Govt Keyloggers?

[TheCotMan]

which was why I called bullshit on him.

I didnt think bullshit; I thought more along the lines of having my leg pulled-- tall tale, story meant to entertain through deception.

If Xodia had a history of disinformation, I would have gone with bullshit, but that is not my impression of Xodia.
a page about "pulling your leg"

[allentrace]

I didnt think bullshit; I thought more along the lines of having my leg pulled-- tall tale, story meant to entertain through deception.

If Xodia had a history of disinformation, I would have gone with bullshit, but that is not my impression of Xodia.
a page about "pulling your leg"

I meant it as a reference to the card game "Bullshit" ergo I was calling it on him in a joking manner. I guess I should have referenced it.

[enigma]

DefCon rule....every remark MUST be analyzed, no matter how meaningless...

[Floydr47]

I am saying bullshit on this one. "Little" implies some documentation and if you could provide some I would be happy to be corrected. I have never heard of "IPSP" maybe it goes by a different acronym. The acronym I know IPSP by is Internet Protocol Security Policy.

Actually I have been hearing about the "Invisible Packet Security Protocol", it seems that it is a new development in nanotechnology...

gul·li·ble
adj.
Easily deceived or duped.


I think Xodia was making a funny.

Noid, I guess you have heard that the word gullible has been removed from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

[TheCotMan]

DefCon rule....every remark MUST be analyzed, no matter how meaningless...

Now this can mean several things.

If you consider the first case, where we look at the subjective meaning of the word, "meaningless."

What is meaningless? If we say that meaningless means "without meaning" then we can consider nearly any post on the defcon forums.

If on the other hand, meaningless is meant to be...

(heh-heh, heh-heh, hrm. Oh yeah!)

[bascule]

Die stupid pathological memes die.

[allentrace]

Die stupid pathological memes die.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins < I read that book good reference Bascule

[Xodia]

I didnt think bullshit; I thought more along the lines of having my leg pulled-- tall tale, story meant to entertain through deception.

You think I was pulling your leg? Never!
Also, I failed to even mention that Black Helicopters in silent mode CAN sniff the IPSP packets by using Tempest technology.

To get the topic back on track,
Given the nature of Trusted Computing do you think that it would be possible for the government to only allow computers they deem "Secure" to browse their websites? If a computer is not deemed secure could that then give them a chance to make sure we are trustworthy? Remote attestation (even though it won't be in any OS for a bit Vista has similiar features) would make it possible for your browser to check and see if your machine is running unmodified software. It could also check if you have hacker tools, services or other things it doesn't like currently running. Basically you could have a site making a Remote Attestation before it allows you to visit so it can see if it likes how you are using your computer. The man would be bringing a brother down, yo.

In a scenario like that you could potentially have a website saying, "You can't come here because you have a copy of Daemon Tools currently running. You may be a software pirate. In order to prove that you can be trusted you must first install our spyware." Far fetched, yes, but I don't think impossible.

[TehnaD]

Nothing really seems to be to far fetched when it comes to "The Man" and all of the crooked shit that he is coming at the "every day Joe" with. Pretty soon they will have what flavor of gas you passed for the day on some damn server somewhere for security purposes!

[allentrace]

Nothing really seems to be to far fetched when it comes to "The Man" and all of the crooked shit that he is coming at the "every day Joe" with. Pretty soon they will have what flavor of gas you passed for the day on some damn server somewhere for security purposes!

And you know this because you have top NSA clearance? If not that then perhaps CIA or FBI clearance? Ohh come on you have to have at least a White House press badge? My point is this; I am tired of hearing all this big brother conspiracy shit like the government is some big bad entity. The government is people, just like you or me. We elect those people and pay tax dollar in order to pay the salaries of the beauracrats. The government exists for the good of the people. However this does not stop them being accountable to the people and we have many government watchdogs that in many ways keep the government honest. (Think People for the American Way and the EFF in a way) If you do not like the way things are run elect new officials or run for office yourself, which is the beauty of our system of government.

[TehnaD]

I am tired of hearing all this big brother conspiracy shit like the government is some big bad entity.

This would be the part where I apoligize for not placing in the sarcasm button. My bad! I would have to agree with you in the fact that for the most part people are a little overly parinoid with "Big Brother". But yet I think we have just as many people who bullshit theirselves into believing our goverment is great and loyal.

