whose shown up at my door wanting to do a follow-up "SURVEY" on me since I only filled in the first question of the census packet. Persistent little fuckers, aren't they? :smile:

Author:  Rockme [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
Ichabod wrote:
The 2010 Census

A pretty good read....

As for me, I'm not filling out the survey. I'm only reporting that 2 people live in my house.... Pray for the Census worker they send my way.


I ran off the 3rd Census worker tonight whose shown up at my door wanting to do a follow-up "SURVEY" on me since I only filled in the first question of the census packet. Persistent little fuckers, aren't they? :smile:



Do you really think you have any amount of privacy in this day and age? Credit Card Companies have all your details and so does your bank, and if the Govt wants info about you they just go to them without a warrant and collect all your info, right?

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
It Doesn't Get Anymore Blatant Than This!

:shock: :shock: :shock:

GPS in their product so they can come to your house and personally congratulate you. Why, how charming!


"Anything can happen," Mr. Figueiredo said. "We have to be innovative, but we don't know what reaction to expect from consumers. And if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about."

Author:  Ichabod [ Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

Hmm, imagine that. The government said they weren't going to do something in order to appease the public, then did it anyway! I'm agog!

The question is, why? What are they doing with these scans?

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

Hmm, imagine that. The government said they weren't going to do something in order to appease the public, then did it anyway! I'm agog!

The question is, why? What are they doing with these scans?

That's fucked up. I'll just drive, thanks.

Author:  cap [ Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Sweet Greggo wrote:
Ichabod wrote:
Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

Hmm, imagine that. The government said they weren't going to do something in order to appease the public, then did it anyway! I'm agog!

The question is, why? What are they doing with these scans?

That's fucked up. I'll just drive, thanks.

dangit. I knew i should have fluffed it up

Author:  TerdFerguson [ Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Perfect excuse to get some road head on the way to the airport.

Author:  rowdyhatinwalt [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Image

Author:  Ichabod [ Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

High-tech carts will tell on Cleveland residents who don't recycle ... and they face $100 fine

Okay. Isn't technology wonderful. Well, actually technology is wonderful, it's man's inclination to use it to control others that is so disturbing.

Author:  Sweet Greggo [ Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For Uncle Ich: Security and privacy are not exclusive

Ichabod wrote:
High-tech carts will tell on Cleveland residents who don't recycle ... and they face $100 fine

Okay. Isn't technology wonderful. Well, actually technology is wonderful, it's man's inclination to use it to control others that is so disturbing.

I saw that this morning and immediately thought of you :D

Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/