[Deviant Ollam]

I am tired of hearing all this big brother conspiracy shit like the government is some big bad entity.

you know that i like and respect you, so i hope you don't mind when i say that i must disagree with the harsh, blanket nature of your criticism of tehnad's comments. while i agree that there is an unhealthy degree of conspiracy theory / unfocused distrust pointed at "the government" by many of her citizens, i don't think that adopting a worldview in which governments are bad or per se untrustworthy is a character flaw. (full disclosure: i have, in some fashion, opted to believe this at this point in my life)

governments are institutions of focused authority and power. because that authority and power is derived from (and rests in) human hands, it is inherently fallible and susceptible to corruption. you point out that, "the government is people, just like you or me." i feel that it is for this very reason that governments are not to be trusted.

keep in mind, i do not speak from a fanatical or revolutionary mindset. perhaps when i was younger i held high the notion of radicals overthrowing the system and installing something better and more egalitarian (as many kids do in their early political years) but that simply leads to the question of whom shall do such overthrowing, what character will they have, and what will they put in place afterwards? throughout the collected history of human wars of revolution, the record does not shine upon the rebels. most of the time they are just as susceptible to the trappings of power as those whom they oust.

while not a revolutionary, i am also the farthest thing from an authority cheerleader. i feel that perhaps the best relationship that citizens may have with their leaders is an adversarial one. always distrustful, or at the very least skeptical, constantly vigilant. leaders should live in perpetual consternation (if not anxiety) over their citizens, fearful of the rug being pulled from beneath their feet. citizens should keep a watchful eye on their leaders and question everything that comes out of their mouths. it is the natural extension of the checks and balances which were written into the U.S. system of government with unprecedented wisdom. the founders didn't want the legislature to trust the executive, nor vice-versa, etc. that was unadulterated brilliance... and i have no problem living my life as a citizen who holds nearly-unbridled contempt and suspicion in his heart for the men and women who are sent to washington by the voters. even as i stand in the voting booth and pull the lever, it as if i am patting someone on the back saying "i believe in you" while simultaneously leaning in and whispering in ther ear "but you'd better believe i'll be watching your ass like a hawk."

The government exists for the good of the people.

it is important to not muddle the notions of purpose and goal. the purpose of the government is to help the citizen secure the fundamental rights that life bestows upon them. the actual aims by which it operates are not one in the same with this noble pursuit. any institution, governments included, tends to have the chief aim of self-preservation... with all other goals coming in a distant second place.

we have many government watchdogs that in many ways keep the government honest.

i support all of them and think they should have more power to do their job. more than any other reform, i believe that governments should be made as transparent and open as possible. much in the way that the lives of the individual citizen should be private and free from scrutiny, governments should be the complete reverse. we are unique in the world in the abundance of information available about our government; the Freedom of Information Act is a blessing of liberty that should be exalted from our mountaintops. but it is being eroded and diminished... and that terrifies me.

If you do not like the way things are run elect new officials or run for office yourself, which is the beauty of our system of government.

this is a specious piece of reasoning, and one that i tire of encountering. becoming more involved in a system is one way to change it, but it is not the only way. in the case of governments, it may not be the best way. becoming part of the system (say, by running for office) leaves one open to the possibility (and some would say the likelihood) of being changed or corrupted in the same way as many elected officials that came before you. one's ideals and fighting spirit can give way to concerns for polling data and campaign finance figures. i'm not saying it's a guarantee... but the virtues of staying outside the system, throwing stones of criticism, raising banners of protest, and encouraging other citizens to question just as you do can be equally meritorious and just as patriotic.

</random morning philosophizing>

[allentrace]

you know that i like and respect you, so i hope you don't mind when i say that i must disagree with the harsh, blanket nature of your criticism of tehnad's comments.

I think his name stands for Tenacious D. how could I ever dislike someone with that name of such a great band. That was my bad about his comments I did not realize he was being sarcastic as his later response said. In reflection his comment was ludicrous, so I should have expected a joke but so are some conspiracy theories.

while i agree that there is an unhealthy degree of conspiracy theory / unfocused distrust pointed at "the government" by many of her citizens, i don't think that adopting a worldview in which governments are bad or per se untrustworthy is a character flaw. (full disclosure: i have, in some fashion, opted to believe this at this point in my life)

Right and Wrong, Trustworthy or Untrustworthy are all matters of opinion and are subject to each individuals presuppositions.

governments are institutions of focused authority and power. because that authority and power is derived from (and rests in) human hands, it is inherently fallible and susceptible to corruption. you point out that, "the government is people, just like you or me." i feel that it is for this very reason that governments are not to be trusted.

I was pointing out the tendency to dehumanize government (with the same ex. of big business) and make it seem like it is some monstrous entity.

keep in mind, i do not speak from a fanatical or revolutionary mindset. perhaps when i was younger i held high the notion of radicals overthrowing the system and installing something better and more egalitarian (as many kids do in their early political years) but that simply leads to the question of whom shall do such overthrowing, what character will they have, and what will they put in place afterwards? throughout the collected history of human wars of revolution, the record does not shine upon the rebels. most of the time they are just as susceptible to the trappings of power as those whom they oust.

I completely agree here, History does widely support the concept that the over throwers revert to the ways of those they overthrew in what they see as progress. e.g. the French Revolution

"i believe in you" while simultaneously leaning in and whispering in ther ear "but you'd better believe i'll be watching your ass like a hawk."

Government by its very nature must be a balancing act. There are examples of extreme loss or granting of powers that led to disaster. And in order to have government we must believe (not necessarily trust) in it.

it is important to not muddle the notions of purpose and goal. the purpose of the government is to help the citizen secure the fundamental rights that life bestows upon them. the actual aims by which it operates are not one in the same with this noble pursuit. any institution, governments included, tends to have the chief aim of self-preservation... with all other goals coming in a distant second place.

Whose is to say what those fundamental rights are? I guarantee the response would be different in the US than in say Communist China. This is a very hard question to answer because it deals with right and wrong.

i support all of them and think they should have more power to do their job. more than any other reform, i believe that governments should be made as transparent and open as possible. much in the way that the lives of the individual citizen should be private and free from scrutiny, governments should be the complete reverse. we are unique in the world in the abundance of information available about our government; the Freedom of Information Act is a blessing of liberty that should be exalted from our mountaintops. but it is being eroded and diminished... and that terrifies me.

I tend to agree here but more so disagree. I am all in favor of the government being accountable which they are in the US. But I am not in favor of the general public having the right to know everything our government does. Say we make all our military secrets open and available to the press that makes us weaker because of it. But like I said it is all a balancing act, and it is really hard to say how much.

this is a specious piece of reasoning, and one that i tire of encountering. becoming more involved in a system is one way to change it, but it is not the only way. in the case of governments, it may not be the best way. becoming part of the system (say, by running for office) leaves one open to the possibility (and some would say the likelihood) of being changed or corrupted in the same way as many elected officials that came before you. one's ideals and fighting spirit can give way to concerns for polling data and campaign finance figures. i'm not saying it's a guarantee... but the virtues of staying outside the system, throwing stones of criticism, raising banners of protest, and encouraging other citizens to question just as you do can be equally meritorious and just as patriotic.

There are Pros and Cons to both methods.

</random morning philosophizing>

I tend to enjoy them.

[Xodia]

Whose is to say what those fundamental rights are? I guarantee the response would be different in the US than in say Communist China. This is a very hard question to answer because it deals with right and wrong.

George W. said it best,
"We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."
-The New York Times, "Reporter's Notebook; Skipping Borders, Tripping Diction," David E. Sanger, May 28, 2002

[skroo]

But yet I think we have just as many people who bullshit theirselves into believing our goverment is great and loyal.

Our government is supposed to serve us.

If we let our elected officials forget this fact (and we seem to be doing a damned good job of it lately), then we're doomed to be serfs.

If we end up being serfs, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.


These are the basic rules I operate under regarding government. Quite honestly (and note that this is not a personal attack, merely a general observation), I am more than pissed off at hearing 'our government sucks' while the same people doing the complaining are too damned lazy to effect the change the way it's meant to be.

"I don't believe in voting." Fine, shut the fuck up already. If you're not participating, you don't get to complain.

"It doesn't do any good to contact my representative/Senator/other elected official's office." Well, fucking duh - IF YOU DON'T CONTACT THEM, THEY DON'T THINK YOU CARE. Why the hell do people seem to think that if they really, Really, REALLY don't like something some piece of pending legislation they've heard about, all that they have to do is really, Really, REALLY not like it and it'll magically go away? Oh, yeah, because they're fucking idiots, and 15 minutes spent writing a letter (you know, the kind with stamps on them, not email) takes too much effort.

"This isn't my government because I didn't vote for it." Wrong again, asshole. It *is* your government because it's the one that was elected. Sitting on your ass and whining so that you can take the idiotic position of being able to claim no culpability for its actions is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Again, shut the fuck up and let the adults deal with things if you won't get involved.


I could go on, but won't... Just had a go-round with the typical granolahumping California liberal shithead a few minutes ago, figure it should probably be let go before I end up venting for several pages.